Cust - cold streak or worse? or other?
by oakinboston on Apr 30, 2008 3:54 PM PDT
121 comments
Hardball Times provides this PITCHf/x analysis:
With our current depth in the OF positions (see post below), and the addition of The Hurt, Cust has become increasingly under my microscope.
Yes, he's still getting lots of walks, but chicks dig the long ball. If Cust continues his current level of production, at what point should the A's cut back on his ABs, or ditch him altogether?
Or should he stay in regardless- either because of a lack of better options, or because walks are sexy too?
0 recs |
121 comments
Email
Print
Comments
That analysis indicates
that the problem Cust is having is not, as has been [coughNicosnort] speculated around here, the result of the league “figuring him out.” He just isn’t hitting the ball as hard this season, which suggests a mechanical hitch in his swing (or an injury, but that seems unlikely).
There’s no reason not to give him time to iron the issue out. We know how well he’s capable of hitting when he’s on top of his game.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Apr 30, 2008 4:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed with you since day 1 of this whole thing
It’s a slump. He’s an established hitter, and even though he hasn’t played much major league ball, believe me, they’d try to figure him out in the minors as well. They don’t play kiddie ball down there.
Prince: This bores me. Is anyone up for a game of basketball?
by baseb3383 on Apr 30, 2008 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed for the most part
I’d give him every opportunity we can afford to work out the kinks, but given who we have available now, next year and a few years from now, IF we wind up in a roster crunch situation where we need a spot on the 25 man, and no one available to be sent to AAA, he’d be my first pick to go (keeping M. Sweeney). It’d be nice to have him for a few years, but i think thomas & sweeney make him expendable this year and our plethara of outfielders makes him a little expendable next year and in 2010, our firstbase/DH projects make him nearly completely expendable beyond.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Apr 30, 2008 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
why would you keep MSweeney or Thomas over Cust?
Sweeney and Thomas are both gone after this year—either Beane lets them walk (sooner or later) because they remain unproductive, or they prove themselves capable of actually hitting, in which case … they’ll both likely price themselves out of Oakland’s budget for ‘09+.
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Apr 30, 2008 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well its not a given that they'll be priced out of the market
Sweeney is only 34 a good season, and he still might come reasonably priced to re-up. Even Thomas might be an affordable resign for a 1-year contract. But I don’t see why Cust has to go. 5 OFs, 6 IF, 1DH, 2C, 11 Pitchers is fine.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on Apr 30, 2008 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
sweeney is only 34 and even after a good season, he still
must proofread before i press post. :(
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on Apr 30, 2008 5:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mainly because I don't see
a long term justification in keeping Cust. “Young and cheap” yes, but for a sub-par OF/DH only guy, his value will become less and less attractive over the next couple of years to the point where we’ll have younger guys who will offer more production, verisatility and will need the roster space to protect. And, as of right now, the way he’s hitting, Cust is also hard to justify in the short term as well. Now, if he’s breaks out of his funk (and that’s something you hope for and keep giving the opportunity to shake) THEN he’s a better bet to keep around in the short term and Sweeney is toast.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Apr 30, 2008 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's not sub-par
He’s par. He projects to be roughly a league-average performer for substantially below league-average prices.
(OK, he’s sub-par as an outfielder. But not as a DH. And the A’s can’t keep playing the “broken-down vet” game forever—there just aren’t enough of them around. I’m not real interested in putting up with Gary Sheffield next season—although the cognitive dissonance that his favorite player playing for the A’s, his most hated team, would cause Joe Morgan would almost be worth it.)
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Apr 30, 2008 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ooo!
Man, would I love to see Sheffield be the next one-year rent-a-LF’er.
(I almost added a qualifier to that, then thought far, far better of the potentially unfortunate confluence of words.)
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Apr 30, 2008 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hm, I'm wrong
I thought his contract was up in 2008, but it’s actually through 2009.
$14 million for next season. Ouch. Maybe the A’s can get him Frank Thomas-style.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Apr 30, 2008 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then we more or less agree on that part at least.
I didn’t mean to imply the sub-par DH, just the OF. Because of that, he needs to hit well (which he’s certainly capable of or at least as the potential to be capable of) in order to justify his place, however inexpensive he may be. With the abundance of outfielders we have (assuming Brown is gone next year) and with Carter et al. in A coming up, really, we don’t have a lot of room for the sub-par fielder, par bat a year/2 years from now. At least that’s how I see it. Based on that future, I look at his value strictly in the sense of this year, at least until he’s able to show that’s not a fluke. If he starts duplicating what he did last year then I might start looking for a place for him or at least consider it, but 1 successful year at the MLB level isn’t enough for me to view someone outside the prospect age in the long term regardless of his minor league numbers. And all I’m really saying is if you need that roster spot try to convince him to go to Sac b/c if he’s still not performing at that point, odds are, no one will pick him up.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Apr 30, 2008 6:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As soon as you start trying to send Cust to the minors,
you essentially make him a free agent—and you’re bidding not only against every other MLB club, but also the Japanese leagues.
