150 K's
by jayberwanger on Sep 2, 2007 10:09 AM PDT
Email
PrintI am not trying to pile on, but I went to the game on Sept 1, 2007. This is the game where Cust struck out four times. I realize there were some bad calls from the home plate ump. Is Cust going to reach 150 strike outs? It seems that he either strikesout, homers, or walks. Can you say Adam Dunn?
38 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
you say Adam Dunn like it is a bad thing.
With his OPS I do not care if he has 200Ks.
Outs are bad. He makes less of them per at bat then every other Athletic in the lineup. I don't care if his outs are all Ks.
by Athletics fan and runner on Sep 2, 2007 10:05 AM PDT reply actions
Jack Cust makes 10 mil less than Dunn
by ohtobe21likehuston on Sep 2, 2007 10:11 AM PDT reply actions
umm....
how is Cust significantly better than Dunn?
Okay. "I" like Cust a lot more than Dunn and the
stats are basically the same with the exception of the 10 mil+ in savings.
Dunn- .263/36/93/.381/.937
Cust- .269/23/72/.406/.947
Cust only has 316 AB's (HR/13.73 AB) while Dunn has 463 AB's (HR/12.86 AB). He has also never had Griffey batting behind him. I wonder what will happen in a full season especially if Swisher has a good '08?
by ohtobe21likehuston on Sep 2, 2007 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions
150 Ks are fine
as long as they are accompanied by numbers like 30hrs 100 rbi, 100 bbs, and $350k
Adam Dunn, Adam Dunn, Adam Dunn
Jim Thome. Pat Burrell. And Adam Dunn.
What about LOB?
Cust left five runners on base yesterday. He did not play well in the outfield.
OBP is great, but when the A's can score any runs, what's the point? I would be willing to guess that the A's have to be in the top 3 of players L.O.B in the Majors.
This year
Cust is hitting 275-432-625, OPS 1.057 with RISP. He is hitting 280-426-622, 1.048 with men on. With 2 outs and RISP, 250-434-650, 1.084.
Yup, Cust is a bum. DFA him now.
Adam Dupp.
I mean, Adam Dubb. No, try again: Adam Dung. Closer. Adam Dumm. Aargh.
Nope, I can't.
If Cust keeps striking out on pitches
like the one with the bases loaded yesterday, I'll keep cheering for him. That was a horrendous call.
I think this is a good "Celebrity Death Match"
People complaining about the unbelievable season of Jack Cust
vs.
The Milton Bradley Diaries
I would love to see one of them go away forever.
by ohtobe21likehuston on Sep 2, 2007 12:42 PM PDT reply actions
AL K leaderboard:
Inge-DET 136
Sizemore-CLE 132
Granderson-DET 128
Cust-OAK 127
Peralta-CLE 124
Upton-TBD 121
Gordon-KCR 114
Pena-TBD 114
Swisher-OAK 111
Thome-CHW 111
Wow, these guys suck! K's a baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.
I bet TB is pissed that Pena hit a 3-run homer
off Pettite because they are now up 5-1 instead of 2-1. He actually "K'd" again today.
by ohtobe21likehuston on Sep 2, 2007 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Hey, I remember that game!
It was yesterday!
Actually, the strikeouts *are* a problem.
Why?
Those who have said that a strikeout is just as bad as any other out are basically correct. There is a slight value to making outs on balls in play because of the possibility of runner advancement. I suspect that this is what concerns people with the prodigious strikeouts. But that is a small effect and shouldn't concern us.
What should concern us is what Jack Cust does when he puts the ball in play. When he makes contact, Cust has a .385 AVG and .904 SLG. When he hits a fly ball, it turns into a home run 35% of the time. This is excellent production. In fact, it's too good. Basically, nobody hits that well on contact, ever. The modern king of on-contact stats is Jim Thome - a hall-of-fame caliber hitter. The other name I see thrown around is Adam Dunn. Let's compare the three, using Thome's best year (2002) and Dunn's best year (2004):
Player AVG* SLG* HR/fly
Cust .385 .904 .35
Dunn .321 .865 .24
Thome .428 .953 N/A
*=on contact
So, if we think that today's Cust is the Cust we'll see next year, we're gambling that he's a cross between the best of Adam Dunn and the best of Jim Thome, or that he'll strike out less frequently than he does now. In reality, we should all be prepared to be disappointed by Cust next year, to the tune of something like .240/.360/.490 (or something like that). Particularly striking is his HR/fly. Only one regular since 2004 has had a HR/fly greater than Cust's rate this year: Ryan Howard last year.
In other words, Cust is a fine hitter and a will be bargain at DH next year. But he won't be this year's Cust. We're seeing something very unique and we shouldn't expect to see it again.
Two points:
- What you're really saying here is that K-rate on the margin this year suggests lower production next year/luck this year (Suuuuuuuuuuuzuuuuuuuuuukiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii), because the 32% K-rate limits balls in play and his balls in play numbers are due for a downturn (although I think his unique swing/approach are ideal for being at the top of those categories). What you are not saying is that something like Dunn's very high 27% career mark is bad, at least for a player of the Cust/Dunn profile. The point being it's not necessarily bad to have a top 5% K-rate if you're this type of hitter, but it's bad to have an absurdly high K-rate, as Cust does this year.
- Sometimes when people mention Cust's Ks, they are objecting to his approach, i.e. he needs to work harder to protect the plate and so forth. I think Cust's approach works great and just needs to be changed rather than fine-tuned in any sense. A different approach along the lines of what people suggest would see fewer Ks and a somewhat higher BA, but fewer BBs and fewer HRs. That is if he could even pull off changing his approach. I agree with you that Cust is due for a downturn next season (.940 is too high, I think your estimate is a tad pessimistic), but I think his approach should stay just the way it is.
