Cust
by rosa on Jul 27, 2008 4:43 PM PDT
Email
PrintWhy does Cust usually bat in the #3 spot when he leads the league in strickouts
and therefore seldom moves the runners over. I have seen him strike out as many as 4 times in one game, often with either the #1 or #2 batter on base, sometime both are on base. Our #5 and # 6 batters have ususally at least put the ball in play and done what Cust should have done. Putting Cust in at least the #7 spot would have produced enough more runs to have won some games.
207 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
when i saw a "cust" fanpost by a user i don't recognize
i really thought it would be about how cust is the best hitter in the a’s current lineup.
haha, just kidding.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Jul 27, 2008 4:59 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
what's a "strickout"?
is this some new sabermath stat I’ve never heard of? probably just bill james trying to keep us all on our toes.
Cust is the new Jaha.
by johnjahafanclub on Jul 28, 2008 8:10 AM PDT up reply actions
I'd rather bat ARod in that spot
But the bastard isn’t on our team.
Actually joined AN 5/9/05
I liked it when you could see the UIDs by putting mousy-mousy over the user name.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Still a likely troll
Four diaries and one comment?
"There's m'fn sprinklers on the m'fn infield!'" - Ice Cream (AN), 6/13/08
So she likes decoration.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
but joined "new AN" today:
rosa
joined Jul 27, 2008
last login Jul 27, 2008
i also miss the UID #s.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Put it on your calenders
I’ve pretty much had it with the anti-Cust argument. After I finish the bar (Thursday) and sober up (say, Friday evening), my next step is to write a FanPost explaining Cust (warts and all). It’s crazy that when we have a weak offense people pile on to our best hitter as though he was the problem.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
The fact that he's our best hitter sure is a problem, though
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Yeah
I’m not saying he’s the best hitter in baseball (or even close) but there are VERY few teams who wouldn’t give him regular at bats. We also aren’t the only team he’d be the best hitter on.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Actually,
there are very few teams that would give him regular at bats. That’s why he’s on the A’s in the first place. Nonetheless, Cust is a great hitter for what he is. I just wish the A’s had the entire matching ensamble.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
Let me rephrase (assuming that's true)
There are very few teams that wouldn’t have better offenses if they gave him regular at-bats.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
I agree with this.
It would be nice if the A’s put other players around him so as to maximize his potential. A few other high onbase guys, a slugger or two, and suddenly Cust becomes a formidable offensive threat. Alone….not so much.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
How many contending teams would be better (on both sides of the ball)?
Surprisingly (to me, anyway) ... most of them - the Angels definitely would, so would the Twins. The Tigers and Rays could definitely find room for him - though he’s play less than he does in Oakland. He would have gotten plenty of PT while Papi was injured, but would now be riding the pine in Boston and would, similarly, be riding Matsui’s injury to the starting DH spot for the Yanks …
The White Sox don’t really have any use for him and in Boston, even with the Papi injury, he wouldn’t have been that much of an asset.
If Cust is your best player - you have a problem. If he’s your worst - your team is likely to score 1,000 runs. If he’s somewhere in between …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
HE is not the best hitter on the team
Frank Thomas, Mike Sweeney are still on the team. I also think that Ryan Sweeney is a better hitter. However, he is in the top 5.
With all the injuries- You could argue that Cust was a better hitter than anyone on the line-up for large blocks of time this year.
I have always believed that Cust would do fine if he was in a better line-up. Cust’s value comes in part from high number of walks. Him getting walked does very little to help at time because the hitters around him are often unable to hit him home. I think Cust’s numbers will go up once Sweeney and Thomas are back this week.
It would be interesting to see what he could do batting 2nd. Him getting on base in front of Sweeney and Thomas would bring great success, in my opinion.
Also, just because I and others on here put great value in batting average does not mean that we don’t know anything or ‘need to be told why definatively Cust is the best’.
All that being said Cust is not the problem with the team. Our number #6 and #7 hitters today (both veterans) are both hitting below .250. Our #8 hitter (Bankston) is a AAA player at best. For 4 games this week we had Brooks Conrad and earlier Donnie Murphy. These are the reasons we have been getting beat. (also the pitchers are starting to wear down).
Now next year, I really don’t know where Jack fits in. DH is the one spot where the team has briught in a lower cost veteran over the past 3 seasons. I can see the team wanting to keep either Thomas or Mike Sweeney as DH. If Chavez is forced to DH or play 1B then I suppose Cust is on the bench or in the OF. However, I like many others can see the A’s bringing in a free-agent strong hitting outfielder or a guy like Buck. With R. Sweeney and Gonzalez I don’t know where Jack goes?
I suppose they could keep him at AAA and bring him up in June 09 when the other veteran DH gets hurt.
The Sweeneys are absolutely not better hitters
And their numbers prove this. Mike Sweeney is basically a slow singles hitter. Ryan Sweeney is a fast singles hitter. Cust gets on base more than both guys and has more power. I don’t really see how you can argue either guy is a better hitter unless you’re only looking at batting average.