It’s pretty safe to assume that Cust won’t be returning in the near future if the A’s turn him loose.
The A’s may have the “homegrown DH” problem but I just don’t see it happening in the near future. Carter and Doolittle are still in Stockton, so their ETA is essentially 2010, maybe 2011 for Carter since he’s rawer. Higher up than that, I’m not seeing it, although I suppose they could slot Jesus Guzman in there if he keeps hitting .400 right into the majors…
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Apr 30, 2008 9:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
this is a little elementary
but can you take a couple relievers, with options, and activate them and deactivate them on a day-to-day basis by optioning and recalling them to the minors? or are there time minimums between options and recalling that would prevent this? Basically carry them with you and if Andrew Brown has pitched two days in a row, deactivate him, activate Braden or whoever by “recalling” him, thereby preserving roster space for Cust as well (or whomever extra hitter you want)?
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on May 1, 2008 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
whomever might be a grammatical butchery there
i really don’t know…i guess whichever is better. but hitters are people too!
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on May 1, 2008 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's 15 days for one or the other (or maybe both)
The A's colors are green and gold.
by mikeA on May 1, 2008 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
10 days
If you option someone to the minors, can’t recall him for 10 days.
The A's colors are green and gold.
by mikeA on May 1, 2008 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2003/01/transactions-glossary.html
The A's colors are green and gold.
by mikeA on May 1, 2008 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unless the team places a player on the DL, in which the player could be recalled immediately ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on May 1, 2008 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
cool
that comment was the one that answered my inner questions, because I figured there had to be a waiting period to prevent abuse, but I also knew that guys have gone down and been called right back up, but couldn’t figure out why.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on May 1, 2008 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even if you could do this
it would not be a good idea. Why? Because it’s asinine. It would be the MLB equivalent of sending an employee on an extended business trip every week—and this is a guy, mind you, who is not actually getting paid that much (the average salary over a full season of this would probably only be about $200,000, because of the much lower minor league salaries) by baseball standards.
The marginal gain (and it really is marginal… we’re talking back of the bullpen guys here) that you could obtain from this just isn’t worth the aggravation.
Now, if you could call up and send down guys with no days in between, then you could theoretically “send guys down” without having them actually ever leave the team, which would at least solve the travel issue—but it would also make the 25-man roster concept a joke.
Best that the rule stays as is.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on May 1, 2008 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well it would make the 25man roster a joke
especially because i picture the guys traveling with the team. i was talking about exploiting a loophole, not advocating that it should be possible.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on May 1, 2008 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You might be able to do it occasionally ...
if your team was anticipating a trip to the DL, for example, the day before Rich Harden pitched … but, in general, there’s no loop hole.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on May 1, 2008 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
K, I'm probably making a couple of assumptions that may or may not be good ones but certainly ones I haven't shared with that statement
I’m assuming that these A ballers move up relevatively quickly (that one is a poor assumption I’ll freely admit). This year we have an over abundance of outfielders and no place to put them all and next year you’ll see GarCon if not this year to add one more. Do they have the power of Cust, no, but could we get by, probably. Really, there’s no necessity to keep Cust around. And if Thomas/Sweeney perform we may want to keep them one more year (maybe).
BUT, the main thing assumes two things. 1) We have a NEED to make a roster move. 2) Cust still hasn’t picked things up AND isn’t showing signs of it, which that oppo double last night was a nice sign. If it got to the point of us “releasing” him in that sense, odds are no other team would want him and it’ll likely be a choice between us and Japan. And that’s assuming we even care to keep him at that point.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on May 1, 2008 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, i read that analysis as a regression to the mean...
“He hit for a .493 batting average and a 1.000 slugging percentage on the 69 fastballs he put into play off right-handed pitching last year. This year he’s merely average against the fastball from right handers and only batting .350 and slugging .450 against it. That’s not enough to make up for his somewhat subpar performance against other pitch types.”
sounds like he just got particularly lucky against fastballs last year, and sucked vs everything else. this year he still sucks vs everything else and his fastball hitting has regressed to the mean.
also, not like i have anyway to back any of this up, but pitchfx doesn’t take into account the way they are pitching him. he could be seeing generally the same mix of pitches on average, but have a vastly different average of where he is seeing them in the count. i don’t know how to begin studying the effects of strategy, though i suspect if they were pitching him differently, the pitch mix would change too. just a hypothesis that it doesn’t “have to”.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on Apr 30, 2008 4:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
and also
this is TOTAL eyeballing the location graphs, but last year it looks like he did most of his damage low in the zone, and this year he’s taking more of those for strikes. Like it looks to me like most of his contact last year was low in the zone, and this year he’s making contact and making outs high in the zone.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on Apr 30, 2008 4:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
move him up in the order.