And it's worth pointing out
that nobody writes diaries or complains about guys who never strike out, but suck because they hit a bunch of weak-ass grounders every time up. I guarantee Shannon Stewart will surpass 150 weak-ass grounders this year if he hasn't already done so.
1. Yes, that is what I am saying.
K's are not bad (c'mon Hannahan, it's a f---ing bunt), and I'm not complaining about the K's themselves, just that the resultant production is unsustainable.
- (Wohoo! Go Ellis!!!!) I almost never think it's worthwhile for a hitter who has reached the highest level of professional baseball to change the approach that got him there. Dance by the sword that done brung ya. Or whatever. (Suck it, Leyland!)
K's
For a guy who is sick of double plays, I'll take the k's.
by jarforcefatherofforce on Sep 2, 2007 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions
You are 100% correct especially when you weigh in
his minor-league stats too. This is just one unbelievable offensive season but it pains me that some are just too blind to see it. I still hold out hope for a 30/100 season from him in '08.
by ohtobe21likehuston on Sep 2, 2007 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Cust needs to quit striking out so much
and at least try to make contact on questionable or bad pitches, in order to up his GIDP stat
Otherwise he's just not a true Athletic and needs to go
[/sarcasm]
What was Bobby Bonds famous line?
"I'll make a 150 outs a year...how I make them is my business."
Cust
Some of you are projecting that Cust will have a great year in 2008. If this is the case, then why doesn't Beane ink Cust for a five year extension? Will see how he does this year.
Jack Cust pulls his head so much it makes me sick. Maybe Cust will break Adam Dunn's record next year? I always thought that strikeouts for a batter and runners LOB were a big deal, but maybe I am wrong. I don't mean to be so nihilistic, forgive me is I seem to be too realistic.
He isn't going to ink him to a 5-year extension
because he doesn't have to. Cust is making whatever the A's tell him he is for another season. Even discounting the risk of "collapse" (which is always there for any player, especially ones without long track records), there's no reason to take a chance that he gets Juan Encarnacioned or something if you don't have to.
I think I raised this point elsewhere, but one point in Cust's favor is his exceptional line drive percentage. When he hits balls, he hits them hard. His BABIP is "too" high, but it's not a coincidence that it's higher than normal.
As sal posted above
his HR / F rate this year is fairly high, 33.7%. For comparison, Barry Bonds in 2004 had a HR / F of 32.8%.
That 904 slg on-contact is noteworthy. Yes, he is the type of hitter that should have noteworthy on contact numbers. But not that noteworthy. For comparison, this are the career on-contact numbers of the other TTO king, Russ Branyan, whom I wish Beane would also pick up: .384 BA, .8056 SLG.
Even with his high LD%, his BABIP is still somewhat higher than his "expected" BABIP.
Um
Me: "His BABIP is "too" high, but it's not a coincidence that it's higher than normal."
rfloh: "His BABIP is still somewhat higher than his "expected" BABIP."
Was this necessary? I know his numbers are unrealistically high. I said as much in almost identical terms. There's no need to try and score cheap rhetorical points off a position that I don't hold.
Were you not saying
that his current BABIP is "expected", because "it's not
a coincidence that it's higher than normal"? I thought you were saying that his current BABIP is his "expected " BABIP. I am probably misreading what you are saying.
I wasn't trying to score any rhetorical points, just pointing out that his BABIP is .380, while his "expected" BABIP based on his LD% is about .350.
Nah
What I meant was: "Cust has a higher BABIP than average. Most of this is because he hits a lot of balls hard [high LD/deep FB %]. And part of it is because he's gotten lucky."
How do you know
if his line drive percentage is sustainable?
I don't
but it didn't seem radically out of line with the rest of the league when I looked at it (unlike his HR/FB ratio, which most definitely is). I haven't studied the historical trends though.
do we need to give him a five year extention or
is he already ours for 5 years, altho some years could be arbatration eligable - 4 and 5?
also lets see how consistant he has been this season: ands its all about the OPS
ops for may- 1.022
june- .970
july- .757
aug- 1.063
looks like he's no fluke and this being his FIRST year consistantly facing major league pitching he acually IMPROVED on his hot start with a better month of aug. there is a ton of guys who don't strike out that will never sniff a OPS even close to 1. there are a ton of guys that do alot of things that will never sniff a OPS close to 1.
he acually could get better over time. some rookies have been known to do that ya know. even if he he settles into the mid 800 OPS in time thats still great.
by Anarch on Sep 3, 2007 12:01 AM PDT up reply actions
If you want to say
that Cust's on contact numbers are too good, and that he is due for a "regression", I'd agree with you.
Your point, in your original post, seemed to be that Cust is a bad player NOW.
Cust is hitting 275-432-625, OPS 1.057 with runners in scoring position. He is hitting 280-426-622, 1.048 with men on. With 2 outs and RISP, 250-434-650, 1.084.
With RISP, men on, Cust is hitting like one of the best hitters in MLB.
my only issue with cust's K's
are all the called third strikes. i think with 2 strikes he needs to go after a few more of the borderline pitches.
also, everyone is talking about his high BABIP but does anyone have any figures on his % of swings that result in balls in play???
Using Cust data from baseball-reference.com
When Cust swings, he puts it into play 30% of the time (league average is 43%). 41% of his strikeouts are called (leage average is 26%). When Cust swings, he misses 36% of the time (league average is 19%).
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
