You're the GM (Game)

[beckdawg]

The problem with your analogy is that Russell did not hit well but improved while Hendricks started really well and has shown some regression. Now he has regressed to average, but will that regression continue. Will he adjust and get better. I think the next two seasons will tell us.

There is really no reason to guess what he is going to be. Time will let it show it to us.

I mean I don't really want to turn this into another argument as I said before I'm a bit tired of it. But Hendricks did improve in the second half of last season. It's just his mechanics went to shit on him in August. That's not me making up bullshit. He literally talked about it to the media and you can tell by his 3.98 bb/9 rate in that month. However if you exclude that month his july through sept looks like this

July 8.13 k/9 2.03 bb/9 .237 average against, 1.13 whip 51.2% ground ball rate 2.90 ERA 2.94 FIP
Sept/Oct 10.74 k/9 1.65 bb/9 .174 average against 0.80 whip 52.6% ground ball rate 3.03 ERA 2.58 FIP

The ground ball rate in particular is huge for him as that's clearly his bag. His first half ground ball rate was 49.5% and his second half was 53.7%. His first half k/9 and bb/9 were 7.18/1.55. His second half they were 9.78/2.89. Obviously that horrid August put a big dent in his bb/9. It also hit his ERA hard as he was a 3.55 in the first half and 4.44 in the second. But as you can see by the two above splits, he was quite good in 2 of the 3 2nd half months. He just threw up a 5.40 in August when his mechanics were bad.

As I said before, if you want to hold judgement that's fine. But he's clearly making strides.

 

[JimJohnson]

Beck I don't get why you feel the need to defend Hendricks at all cost. Are you guys friends? He's really not that great and will probably never amount to more than a #4 at best, solid bullpen guy at worst.

 

[beckdawg]

Beck I don't get why you feel the need to defend Hendricks at all cost. Are you guys friends? He's really not that great and will probably never amount to more than a #4 at best, solid bullpen guy at worst.

I think he's better than others do. This is a baseball discussion board. If I see something I disagree with, I discuss it. I don't really see a point jerking off to how great Bryant is because it's pretty obvious how great he is. To me interesting discussions tend to happen on players between 2-3 fWAR because small changes either way either make them a rather useless player or make them fringe all-stars.

 

[JimJohnson]

I think he's better than others do. This is a baseball discussion board. If I see something I disagree with, I discuss it. I don't really see a point jerking off to how great Bryant is because it's pretty obvious how great he is. To me interesting discussions tend to happen on players between 2-3 fWAR because small changes either way either make them a rather useless player or make them fringe all-stars.

That's fine, but in fairness, you also thought Baez was worse than most others. That didn't work out too well.

 

[beckdawg]

That's fine, but in fairness, you also thought Baez was worse than most others. That didn't work out too well.

How so? I mean if you actually go back and look at what I said it was that I thought he would play similar to what Chris Carter did with likely better defense. Carter was a 1.8 fWAR LF in 2014 and wasn't a very good fielder. Put another way, I was essentially calling Baez between a 2-3 fWAR player. Baez has yet to do better than that. He certainly hit decent last season in the majors at .289/.325/.408 but he also carried a .412 BABIP which isn't going to hold. And again if you back and read what I said, I said that while I was sure he wouldn't hit at the 41.5% k clip he was on his first season in the majors, that I can't realistically see him below 27% or so K rate. In the majors last season he was at 30%.

Whether or not I was spot on with projections, my point was always that fans viewed Baez as a top 10 talent as a hitter. Bryant is a top 10 talent as a hitter. Next season we're talking about Baez as a utility player. I said then, I would try to trade him before 2015. What's the talk right now in the offseason? Potentially trading him for pitching. Do you see my point now? And maybe Baez eventually fulfills his potential. Even then I said that was possible. I just didn't believe he would do so fast enough for the cubs to benefit from it. I also compared him to Jose Bautista who originally was a Pirates prospect and who didn't finally come around until he was 28 with the blue jays.