a temporary solution would be to move Cust to the leadoff spot. He’s got 22 BB’s, which is tied for 6th in the majors. Even while batting well below the mendoza line, Cust’s OBP is .385, which is best on the team. Despite his hitting slump, his value to the team right now is getting on base.
by sf drift king on May 1, 2008 1:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Classic AAAA hitter
Cust crushes AAA pitching – but has now been solved by major leaguers. stats say everything – 1 -7 – .176 – sadly when Buck is back DFA
by gbtmOAK on May 1, 2008 10:15 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
...or you could actually read the article
Guess not.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on May 1, 2008 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i mean we can afford to carry Cust on the roster even if he's not starting
no need to DFA
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on May 1, 2008 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True
If we DFA Cust now, it’s pretty much a complete loss. I still stand by my apparently unpopular opinion that the team should have traded him in the offseason when he actually had some trade value, although they still probably wouldn’t have received much in return. At this point, management should give him some more time to get his act together. He may prove to be capable of returning to his 2007 form. If not, maybe the A’s could find a taker that is willing to give up some halfway decent prospects. If he’s not capable of showing signs of life by the trade deadline, then maybe the DFA discussions will hold more weight. Lobbying to have him DFA’d this early in the season is probably overreacting just a bit. I mean, this is supposed to be a rebuilding year. The team has been playing well for the most part, but the season is still very young. We have certain players on this team that are almost surely on the roster for the sake of building their trade value prior to the trading deadline in hopes of being able to acquire more prospects for the future. Is it unrealistic to think that maybe this is the A’s approach with Jack Cust as well? If so, give him a chance to build some value. And if not, well hopefully he will still improve in the near future. Either way, he was too good of a hitter last year to consider DFA’ing him this early in the season just to recieve nothing in return.
"Put some ice on it. After that, there's nothing a few beers won't take care of. " -Pink
by OrlandoAsFan on May 1, 2008 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he's been traded and released a million times
there aren’t a lot of trade partners willing to give up any value for guys with low batting averages who strike out a lot and can’t play defense. this is the “see I told you so!” start of the century for anti-”Moneyball” GMs. Holding Cust and hoping he produced was the right move, just as keeping on playing him and hoping he produces (until a better option presents itself) is probably the right move too. I tend to fall on the side of pessimism when it comes to Cust, but usually the best option is to test hypotheses through lab experimentation. My hypothesis is he’ll continue to suck, but suck less than he’s sucking now. PaulThomas’ is that he’ll start homering every at-bat. Give him 100 more PAs and let’s see…
I hope PT is right!
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on May 1, 2008 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you
concerning Cust. I’ve never really been all that high on him either. I’m just hoping that there is a gm out there who might actually give up something to obtain him. As long as Brian Sabean is still a gm, there is always that possibility. Hopefully Jack Cust will prove us both wrong though.
"Put some ice on it. After that, there's nothing a few beers won't take care of. " -Pink
by OrlandoAsFan on May 1, 2008 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brian Sabean is exactly the kind of GM
who thinks Cust is utterly worthless and would never give up even a busted minor leaguer for him.
Look, the teams with smart GMs who recognize that Cust is a useful player have, by and large, good teams, because they’re run by smart GMs. The teams that are run by idiots—like Seattle—think that Jose Vidro is a better DH than Barry Bonds.
I don’t think Cust will start homering every at-bat, but there’s a pretty large difference between “homering every at-bat” and “a mid-800s OPS,” which is what Cust can provide very cheaply.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on May 1, 2008 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see what your getting at
But we’re our opinions differ is the whole ‘useful’ aspect of Cust. Like i stated above, i’ve never really been a fan of the guy, so maybe i’m just being overly critical. I just don’t think he is as good as he appeared to be last year. I sincerely hope i am wrong. Yes, the guy is capable of putting up a good on-base percentage, but for now, that’s about it. He is the dh, at some point he needs to start hitting the ball. I realize he has 22 walks, and that’s nice. However, when you have 27 k’s to go along with them, their suddenly a hell of a lot less impressive. Especially when you have a .176 BA and a .265 slugging percentage. Even if you put numbers aside, he just looks way overmatched so far this year at the plate.
