The Jason Kendall thread

[TooLiveBrew]

no it was PIT, he ended up getting booed in PIT, it was sad because he wasn't doing that bad, was one of the best catchers in baseball...

 

My fault. Thanks guys!

[rluzinski]

The thing about Kendall is that except for 80 games last year with Oakland, he's been a really, really good hitting catcher.

 

A more objective approach would be to simply look at what he's done from 2005-2007 as whole:

 

Kendall, 05-08: .271/.340/.325/.665

 

Let's compare that to the average catcher (which includes all backups) over the same period:

 

Ave MLB C, 05-08: .258/.320/.399/.719

 

I love OBP as much as the next guy but 20 points of OBP is not worth more than 74 points of SLG. Quite the opposite. It's clear that over the last 3 years, Kendall has actually hit like a below average starting catcher and at 33 years old, I don't think we should expect that to change. That's not to say it can't happen, though.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

I wonder how much the LASIK surgery is going to help Kendall. It's a lot easier to hit when you can see the ball.

[rluzinski]

I wonder how much the LASIK surgery is going to help Kendall. It's a lot easier to hit when you can see the ball.

 

I know Kendall says that LASIK has significnatly improved his eyesite but you'll have to pardon me for the being skeptical that it completely explains away his bad offensive performance the last few years. It's reasonable to suggest that the surgery could help his performance but let's be real here. Most likely, the primary reason why Kendall was so much better in 2000 was because he was 8 years younger. I don't expect Kendall to say or even think that but that's just the way it goes.

 

I've never had any eye issues before so this is a geniune inquiry; should a person expect some significant benefits, going from vision corrected to 20/20 vision with contacts to 20/20 vision after LASIK surgery? I always thought that the greatest benefit was simply convenience.

[TooLiveBrew]

I've never had any eye issues before so this is a geniune inquiry; should a person expect some significant benefits, going from vision corrected to 20/20 vision with contacts to 20/20 vision after LASIK surgery? I always thought that the greatest benefit was simply convenience.

 

Yea, rluz, I was just about to post this. I've had corrective lenses since I was in 5th grade, and as long as Kendall was wearing contacts with an accurate prescription, the main difference is convenience. If he was constantly getting dirt/dust on/underneath the contacts that could be a big difference (as opposed to just "convenience"), but a good prescription shouldn't be much worse - if at all - than Lasik.

 

That said, I have not had Lasik, so I'd bet those who have can weigh in much more effectively here.

[kmcasper23]

I think Kendall already drew more BB's in the first week than Estrada did the whole season last year!

[uwisfan]

going from very high end contacts (always latest & greatest) to LASIK was no comparison. I was floored at how much difference it made. Yes, I definitely think he will be able to see the ball MUCH better with LASIK than with contacts.

[TheCrew07]

I've never had any eye issues before so this is a geniune inquiry; should a person expect some significant benefits, going from vision corrected to 20/20 vision with contacts to 20/20 vision after LASIK surgery? I always thought that the greatest benefit was simply convenience.

 

Yea, rluz, I was just about to post this. I've had corrective lenses since I was in 5th grade, and as long as Kendall was wearing contacts with an accurate prescription, the main difference is convenience. If he was constantly getting dirt/dust on/underneath the contacts that could be a big difference (as opposed to just "convenience"), but a good prescription shouldn't be much worse - if at all - than Lasik.

 

That said, I have not had Lasik, so I'd bet those who have can weigh in much more effectively here.

 

TLB is close, but it's not the same. For example, my whole life I've had astigmatism and it didn't get diagnosed until just recently. My perscription for glasses and contacts was updated every 6 months, but I still couldn't pick up the strings on a ball, and sometimes when the clouds were just right color, I'd lose fly balls in the clouds in the outfield (which drove everyone nuts, they assumed I just wasn't paying attention). It wasn't until I recieved lenses last year that are specifically designed for my condition that I could read road signs at a long distance and so on. I never knew what I was missing, but I must say it's awful nice to be able to see like everyone else. When he said that he could see the strings on the ball now... well lets just say I sympathize a great deal. It was hard enough being a reactionary hitter at my level, let alone at the MLB level.

 

He's not gonna hit for power, but he doesn't have to. It would be nice if everyone on the team was a 20+ HR threat, but I'm pretty satisfied with the aquisition through the first week of the season.

[logan82]

As far as the game calling goes, I think Kendall is better, but our pitchers were saying nice things about Estrada at this point last year as well. I even think Sheets said something along the lines of "I shook him of a few times and regreted it each time" about Estrada last year as well. We'll see if they still like Kendall later in the year.

[adambr2]

I'll never buy much into the "he calls a good game" theory, since the pitcher is really the final decision-maker anyway.

 

Maybe it's a factor, but I really don't see it. That being said, I definitely think Kendall is good for this ballclub.

[logan82]

adambr2 wrote:

I'll never buy much into the "he calls a good game" theory, since the pitcher is really the final decision-maker anyway.

Yes they are, but having to shake off a catcher who isn't calling how you like can disrupt a pitchers rhythm and make them feel less comfortable. Also, like Sheets said after Sunday, thinking gets in the way of pitching.

[adambr2]

adambr2 wrote:

I'll never buy much into the "he calls a good game" theory, since the pitcher is really the final decision-maker anyway.