I'm not afraid to be wrong. If you want to call me on being wrong Baez isn't the example to look for. Alcantara is. I was rather certain he'd play his way into making Baez expendable. And who knows, maybe he still will but at this very moment it's not looking promising long term for Alcantara and the cubs unless they do indeed move Soler and then maybe he gets a CF shot or maybe if they move Baez for pitching he gets the utility role people wanted him for last season.

Regardless, I think I've been pretty fair to both the upsides and downsides on any player I've talked about. But I'm never going to be afraid to go out on a limb on a player I think is better than the prevailing wisdom. The prevailing wisdom thought Coghlan was shit most of the first month of the season. I told people to be patient and that the underlying numbers were better. So, after hitting .228/.290/.456 in April and 220/.297/.427 in May, he finished the season hitting .250/.341/.443. Likewise, I heard numerous people calling to trade Fowler before the all-star break when he hit .232/.308/.369. Again I preached patience and in the 2nd half he hit .272/.389/.463.

None of that makes me all knowing and I've never professed to be. I simply am reading the underlying numbers on these players. And in reference to Hendricks, there's a number of underlying numbers that are positive for him. Hendricks wouldn't be the first player to be worse than his underlying numbers. Edwin Jackson constantly pitched worse than his FIP. But historically pitchers who have struck out guys at the rate Hendricks has and walked guys at the rate he does have been successful. Maybe Hendricks isn't Jordan Zimmermann. Maybe he's more Hiroki Kuroda. But Hiroki Kuroda was an extremely useful pitcher posting 3+ fWAR 5 out of the 7 years he was in the majors and he didn't come over to the US until he was 33.

My point is that people trash Hendricks like he Kevin Correia or Ross Detwiler or any of the dozens of nameless 4th and 5th starters that are out there. And honestly, that's not right. At the very least, Hendricks is one of the best #4 pitchers in the league right now and you could argue he's better than a lot of low end #3's. Believe me, I have. And this was literally Hendricks' first full season in the majors at age 25. If we go by fWAR, Hendricks was more valuable than Dexter Fowler, Addison Russell, Montero, Jorge Soler, Chris Coghlan and Starlin Castro last season. RA9-WAR only puts him at 2.2 but that would still make him behind only Arrieta, Lester, Rondon, Rizzo, Bryant, Coghlan, Fowler and Russell. Obviously, feel free to disagree as that's what message boards/discussions are for but at least give that the attention it deserves.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I actually think your projections of Baez are really quite spot on in that you're not enamored with his ceiling but recognize his floor better than most. My objection to most people's analysis of him is the high ceiling, low floor or "boom or bust" label he gets saddled with. With his defensive skills and baseball instincts dude is an MLB player at the most pessimistic projection in that he's a plus defender and has pop in his bat which makes him valuable on any bench in the league. If he's ever going to be an everyday player that K rate has got to be at 25% or lower and his BB rate at 8% or higher while hitting 35 plus HR. Both are doable although the latter is going to be harder for him. That would make him a poor man's Giancarlo Stanton at the plate, the poor part mostly because his BB will not allow him that kind of OBP, with greater defensive value. In other words his ceiling is a 5 WAR player, his floor is 2-3 WAR depending on much he plays which, of course, will depend on how much he improves. Unless something changes drastically this kid is not going to be a bust.

I also really like your analysis of Hendricks here. You've sung his praises plenty but you touched on something here that I think people overlook and that if he's a #4, which I think he is at present, he's a true #4 which is pretty rare in the game. Most guys that are slotted there are a stretch for the role either because they're former TOR guys that have aged or guys that are really better slotted for 5 but are asked to improve. Neither of those options are stable while Hendricks is pretty much what he is and if he develops one more pitch he's a solid MOR. There are very few teams with that luxury at 4.

 

[beckdawg]

I actually think your projections of Baez are really quite spot on in that you're not enamored with his ceiling but recognize his floor better than most. My objection to most people's analysis of him is the high ceiling, low floor or "boom or bust" label he gets saddled with. With his defensive skills and baseball instincts dude is an MLB player at the most pessimistic projection in that he's a plus defender and has pop in his bat which makes him valuable on any bench in the league. If he's ever going to be an everyday player that K rate has got to be at 25% or lower and his BB rate at 8% or higher while hitting 35 plus HR. Both are doable although the latter is going to be harder for him. That would make him a poor man's Giancarlo Stanton at the plate, the poor part mostly because his BB will not allow him that kind of OBP, with greater defensive value. In other words his ceiling is a 5 WAR player, his floor is 2-3 WAR depending on much he plays which, of course, will depend on how much he improves. Unless something changes drastically this kid is not going to be a bust.

