In another thread, I posted some stats about Kendall's production over the latter 2/3 of 2008. After June 1 (so the final 100 games), he was .241/.321./.317. He was especially miserable in Sept. (.202/.295/.298). Seeing these numbers has made me think a bit about his overall value. I know the argument in his defense, which is (appropriately enough) defense. It's said that he handles the staff especially well, etc., and that this sort of evens out his deficiencies as a hitter. I'm not necessarily disputing that, but I'm wondering if there's any real quantifiable evidence to back it up. I guess what I'm resisting is cliche-mongering. To me, it seems as though the praise of Kendall is typical of what's said (across the board in professional sports) by sportswriters, broadcasters, and fans about nice-guy veterans: their contributions aren't necessarily tangible. They play great defense. They are "leaders" and help out the younger players. Again, I'm not necessarily disputing that, but I'm wondering how much bearing it has on wins and losses. Can you show that it really impacts a team's performance? Or does it just make everybody feel better? (And, just for the record, I don't intend this to be a "trade Kendall" thread. I know he's going to catch a bazillion games for the Brewers this year.)