"Put some ice on it. After that, there's nothing a few beers won't take care of. " -Pink
by OrlandoAsFan on May 1, 2008 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's the one HR that makes the 22 walks less impressive ...
not so much the 27 Ks …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on May 1, 2008 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess this is a matter of opinion as well
I’m not as concerned about the 1 home run as i am the k’s. I mean, dude is on pace to k close to 160 times this year. To me, that is completely unacceptable, even if he does have 125 walks. I would like to see Cust hit more home runs, but i could live with him hitting doubles and singles if he could cut that k rate down considerably. The way i see it, striking out is the second worst thing a hitter can do in any given at bat. The first being a multiple out at bat; ie: a double play or triple play.
"Put some ice on it. After that, there's nothing a few beers won't take care of. " -Pink
by OrlandoAsFan on May 1, 2008 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The way you see it is, not to put too fine a point on it, wrong
When you average out the results, striking out is barely different from any other out, certainly not to the point that you make serious decisions based on it. A player with the exact same “slash stats” as Cust who struck out 60 times a year instead of 160 would be 1-2 runs per year better. That’s trivially small.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on May 1, 2008 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
alright, usually i'm pretty understanding
when you dismiss someone else’s opinion immediately because it doesn’t fit into what you think, but to tell me my opinion is wrong is pretty screwed up. So you are honestly going to say that 100 less k’s a season only works out to be 1-2 runs worth of improvement? Sorry if i don’t buy into that logic. If you have graphs and/or pie charts to back up that claim, i would like to see it. I’m not trying to be an ass about this, but i just can’t believe what you are telling me. By the way, how did this turn to me? I was the one saying that we should hold on to Cust in hopes that he will improve. Is it because i said i didn’t THINK he would come close to what he did last year? Sorry if that upset a few of you, but it is my opinion.
"Put some ice on it. After that, there's nothing a few beers won't take care of. " -Pink
by OrlandoAsFan on May 1, 2008 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902event.html
(listed at the bottom)
Ks on average are worth .02 runs less than other outs. So someone who had the same ba/obp/slg as Cust, but K’d 100 times less would be worth (.02*100)=2 additional runs.
The A's colors are green and gold.
by mikeA on May 1, 2008 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You'll notice from that (which is sort of obvious)
that in certain situations (runner on third) a K is much worse and in other situations (runner on first) a K is somewhat better. For an extreme K-hitter like Cust who is going to come off the bench a lot, the manager should keep this in the forefront of his mind for pinch hitting decisions.
The A's colors are green and gold.
by mikeA on May 1, 2008 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's pretty interesting
that the “K’s are basically the same as other outs” thing appears to be a coincidence. One could easily imagine an alternate version of baseball, say one with only 3 bases, where this was not the case.
Certainly I would suspect that being out bowled in cricket does not have equivalent run value to being out on a ball put in play…
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on May 1, 2008 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
cricket references
woooosh. straight over my head
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on May 1, 2008 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just look it up on wikipedia...
the exact point is pretty irrelevant, all you need to know is that they’re descendants of the same game, and the rules are kind of reminiscent of each other but very different.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on May 1, 2008 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hard to even imagine a hitter who could do that...
it would have to be someone who was so slow that they could frequently get thrown out at first on balls hit to the outfield. Like if Landon Powell had continued to play actively after tearing his ACL, or something.
Well, the good thing about hypotheticals is that the players in them don’t actually have to exist…
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on May 1, 2008 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, make it like 2.5 runs
counting errors. That’s actually nothing to sniff at for 100 PAs.
The A's colors are green and gold.
by mikeA on May 1, 2008 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
According to the table you posted
a K is only .011 runs worse. Or 1.1 over a full season.
Unless I’m misreading it.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on May 1, 2008 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are correct
It appears that I rounded down from a 9…..
The A's colors are green and gold.
by mikeA on May 1, 2008 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's freakin crazy
I’ll concede to pt then, but that still sounds weird to me. With that being said, i would still like to see less k’s. There are other intangables that go along with the k’s. For example, when a player strikes out, he manages to make the defense behind the pitcher do absolutely nothing. Maybe i’m old school or whatever, but if a hitter is producing an out, i would atleast like to see them do it while forcing the defense to make a play. Pressure can work wonders on a defense.
"Put some ice on it. After that, there's nothing a few beers won't take care of. " -Pink
by OrlandoAsFan on May 1, 2008 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess from a certain standpoint, this makes sense
I would like to see the Angels players have to run around a lot, because running around makes them tired and hurts, and I hate their team and would enjoy that.
However, I don’t think it helps the A’s win baseball games.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on May 1, 2008 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Vlad -> Frank Thomas triple
gotta admit you love watching both those guys run around.
by oakinboston on May 1, 2008 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what's the R/Y value of releasing a greased pig onto the field when the A's are batting?