I also really like your analysis of Hendricks here. You've sung his praises plenty but you touched on something here that I think people overlook and that if he's a #4, which I think he is at present, he's a true #4 which is pretty rare in the game. Most guys that are slotted there are a stretch for the role either because they're former TOR guys that have aged or guys that are really better slotted for 5 but are asked to improve. Neither of those options are stable while Hendricks is pretty much what he is and if he develops one more pitch he's a solid MOR. There are very few teams with that luxury at 4.

Honestly, I just try to find player comps that are fair based on numbers they put up over a decent sample size. Those examples seem far more reliable to me than top 100 lists or whatever you want to talk about. And when you take that sort of view on players you run into 6-7 archetypes. There's relatively few unique players. Some of those archetypes are more successful than others. Now obviously some players, especially HS players, are so incomplete it's hard to talk about them. For example, there's a disconnect between the scouting grades people give Almora at 50-55 usually and the 9 HR's for his most in one season. A 50-55 grade would expect 15-20 HRs. For a player such as him you have to take into account that people think that aspect of his game might be better. And for players such as him and say Torres who spend most of their time playing well below the average age of a league, their numbers aren't as impressive as they could be. On the flip side, you don't want to read to much into a 24 year old in say A+.

I'm the first to say I'm not a hitting coach or a pitching coach. So, when someone who clearly has more knowledge than me talks about someone I listen and like with the Almora example I attempt to give that the proper weight it deserves. I usually find the best way is to take whatever comp. set they look like and just expand the range in the area that may be inaccurate. Over 100 years of data will generally find several players who are like whomever you're looking for.

People are always going to say the how a player does something matters more than what was done but to me that's really not the case. This is why the stuff people care about is the 35-40 HR hitter or the pitcher with the 100 mph fastball. What matters to me is that something is repeatable. I couldn't care less that Hendricks throws 88. Jamie Moyer in 2007 was throwing 82 MPH on his fastball. He pitched until he was 49! Tim Wakefield's was around mid-70's on his fastball. He pitched until he was 44. Hendricks was 29th in fWAR and 64 in RA9-WAR in his first full season which for many players tends to be their worst. I see no reason to believe that isn't repeatable. Given the numbers I've argued he'll be better.

Ultimately, Hendricks reminds me a bit of Mark Buehrle who's a guy you look at and say well he's an ok pitcher but nothing to write home about. And then you look at total fWAR since he debuted in 2000 and he's the 5th best pitcher behind Roy Halladay, CC Sabathia, Randy Johnson and Roy Oswalt. This for a guy who's career k/9 is 5.13 and who's never been above 6.50. He also has a career ERA/FIP of 3.81/4.11. Being consistently "good" and not necessarily "great" without getting hurt adds up.

 

[czman]

I mean I don't really want to turn this into another argument as I said before I'm a bit tired of it. But Hendricks did improve in the second half of last season. It's just his mechanics went to shit on him in August. That's not me making up bullshit. He literally talked about it to the media and you can tell by his 3.98 bb/9 rate in that month. However if you exclude that month his july through sept looks like this

July 8.13 k/9 2.03 bb/9 .237 average against, 1.13 whip 51.2% ground ball rate 2.90 ERA 2.94 FIP
Sept/Oct 10.74 k/9 1.65 bb/9 .174 average against 0.80 whip 52.6% ground ball rate 3.03 ERA 2.58 FIP

The ground ball rate in particular is huge for him as that's clearly his bag. His first half ground ball rate was 49.5% and his second half was 53.7%. His first half k/9 and bb/9 were 7.18/1.55. His second half they were 9.78/2.89. Obviously that horrid August put a big dent in his bb/9. It also hit his ERA hard as he was a 3.55 in the first half and 4.44 in the second. But as you can see by the two above splits, he was quite good in 2 of the 3 2nd half months. He just threw up a 5.40 in August when his mechanics were bad.

