Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: Dolphins knock off Rams; get back into playoff race Bar-right-arrows

Cust - cold streak or worse? or other?

Tiny by oakinboston on

Hardball Times provides this PITCHf/x analysis:

Link

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 | Comment 121 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

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   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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   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   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   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   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   0 recs

yup.

was hoping orlando would notice

by oakinboston on May 1, 2008 2:24 PM PDT to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   0 recs

None of our potential DH-type prospects

(Sweeney [who would likely slide Barton to DH], Carter, Sulentic) look like they will