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
by monkeyball on May 1, 2008 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Depends if you're playing the Indians or the Yankees
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on May 1, 2008 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
im with you
a K definitely hurts our scrapGRITheart+ rating.
nobody wants that.
gotta respect intangibles
(although… correct me if im wrong, but isn’t causing the defense to field the ball, and thus the probability that they will boot it, tangible?)
by oakinboston on May 1, 2008 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it is ...
but, being tangible, it’s factored into the numbers quoted above …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on May 1, 2008 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yup.
was hoping orlando would notice
by oakinboston on May 1, 2008 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
google dude.
Here is one from Baseball Prospectus:
Link
im sure theres many more where that came from, hoping somebody finds a better one. chose this one just for the sake of picking a good primary source.
by oakinboston on May 1, 2008 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Calm down, skippy
This is a factual question. There is a right and a wrong answer to it. I was going to go look it up in “The Book” when I got home, but I see others have already done so.
I’m just calling a spade a spade. It’s not an indictment of you personally.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on May 1, 2008 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ok...i said i would concede to your point
But seriously, don’t call me skippy. I’m not entirely sure that i buy into the whole k discussion, seeing as there is a huge difference between a productive out and an unproductive out. That’s the thing about stats like these, it’s pretty obvious that a k with a runner at third and less than two outs is far worse than a k with nobody on base. So how is that taken into consideration with the stats provided? Are they simply working off of an average k situation? I don’t see how they can provide an accurate assesment without taking each situation into consideration. All in all, i can’t argue the stats too much, i just question their accuracy. If the stat heads here don’t think there is something odd about it, then hey, that’s fine too. I’m just not totally sold on the idea.
"Put some ice on it. After that, there's nothing a few beers won't take care of. " -Pink
by OrlandoAsFan on May 1, 2008 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
a K with a runner on first
is not a double play. groundballs with forces on and less than 2 out are devastating for run expectations. also many many outs are made with nobody on.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on May 1, 2008 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's my point.
Which is why i said i look at a k as being second only to a multiple out at-bat.
"Put some ice on it. After that, there's nothing a few beers won't take care of. " -Pink
by OrlandoAsFan on May 2, 2008 6:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The link I gave
looked at every game from 1999-2002 and totaled how many runs were scored in the inning after each event. So, in terms of the average, in every game during that time teams scored .01 runs more per pa (or inning) from a in play out instead of a K. This is because most of the time (no one on base, pop ups, short fly balls, etc.) it doesn’t matter, and productive outs are (or were in every game during that period) a wash with double plays.
It also breaks it down by situation, so that, indeed, with a runner on third and one out a K is .4 runs worse than an in-play out which is a lot worse. So basically, Ks are worse in some situations, the same in some situations, and better in others, but overall only slightly worse.
The A's colors are green and gold.
by mikeA on May 1, 2008 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wow.....
that’s pretty trippy. I’m not trying to argue with you guys, it just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. Personally, i can’t help but question the validity/accuracy of a stat like this. Maybe that’s because i don’t dig into the stats as much as some people. Who knows.
"Put some ice on it. After that, there's nothing a few beers won't take care of. " -Pink
by OrlandoAsFan on May 2, 2008 6:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but mid-800s OPS/terrible defense isn't really someone you need to get worked up about protecting the future for
Cust becomes valuable at like 900 OPS and higher…in the mid 800s his defense isn’t made up for as much, and its far easier to find a decent fielding, mid 800s OPS LF then it is to find a 900+ guy. Granted, Cust’s mid 800s OPS will be better than the typical LF’s mid 800s OPS.
Mid 800s OPS DHs are also generally easy to replace at moderate prices.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on May 1, 2008 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How many mid 800 OPS guys make less than a couple mil?
There were 10 guys who got at least 200 PAs at DH last year. Jack Cust was third in OPS, one of six with at least a .837 OPS.
David Ortiz $12.5m 1.066 OPS
Jim Thome $14m .973 OPS
Jack Cust $400k .912 OPS
Frank Thomas $10m .857 OPS
Gary Sheffield $13m .839 OPS
Travis Hafner $6.3m .837 OPS
Frank Thomas includes a signing bonus and Travis Hafner was still in his arbi years.
That’s the sum total of mid 800 OPS or better DHs last year …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on May 1, 2008 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
These are just A’s…
2008 Mike Sweeney
2006 Frank Thomas
2004 Erubiel Durazo
2003 Erubiel Durazo (short of 800 OK, but deserves to be lumped in that type)
2002 Mix of Durham (don’t remember his salary, but believe it was a few mill, giambi, saenz)
2001 Giambi
1999 Jaha
My point is mid-800 OPS DHs are like the closers of fantasy baseball. Good GMs can almost always find one on the cheap, and if good short term alternatives like Sweeney and Thomas become available now, you can generally assume that a good GM like Beane will be able to find one later to replace Cust, if Cust had to go now. Not saying that Cust HAS to go, just saying that clinging to Cust for longterm cheapness is unnecessary.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on May 1, 2008 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So... the fact that there MIGHT be a better option next year
is a reason to get rid of Cust NOW?