As I said before, if you want to hold judgement that's fine. But he's clearly making strides.

Why would you turn it into an argument. If you are tired of it, maybe you shouldn't type ~250 word replies.

I know you want to conveniently leave out his worst month, but that is kind of what average pitchers are. They have some good months and some bad months. I get it, Fangrpahs makes him look like he is poised to be really good. I have seen the numbers too. They look really good. The problem is his other numbers make him look like he is could struggle mightily when players have seen him multiple times.

What is more indicative of success going forward? I want to see him play well, because he will be starting a playoff game each series it looks like. Honestly, I think the 1-5 to talk about a pitcher is tired and old.

I look at Hendricks as someone who can give you ~5 innings a playoff series. I don't think he turns into a ~14 inning a playoff series pitcher. That is is value.

 

[beckdawg]

Why would you turn it into an argument. If you are tired of it, maybe you shouldn't type ~250 word replies.

I know you want to conveniently leave out his worst month, but that is kind of what average pitchers are.

Perhaps to the first point. Honestly, long replies aren't difficult for me as I type fast and I'm used to writing long form. I had to write countless psychology papers in college and you had to defend your points far more vigorously. That's typically why I type in excruciating detail.

As for the second point, I mean I get what you're saying but I don't think it's cherry picking to suggest that month was unreliable. He spoke to the media about being off his normal mechanics and the bb/9 numbers illustrate his command went crazy for a guy who's known for his command. Regardless, I don't think your view on him is unreasonable. I just took issue with your regression point.

 

[Parade_Rain]

That's fine, but in fairness, you also thought Baez was worse than most others. That didn't work out too well.

Baez hasn't proven himself yet.

 

[czman]

Perhaps to the first point. Honestly, long replies aren't difficult for me as I type fast and I'm used to writing long form. I had to write countless psychology papers in college and you had to defend your points far more vigorously. That's typically why I type in excruciating detail.

As for the second point, I mean I get what you're saying but I don't think it's cherry picking to suggest that month was unreliable. He spoke to the media about being off his normal mechanics and the bb/9 numbers illustrate his command went crazy for a guy who's known for his command. Regardless, I don't think your view on him is unreasonable. I just took issue with your regression point.

He had 3 months over a 4.5 ERA and 3 months under a 3.1. So it is not just one month. It is His June was bad too.

He has regressed. He was better in his 80 innings in 2014. The reality is you need at least 3 points to make a trend. Two points is a line. He would need 2 more full seasons before we are really going to have enough to know where is career arch is heading. Like I said earlier; 600+ innings.

 

[DanTown]

Starter A vs Starter B

A
175 innings
3.79 FIP
31 starts
13 quality starts
4 starts of 7+ innings and 2 runs/less
Median Game Score - 50

B
180 innings
3.36 FIP
32 starts
11 quality starts
5 starts 7+ innings and 2 runs or less
Median Game Score - 50.5

One of them is Edwin Jackson's first year as a Cub, the other is Kyle Hendricks last year. The thing about Hendricks, and Beck refuses to accept this point, is that Joe was incredibly aggressive by the end of the year in not letting Kyle face the lineup the third time. If you were to limit ANY pitcher's third time through the order, you're going to get better numbers. The elite elite pitchers in this league don't have third time through penalties and to be honest, I wouldn't be shocked to see Joe be aggressive in using Hendricks/Hammel for only the first 18 batters then going to Warren/Wood/Cahill for multiple innings.

And then, when these guys have better numbers because they can throw harder and get more movement since they know they're basically only going five-six innings, we'll see "why doesn't Joe let these guys pitch more" when their numbers aren't really comparable to other situations.

