![]() |
|
|
| |
« Discussion: Rich Harden | Main | Trade Market: Second Basemen »
Infielder Adam Kennedy would like to remain with the Athletics in 2010, according to Susan Slusser of the San Francisco Chronicle. The interest is mutual; his agent has had "very positive" talks with the A's.
Kennedy, 34 in January, hit .289/.348/.410 in 586 plate appearances this year, playing second and third base. According to UZR/150, Kennedy's defense this year did not approach the performance from his heyday. The Cardinals released Kennedy in February, eating most of the $4MM owed to him. The Rays signed him to a minor league deal and traded him to Oakland for a player to be named later in May. The Rays later received Joe Dillon in that deal; he was designated for assignment in August but remained in the organization.
Slusser adds a few notes on other A's free agents:
The A's have not been in contact with free-agent infielder Nomar Garciaparra or starter Brett Tomko, though they plan to check in with Tomko as he recovers from a nerve problem in his right arm.
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


|
|
The A's are so hard up for offense that I'd sign him to 1 year/$3MM w/ a club option at $3MM.
Posted by: BomberMan26 | October 30, 2009 at 08:57 AM
When a player has such an impressive UZR track record, you can't really take 50 games at 2B and 80 games at 3B (which he had never played at the ML level before) and say that he's declining defensively.
His UZR/150 in 2008 was the best of his career, and players just don't decline that significantly within a single year.
He's probably not particularly good defensively at third base, partially due to a lack of experience there, but I would argue that he's still one of the better defensive second basemen in the game, given his track record at the position.
Posted by: scribbletone | October 30, 2009 at 09:36 AM
I didn't say he was declining defensively...
Posted by: Tim Dierkes | October 30, 2009 at 10:01 AM
But you implied that he had declined from his defensive prime, which is questionable given that your evidence consists of 50 games at second base.
You say that his performance was in decline from his prime, but he posted the best UZR of his career last year in a much larger sample size.
I just think that it was an odd way to phrase things given the nature of UZR.
Posted by: scribbletone | October 30, 2009 at 10:24 AM
I never used the word decline...his numbers this year didn't match his prime. That's factual. Whether he will bounce back next year, I don't know. That we have to regress Kennedy's 2009 performance to predict 2010 does not mean his 2009 performance didn't occur.
It would be like me saying Aaron Hill hit 17 HR in his previous healthy season but 36 this year. That's not the same as me saying, "he'll hit 36 in 2010."
Posted by: Tim Dierkes | October 30, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Right, but you're using 50 games of UZR data as if it's actually legitimate, accurate data, which isn't really the case given the nature of UZR.
I'm not saying that you're lying or anything, but I just think that on a certain level, you're misrepresenting the proper usage of the statistic, as your readers could misinterpret the comment.
It's not bad writing or anything, I just think that it's not the proper way to be utilizing UZR, when you don't even mention that while his UZR declined, that could easily be primarily because of the volatility in small sample sizes, and not any actual decline in his talent level.
What you wrote isn't wrong, I just think that you're omitted some pretty important stuff when it comes to understanding UZR, and many of your readers don't necessarily have a great grip on the statistic, although I don't question whether or not you do.
Posted by: scribbletone | October 30, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Small sample sizes doesn't always mean the numbers should be ignored. According to UZR, Kennedy was not a very good 3B. But this was also apparent watching him play. He doesn't quite have the arm or the range for 3B. He's still very good at 2B, but Ellis is locked in there, so Kennedy returning to Oakland would be to play 3B, which seems like a questionable move.
Granted, the A's 3B options are pretty slim. They can't go into another season crossing their fingers on Chavez, Brett Wallace isn't ready, and Adrian Cardenas isn't a 3B. Glaus and Crede are gimpy. Beltre is repped by Boras and needs to reestablish himself offensively, and he ain't going to do that in Oakland. Figgins will be too expensive. Barring a trade, they should kick the tired on Mark DeRosa before settling on Kennedy.
Posted by: scatterbrian | October 30, 2009 at 01:42 PM
hey scribble, question about UZR you may be able to help me with. I know UZR is based on BIS's location data, but do you know if and/or how it accounts for things like the foul territory in Oakland, or left field in Fenway and Minute Maid? I've always been curious about this, esp. Fenway. It seems like Manny benefited from leaving Fenway, while Bay regressed once he got traded to Boston. Not like either were great, just that their UZR fluctuated in and out of Boston enough to be noticeable.
Posted by: scatterbrian | October 30, 2009 at 01:49 PM
I feel that that data is legitimate though. It's not like there is some specific threshold where 500 innings of UZR means nothing but 501 means something. More data's always better, but a single season's worth has value and at the least tells us how the guy fielded this year.
Posted by: Tim Dierkes | October 30, 2009 at 02:35 PM
"I feel that that data is legitimate though. It's not like there is some specific threshold where 500 innings of UZR means nothing but 501 means something. More data's always better, but a single season's worth has value and at the least tells us how the guy fielded this year."
Well for one, it was only 421 innings, and secondly, that only covers 50 games, not a full season.
Certainly, the data has some sort of value, but I just don't think that you can realistically take anything away from 50 games of poor UZR numbers from a guy who has a great track record with the statistic, dating back as recently as last season.
Posted by: scribbletone | October 30, 2009 at 03:14 PM
I have been referring to Kennedy's 1100+ combined innings the whole time. I guess you can choose to wipe out the 3B sample because it was new to him, but I didn't.
Posted by: Tim Dierkes | October 30, 2009 at 03:28 PM
I don't think Kennedy's UZR at 2B should really be a factor for the A's. Ellis is their 2B. Kennedy would be returning to the A's either to play 3B or be a utility guy.
Posted by: scatterbrian | October 30, 2009 at 04:10 PM
And Aki Iwamura is most likely a better choice than AK to be that 3B/UTL guy.
Posted by: PL | October 30, 2009 at 05:25 PM
Well yeah, why would teams continue to run a plus defensive second baseman without a ton of value elsewhere as a below-average defensive third baseman?
Posted by: scribbletone | October 30, 2009 at 06:05 PM
They should sign him to a one year deal until that Wallace is ready mid year or next. They dont have anyother options at third. They also could use the veteran offense. My question is who are they gonna have play first? That Daric Barton is not the answer. Maybe give Nomar a ring or maybe Aubrey Huff.
Posted by: WindyCityWarrioe | November 14, 2009 at 09:45 PM