I mean, if you sign frigging Pat Burrell for 4 years and $50 million, or whatever, sure. Maybe Cust doesn’t make the team at that point. But you make that decision AFTER you sign Burrell, not before. As of right this moment, Jack Cust is the best option at DH for the Oakland Athletics in 2009.
(I might be optimistic on those salary numbers, but I’m hoping that the fact that just about everyone seems to hate Burrell for some reason will push his contract numbers down into the “reasonable” range…)
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on May 1, 2008 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm saying that it would be OK to release Cust if it came to it...
I want to see Cust bat a lot more to to see if he comes out of it. I’m just saying there is no reason to harbor long term marriage feelings towards Cust and let those feelings cloud objectivity when evaluating him. If it it ever comes to a tough roster decision, Cust can certainly be viewed as expendable. I would sacrifice Cust for the sake of making the playoffs this season if it came to it. There is no other young/cheap type player on the roster now that I can really say that for. Remember, I’m not saying get rid of Cust, I’m just saying a lot of the rhetoric seems to say ”...and he’s not expendable because we need him for the future”, and I’m just saying he could be a nice future part, but he’s definitely somewhat expendable and replaceable.
Well, the good thing about hypotheticals is that the players roster moves in them don’t actually have to exist…
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on May 1, 2008 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
None of our potential DH-type prospects
(Sweeney [who would likely slide Barton to DH], Carter, Sulentic) look like they will be ready any earlier than 2010. We need a DH for next season. Neither Thomas nor Sweeney will play for $500k again.
While there are certainly circumstances that it would be “OK” to release Cust … if the Marlins released Hanley Ramirez and we need a roster spot for him, for instance … I can’t think of any that would be very likely …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on May 1, 2008 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, there is currently room on the roster for Cust, as configured
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on May 1, 2008 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm assuming that the first "Sweeney" here
actually meant Doolittle, from the context.
I suppose Powell could end up DHing sometimes next year—but is he likely to outhit Cust? His bat looks pretty good for a catcher but not exceptional for a DH. And Suzuki’s bat REALLY looks bad for a DH.
I stand by my claim that Cust is the best option for ‘09 in the system. The only way they better him is by acquiring Burrell or Dunn as a long-term option, or swing a trade.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on May 1, 2008 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I prefer Dunn :-)
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on May 1, 2008 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
See?
Everyone hates Pat Burrell.
That’s why the A’s need to sign him.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on May 1, 2008 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i would love that
got burrell for $1 in my fantasy auction for the second time in three years
President of the Joey Devine fan club as of 1/15/08. Accepting applications for other positions. "He has no equivalent." -Paul DePodesta on Jeremy Brown
by flipgatey3 on May 1, 2008 11:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sweeney, Doolittle, whatever ... they're both kind of funny sounding names ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on May 1, 2008 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mike Sweeney might keep it up ...
but he hasn’t even topped .800 since 2005.
Frank Thomas was great—but he ended up making something like $5m, a great deal, no doubt (especially given the low risk), but 10 times what Cust makes
Durazo did it once in three years for us … while getting paid 5 times what Cust does, today …
Ray Durham made over $6m in 2002 … he also didn’t put up a mid 800 OPS.
Giambi works, Saenz was only a platoon player.
John Jaha did it once in three years … for which he was paid $6.5m/3 … which was a lot of money back then (crazy, huh?)
So, of the guys you mention (not counting Sweeney, too soon), we got five successful seasons out of ten and only Giambi was comparable in cost to Cust.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on May 1, 2008 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thomas's contract
I believe it totalled $3.6 million once he hit all of the incentives.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on May 1, 2008 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really? Is that all?
I thought it was more … oh well …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on May 1, 2008 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's nice to have a $400,000 player
But Cust will also be arbitration eligible eventually, if you are talking longterm plans…and in the whole scheme of things, I’m lumping league minimum together with a few million dollars, because the A’s have a budget where they can pay a guy a few million dollars if they have to, they just choose to save the money when in rebuilding mode.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on May 1, 2008 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You've got to watch out ...
a few million here, a few million there, before long you’re talking about real money …
Cust does hit arbitration after this year, that’s true.
But, like I detailed, these efforts to land a fairly cheap mid 800 OPS DH have only panned out about 50% of the time—and they’ve happend significantly less frequently in recent years, since the league has caught up to the whole OBP thing. Mid 800 OPS DHs aren’t plentiful (less than half the league had one last year) and, more often than not, they aren’t cheap.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on May 1, 2008 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh yeah
and 1999 Jaha made $525,000.