 

[Parade_Rain]

Hendricks is a #5 starter. Putting him in a position to be better than that is like expecting the journeyman backup QB to be as good as the franchise. Sports don't work that way. Let Hendricks be what he is, which is a good #5. When the playoffs come around, he won't be a rotation regular, obviously, but he can be an emergency starter or solid, long relief from a rain delay or the SP throws a crapfest too early. If his problem is the third time around in the order, that's exactly where he belongs in the playoffs and I think he would be good for the Cubs in that capacity this season.

 

[beckdawg]

He had 3 months over a 4.5 ERA and 3 months under a 3.1. So it is not just one month. It is His June was bad too.

He has regressed. He was better in his 80 innings in 2014. The reality is you need at least 3 points to make a trend. Two points is a line. He would need 2 more full seasons before we are really going to have enough to know where is career arch is heading. Like I said earlier; 600+ innings.

If you're talking 2014 then sure he regressed but I wouldn't exactly call 2014 reliable data. His ERA was 2.46 compared to his 3.32 FIP. His BABIP against was .271 when he hasn't really shown the ability in the past to be a consistently sub-.300 BABIP pitcher. And finally, his HR/FB was 4.9% when MLB average last season for starters was 11.6%. I was expecting him to regress from 2014 no matter what happened in 2015 because none of that suggests sustainability. Those 3 areas tend to be the biggest areas of variance year to year in a pitchers ERA. That being said, there's areas he clearly improved on from 2014 despite the regression. He's striking more batters out which is generally a sign of a better pitcher. His ground ball rate is higher and again a good sign especially for a pitcher like him without elite stuff. Both those trends got better month to month with him.

I suppose it comes down to what you put weight in as valuable data. I tend to view bb/k rate as one of the least variant measures of a pitcher as does FIP. Good pitchers strike out a lot of batters and good pitchers don't let a lot of people on base. 2014 his k-bb ratio was 10.0%. The first half of 2015 it was 15.5%. The second half it was 18.2%. Batting average against him went from .249 in the 1st half of 2015 to .232 in the second half. It was .238 in 2014 but again keep in mind there's reason to question that. Obviously average against is important as fewer batters on is better. And I already mentioned the ground ball rate.

That's my view on him improving. If you want to argue it didn't show in his ERA fine. But I'd point out the entire reason FIP and xFIP exists in the first place is that ERA isn't very predictive year to year. Obviously, more data is always better but it's not like we're making life or death calls here and what the hell else is there to talk about in December when the bears are shit :-/. To me those are clear signs of improvement. If you disagree that's fine. All I'm asking is for people to consider what I present.

 

[DanTown]

Kyle Hendricks K rate by time through
1st - 26.8%
2nd - 21.1%
3rd/4th - 18.0%

As a comparison, here is Jake
1st - 30.0%
2nd - 26.0%
3rd/4th - 25.3%

An obvious decline, but his K-rate goes from super elite to still good even as he goes through the order for third time. If Hendricks was close to an elite pitcher, he wouldn't see such a decline in a stat like K rate.

And because he was compared to Jordan Zimmerman
1st - 20.3%
2nd - 19.1%
3rd/4th - 19.8%

 

[beckdawg]

The thing about Hendricks, and Beck refuses to accept this point, is that Joe was incredibly aggressive by the end of the year in not letting Kyle face the lineup the third time.

We've been over this. You act as though I haven't acknowledge the point and I have. I mean it's really not worth my time going into it because I've done it at least 3 times now with you. Was Hendricks worse the third time through the line up? Yes. I've said this every time you brought it up. My point of contention has always been A) most pitchers in their first full season struggle the third time through(illustrated by the point with Zimmermann the third time through at 25) and B) you're assuming Hendricks will never get better. The point is entirely reliant on him never improving. At that point, what's there to talk about? I'm going to say I think he'll get better and you say he wont. Really worth while discussion right there.

 

[beckdawg]

Kyle Hendricks K rate by time through
1st - 26.8%
2nd - 21.1%
3rd/4th - 18.0%

As a comparison, here is Jake
1st - 30.0%
2nd - 26.0%
3rd/4th - 25.3%

An obvious decline, but his K-rate goes from super elite to still good even as he goes through the order for third time. If Hendricks was close to an elite pitcher, he wouldn't see such a decline in a stat like K rate.