Yes they are, but having to shake off a catcher who isn't calling how you like can disrupt a pitchers rhythm and make them feel less comfortable. Also, like Sheets said after Sunday, thinking gets in the way of pitching.

 

True, but there are a million different things that can disrupt a pitchers rhythm and make them feel less comfortable. Having runners on base, giving up a homerun, giving up a walk, etc. etc.

 

I'm not saying it's irrelevant, but I don't think it counts for much.

[RobDeer 45]

I think a catcher calling a good game and being solid behind the plate is very underated. I've played baseball my whole life and have been a pitcher that whole time. I never realized how much a good catcher can make you feel on the mound until I started playing with one. The rythm from calling a good game is a big help. Not only that but when a catcher is thinking one step ahead of you, or making calls that make you say, wow great call, I'll go with that, it makes you so much better. Then you when he's a wall back there you aren't affraid to bounce a cruveball in the dirt with a runner on 3rd. Now I'm not a pro pitcher or anything but just from amatuer ball I can tell you that a good catcher can make a pitcher feel good up there.

[Glennron]

I'll definitely agree having a good defensive catcher can make a pitcher feel much more confident about blocking balls in the dirt and generally not having many passed balls.

 

I still don't really buy into the "calls a good game" though. Not only that but when a catcher is thinking one step ahead of you, or making calls that make you say, wow great call, I'll go with that, it makes you so much better. I'm not trying to knock you or anything, but I would guess that there are few major league pitchers who think "Great call, I'll go with that" because I would assume they know their stuff better than the catcher does, so I can't imagine they have a mini-revelation too often.

[logan82]

adambr2 wrote:

True, but there are a million different things that can disrupt a pitchers rhythm and make them feel less comfortable. Having runners on base, giving up a homerun, giving up a walk, etc. etc.

Right, so why help the other team by adding one more distraction?

[rluzinski]

Now I'm not a pro pitcher or anything but just from amatuer ball I can tell you that a good catcher can make a pitcher feel good up there.

 

I don't think anyone is disputing that, nor are they disputing the benefits of good defense behind the plate. The question is, does "calling a good game" lead to a consistent and meaningful increase in a pitcher's performance? There have been plenty of studies comparing pitcher ERA's for certain catchers and nothing conclusive (that I am aware of) has been found, so it's not as obvious as some here are suggesting. That doesn't mean that "calling a good game" doesn't have value, we just don't know what that value is.

[Tbadder]

Russ--

 

You bring up an interesting question. How much of a difference is needed for OBP to trump SLG pct.? Take Kendall for an example. A low slugging pct. guy on a high slugging pct. team. Might it in some ways be more beneficial to have a high OBP guy hitting in front of a bunch of SLG guys rather than just have one more SLG guy in a long line of SLG guys?

 

If Kendall walks and Rickie hits a triple it doesn't matter if Kendall singled, doubled, or tripled. Same thing for a long double that Kendall scores on from first, or second, or third. If someone like Kendall bats that low in the order wouldn't we also assume that he'll be in a situation to be driven in more often than driving in runs? (Because generally the lower we go in the line-up the less the offensive prowess of the batters).

 

So that maybe a better OBP guy is exactly the kind of player a high octane SLG kinda club needs. Am I making sense? I know I'm probably missing something, but what do you think? Is there a formula that expresses this kind of relationship between OBP and SLG.? Thanks for any help.

[lukevan]

I think a catcher calling a good game just helps the pitchers let loose on the mound, meaning that they don't have to think about why the catcher is calling this pitch/location at this time, allowing them to focus more on the motion of their bodies and their mechanics. When I pitched (I'm no pro either), my catcher pretty much knew what I should/wanted to throw which made it easier to "bear down".

 

I'd say from a run-scoring standpoint the effect is minimal, but I think a good game-calling catcher has an effect on many situations but specifically in tight situations, which can be the difference between winning the division and losing out by 2 games. Obviously, random variance and team performance determine which situations come up and how often, so the result is pretty much unquantifiable.

[Oldcity]

I think Kendall's LASIK is going to replace Mench's upgrade in shoe-size for the most-covered non-baseball correction.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

Talk about a hot bat right now. Keep it going, Jason!

[splitterpfj]

Jason Kendall is now batting .526.

[OOOverbay]

This is getting ridiculous. How does het get such good contact on the ball every time?!?!?! (Not that I'm complaining).

[splitterpfj]

Gagne, who had blown only 10 saves in 187 chances before this season, regretted shaking off Kendall before throwing the fastball to Patterson.

Jason Kendall knows all, Mr Gagne, never do that again.

 

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=737216

[Sheets4theHOF]

the question is if jason is still getting on base at a plus .400 clip at the end of the month do you move him up to the 2 hole or do you go with the if it aint broken don't fix it theory.

[JoeHova]

the question is if jason is still getting on base at a plus .400 clip at the end of the month do you move him up to the 2 hole or do you go with the if it aint broken don't fix it theory.

 

If he's doing that well, I don't think you change anything. Not because it will affect the players much, but because the rationale for putting Kendall 9th was to get more guys on base in front of the big guys. If they then move him because he's doing what the plan calls for him to do, you have to question the whole thought process, imo.