2000 Jaha = 2008 Cust
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on May 1, 2008 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except in that Cust has already doubled Jaha's XBH total with 50% fewer PAs
and he makes probably about 1/10th the money when adjusted for league context …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on May 1, 2008 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Come to think of it ...
the success rate is lower than that … that’s just of the guys you mentioned … Eric Karros, for instance, Scott Hatteberg and/or Dan Johnson being another example …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on May 1, 2008 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well sure
But Cust is looking like a 50/50 proposition too. And glass half full people might argue that Hatteberg and Johnson were success stories.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on May 1, 2008 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's your standard, not mine ...
But if we assume that Cust has the same odds as all of these bargain basement DHs, shouldn’t we prefer him, given the much smaller salary—especially since this will make it easier to have a good plan B?
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on May 1, 2008 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
my problem is more of the general vibe i get
that people who are waiting on Cust are married to the idea of his 2007 and letting that cloud objective analysis of him. For example, noone ever answered what I took out of that Hardball Times article, which was that Cust got extremely lucky vs fastballs last year, and this year he’s regressing to mean somewhat. He hit like .500 and slugged 1.000 against fastballs according to that article…
When you get married to a player, you might keep playing him too long in hopes of a return that might not come. I just wanna be prepared to fold. I’m not saying fold just yet.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on May 1, 2008 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's a good chance that he did get at least somewhat lucky
against fastballs last year …
There’s also a good chance that he’s getting somewhat unlucky this year …
Given that he had more than 5 times as many PAs last year as he has had at this point this year, I would say that we should assume that 5/6 of his talent was represented by his performance last year, while 1/6 is represented by his talent this year … which comes down to a .869 OPS …
We should probably still regress to the mean some, from there … which gets us down to the .830-.850 OPS level we’ve been talking about …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on May 1, 2008 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
anyways
we are debating moot points because for now there is room on the roster.
i’m far more interested in how much longer do we leave him in LF before he loses a starting spot vs RHP?
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on May 1, 2008 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Vs Lefties ...
there’s no real split this year, but for his career, he’s over 100 points better against righties …
But as to your question … how much longer do we wait? I’d say about -3 weeks … the last time he started against a lefty was on April 11th v Sabathia.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on May 1, 2008 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well i said vs RHP
Because he has already lost his starting spot vs LHP it seems.
And I meant vs RHP—So the question was basically, how much longer does he start while he’s hitting like this.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on May 1, 2008 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, gotcha ...
I’d wait a while … after all, his OPS is .831 over the last 19 PAs and an even 1.000 over the last 8 …
Small sample size warnings certainly apply, but those 19 PAs represent more than 20% of his season total …
(Which is a cute way of saying, give him time, it’s still early)
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on May 1, 2008 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
eh
im not going to get excited over some excuse me singles. but he’s also had a lot of caught line drives so those have me more excited than the hits ;-)
but still no sign of any power :(
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on May 1, 2008 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
last night?
that was out in most parks…
The A's colors are green and gold.
by mikeA on May 1, 2008 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did you know Cust last year
Went 24 games without a HR last year? He’s a streaky hitter, that’s what you get.
Prince: This bores me. Is anyone up for a game of basketball?
by baseb3383 on May 1, 2008 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually 23, but you get my drift
Prince: This bores me. Is anyone up for a game of basketball?
by baseb3383 on May 1, 2008 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with your analysis
Is that Cust has been an exceptional fastball hitter at every level. This isn’t luck when you factor in his numbers from the minor leagues; he can flat out hit fastballs, and he’s done it everywhere. There is some regression to the mean, but every good statistical analysis tool out there projects Cust to be in the mid .800 OPS range, which is somewhat of a regression from last year, but still awesome for a cheap DH type. I don’t understand the lack of patience here. Cust has been extremely unlucky this year and is in a slump; call me crazy but I don’t think he’ll be even close to hitting this poorly over the entire season.
Prince: This bores me. Is anyone up for a game of basketball?
by baseb3383 on May 1, 2008 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well for one thing he's playing LF and not DH
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on May 1, 2008 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but ok the arguments to keep him have him at DH next year
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on May 1, 2008 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then it makes even less sense to get rid of him if he's in LF this year and DH the next
From his past production, he projects to be the best hitting outfielder we have. There is no way we would be able to find an outfielder with a mid-.800 OPS this year in his price range, and there only a slight chance someone with that kind of potential will be around for DH next year. I’m sorry, but you can’t argue that he will never hit again when he’s not even 30 years old yet and had numerous seasons of good production in the minors and majors. He has a track record here.
Prince: This bores me. Is anyone up for a game of basketball?
by baseb3383 on May 1, 2008 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not every tool projects him to mid 800s
CHONE projects 814. It depends really on how much regression you do on his MLEs.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on May 2, 2008 6:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
to make a poker analogy
Jack Cust last year was pocket aces. Now everybody is married to their Aces. At some point, after a big enough shitstorm, it might be time to much those aces.