And because he was compared to Jordan Zimmerman
1st - 20.3%
2nd - 19.1%
3rd/4th - 19.8%

So you're point here is that Hendricks is better the first time through the line up and roughly similar the second and third time through the line up to a pitcher who just got paid 5 years $122 mil? How exactly is that a knock on Hendricks?

 

[DanTown]

So you're point here is that Hendricks is better the first time through the line up and roughly similar the second and third time through the line up to a pitcher who just got paid 5 years $122 mil? How exactly is that a knock on Hendricks?

The problem Hendricks will always have is that he can't go deep into games. Jordan Zimmerman is the same guy the first time through the order as he is the third time through the order. That's important in evaluating a SP because he's going to give you a lot of innings if you can trust him to survive the third trip through the order. While Zimmerman may have a low K rate, it's not dropping. The drop, and not the K-rate itself, is the issue with Hendricks. I mean if Hendricks doesn't have a massive outlier for BABIP second time through, his numbers look significantly worse.

Hendricks K-Rates by time through
1st - 26.8% - .228/.296/.355 BABIP - .297 aka Junior Lake
2nd - 21.1% - .213/.255/.330 BABIP - .254 aka Jonathan Herrea
3rd/4th - 18.0% - .329/.374/.520 BABIP - .390 aka David Peralta

I have no problem saying Kyle Hendricks is a good pitcher for 5 innings. And of course I wouldn't expect Kyle's 3rd time through to be as pronounced as it is in future years. But the question is will he get the strikeouts at the same rate once he makes his way though the league? His stuff sure does not set itself up to be a decent SO pitcher.

Also, all of Kyle's K rates are propped up by the fact that a larger than normal majority of the PA against him are 1st/2nd time through. You are essentially comparing Kyle's K-rates against other pitchers who go through the order multiple times. And if you look at the numbers and the stuff, you'd say Kyle has good stuff but he doesn't have enough secondary stuff. That's important in evaluating him. He has one pitch that he gets a ton of swing/misses on (his change) but everything else, without much varying speed and movement, is easy to time and hit the more you see it.

I think 2016 is a HUGE year for Kyle. Either he's going to be a very solid rotation piece who will one day command a Jeff S type contract or it might be the start of him being a replacement level player.

 

[DanTown]

We've been over this. You act as though I haven't acknowledge the point and I have. I mean it's really not worth my time going into it because I've done it at least 3 times now with you. Was Hendricks worse the third time through the line up? Yes. I've said this every time you brought it up. My point of contention has always been A) most pitchers in their first full season struggle the third time through(illustrated by the point with Zimmermann the third time through at 25) and B) you're assuming Hendricks will never get better. The point is entirely reliant on him never improving. At that point, what's there to talk about? I'm going to say I think he'll get better and you say he wont. Really worth while discussion right there.

You acknowledge it but you don't in your review of stats like K-Rate, etc and you don't say "well Hendricks stats are propped up a bit by only facing a lineup 2 times". It's an honest question: how many SP would have K numbers similar to Kyle if they knew they didn't have the fact a hitter for a third time? If Kyle himself knows "hey, I can show him everything (which is basically two pitches), I won't be around for him to time it and adjust", that's important in evaluating his K-rate versus that of say Sonny Gray, a pitcher who has very similar 1st time vs 3rd time numbers.

To be honest, if you have a manager like Joe Maddon, I think Kyle Hendricks has massive value here. Joe might say "Kyle the first 18 batters is an All-Star level pitcher; I just know that third time through he's not better than my relievers". And with the Cubs having four guys in the bullpen (Richards, Wood, Cahill, Turner) who have experience and stuff to get 3+ outs, it's not a hard decision at all.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I think 2016 is a HUGE year for Kyle. Either he's going to be a very solid rotation piece who will one day command a Jeff S type contract or it might be the start of him being a replacement level player.

So there's nothing between a solid MOR/borderline TOR and a replacement level pitcher? What Hendricks likely profiles as is a solid 4/borderline 3. That's hugely valuable. How you can say he'll never make it through the third time through lineup is beyond me. After 2 years you're making blanket statements like this. C'mon man.