I’m far from mucking Cust, but another 100 PAs with production like this, and I’ll be in the tank thinking about folding to a large turn bet.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on May 1, 2008 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That kind of gets to the heart of the question ...
are we pondering a call on the turn with our pocket aces, looking at an ugly board?
or
are we starting a new hand, after getting our aces cracked?
In the first case, we may want to think about folding … in the second, our hand is no less valuable, despite recent experience …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on May 1, 2008 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well in my analogy world
last year was the flop, and this year is the turn :-)
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on May 1, 2008 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well ... there's a good chance, then, that we're already pot committed ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on May 1, 2008 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd say last year was the initial deal
Yea! We got Aces. This year is the flop and so far it’s looking like a possible flush or straight draw on the board. Not time to jump ship with the Aces, but after watching the rest of the group bet (i.e. every month’s worth of ABs) so far it’s a bit iffy on whether you should bet big on those Aces cause the first player of 6 in the pot just put down a nice, although not significant, bet at the pot. Another 3 weeks (as stated by someone else above) will tell us whether or not player 2 is willing to up the ante or willing to call the bet.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on May 1, 2008 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and obviously
my debate skills are on the decline when I start conceding that Jack Cust is pocket aces.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on May 1, 2008 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps ...
but I knew what you meant and I think I played fair …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on May 1, 2008 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Russell Branyan: comparable player, no?
Extrapolate from the transactions section.
Those are the kind of players you could expect to get for Jack Cust. Ben Broussard is the best player on there, and he was non-tendered last offseason.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on May 1, 2008 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I read it
or should I say got lost in the pretty graphs and charts. Yes, that stat analysis does not support “pitchers figuring him out”. But it is nicer than sayiing he probably stopped taking PED after the Mitchell Report.
by gbtmOAK on May 1, 2008 10:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
hm
the reason i posted this article was to provide some meat that could generate meaningful discussion, in hopes that this would turn into an alternative to people spouting off conjectures like they are fact. Of course, we are all guilty of this spouting from time to time (cept for PT, bless his heart), but i figured, when we do have numbers laid out so neatly for us, why not use them?
so i am slightly disheartened that you choose not to… dont want to sound snooty- it’s all love.
for an easier synopsis of what the article says, you could read the thread above. ANers seem to get it right. I think a number of people, including me, were surprised that the stats argue strongly against the idea that Cust has been figured out. seems to me like we need to give the big guy more time
by oakinboston on May 1, 2008 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I noticed that Cust's statistical doppelganger/"the rich man's Cust"
Ryan Howard is also struggling at 172/297/343. He’s at least hitting HRs…
The A's colors are green and gold.
by mikeA on May 1, 2008 11:51 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
the NL pitchers have figured him out
Maybe we should trade Cust for Howard. The NL pitchers will take a while to figure Cust out, and he’ll far outperform what Howard would if Howard stayed in the NL this year.
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
by monkeyball on May 1, 2008 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
we can throwin a pitcher or 3 to sweeten the deal ;-)
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on May 1, 2008 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Saarloos, Braden, and Pecs?
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
by monkeyball on May 1, 2008 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's just too much to give
Two fros and a dancing chest is a high price to pay.
Prince: This bores me. Is anyone up for a game of basketball?
by baseb3383 on May 1, 2008 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, Keith Law said its tough to trust pitchfx because it has accuracy issues.
i dunno what kind of effect this has, and sort of tend to think that whatever mistakes it makes, probably evens out or are consistently made enough to not really matter. Even if pitchfx makes mistakes, it still paints a pretty good picture, right?
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on May 1, 2008 1:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
He's wrong
It does have accuracy issues, but over the sample sizes we’re talking about here, they’re very minimal.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on May 1, 2008 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I've read is that it is reliable +/- 1 inch ...
is that your understanding?
There are also, apparently, issues with identifying pitches correctly—but, for these purposes, if it acts like a pitch, it may as well be that pitch, right?
2 inches might as well be a mile, if we’re talking about a pitch on the black—but for this, a low and inside fastball is a low and inside fastball …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on May 1, 2008 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It may have issues with pitch ID
but in terms of velocity and location, it’s basically accurate. (1 inch sounds about right; I know I read what the error is somewhere.)
More to the point, though, the errors are pretty much random—it’s like looking at something 10 feet away with my glasses off. I.e. a bit blurry, but still clearly visible in recognizable patterns. If you’re trying to count exact numbers of balls and strikes it might be a little bit off. Otherwise it’s fine.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on May 1, 2008 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suppose at 10 feet, with my glasses off ...
I could just assume that it was a baseball and not, you know, absolutely anything else in the world that is small and white …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on May 1, 2008 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