Thomas, on the other hand, is better but he’s also not playing. And he’s played in 28 games for the A’s since Cust has been on the team. Cust wins just because he’s actually in the lineup.
http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/
by thejd44 on Jul 28, 2008 1:00 AM PDT up reply actions
First off I can argue anything I want
Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean that the other person ‘can’t argue’ the other point.
I will always place a higher value on a ‘weak single’ than a walk because a single brings in a man who is on 2nd or 3rd. Cust’s walks are is major statistical advantage. Just because a few people on this site believe that walks have enormous value doesn’t mean everybody else is wrong.
I would take Ryan and Mike Sweeney’s numbers anyday over Cust.
I would also love to see the record of the team in the games M. Sweeney played, same with Ryan.
I would also love to see the record of the team in the games M. Sweeney played, same with Ryan.
What do you think that would tell you?
I don’t think anyone is saying the value of a walk is equal to a single. The only time that’s true is when the bases are empty, and advanced statistics account for this. They don’t count a walk and a single as equal in creating runs.
The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.
A team of Jack Custs would score substantially more runs than a team of either of the Sweeneys
It wouldn’t even be close.
You can argue the reverse (First Amendment and all that) but you’d be wrong.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
You can say that but there's no way of actually proving it
Not when you don’t know when a team of Jack Custs will walk five times in a row and hit a grand slam before striking out ten times in a row, for example.
And as I said before, defensively they’d be enough of a liability to likely offset any offensive production they put up.
You can argue the reverse (First Amendment and all that) but you’d be wrong.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
I'd argue the second amendment, but then I'd have to shoot you
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
There would be a lot of baserunners left on base
with Cust. 40 percent K’s so you are left with about 16 at bats to score the walks.
The pitcher will throw off speed all day
I will take the Sweeneys’ any day of the season
I'll take R. Sweeney simply because
he’ll go first to third and second to home far more often, and can steal a base, so you often need just 2 “non-out” ABs to score, not the 4 you so often need with Cust. Again, if Cust HRed 40 times/year instead of 25-28 times/year, it’s a different story. But Cust’s power is not great, it’s good.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
and if you were in the post season
which you would not be with 9 Custs.
Then we would score 2 or 3 runs max in 3 games and be 3 and out
With 9 Sweeeney’s, we have a much better shot.
I know people are very passionate about Cust and I repsect that but I prefer contact hitters like the Sweeney’s. If you had a healthy, young Mike Sweeney from years past, Cust could not hold his bat
With 9 Custs, we would probably
score 12 runs in two of the games and 0 or 1 in four of the games (sound familiar?), because Cust’s streakiness is every bit a part of his profile.
With 9 Sweeney’s we would would probably score 3-4 runs each game, scoring fewer runs overall and actually having a chance to win the World Series.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Speaking of the senior Sweeney
I hope he comes back next year and I really hope if he retires, that they find a place for him with this team because I think we all agree this guy is such a positive (LOL, the opposite of me) for the players.
He is gifted with unbridled enthusiasm and it rubs off on the players.
I hope he stays on as a coach, but
I don’t want him back as a hitter because:
1. I think the A’s desperately need to get power from the DH position and he won’t supply it and
2. I am DONE with injured players. I can’t take it any more.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I'd love Mike Sweeney on the bench
as a rh pinch hitter/backup 1b and dh, we need more legit bats with pinch hitting experience.
by connie mack on Jul 28, 2008 10:41 PM PDT up reply actions
And you assume that Cust's streakiness somehow synchronizes
so that all 9 Custs are streaking hot or cold at the same time? And yet, it varies from game to game?
Methinks you need a refresher on what “streaky” implies. Even if they all synched up somehow, the result of that would be roughly a 67% chance of bombing out quickly and a 33% chance of waltzing easily to a world series title… and most teams would cheerfully take a 1 in 3 shot entering the postseason.
I’m not real up on my Markov chains, so perhaps someone else could do this better than me, but if I’m not mistaken in my estimates, a lineup of 9 Custs would generate an average—average!—of 17 baserunners a game. 8 of those would be hits, 2 of them would be homers. 1.5 doubles, 4.5 singles.
That’s a metric crap-ton of offense.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Whatever the case, it's completely irrelevant
One of the worst things Michael Lewis could have written in Moneyball was the bit about “nine Scott Hattebergs” because of the inevitable, unrealistic fantasies it encourages people to engage in.
It was a nice, complimentary line for Hatteberg at the time but that’s about where it begins and ends.
If you really want to carry this out to its end, you’d have to also factor in Jack Cust defense at every position in the field. I guarantee you that would drastically reduce that 1 in 3 shot of making the playoffs.
You can’t have Cust’s offense without his defense if you want to imagine a whole team of Custs.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Except that Lewis
wasn’t dealing in players when he made that statement. He was dealing in player derivatives and it made his point. It was a brilliant statement for a writer to make. All these years later and clique of devoted followers are still quoting him.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
True, but it focuses only on the offensive side
If someone wants to say a team full of Custs would do this, this and that offensively, then I get to say “Yeah, but here’s what they’d also do defensively.”
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Feel free
You can call him the best hitter on the team all you want, but he’s not. He’s the best at getting on base but that doesn’t make him the best hitter, not when it’s more because of walks than actual hits.
Suzuki, Sweeney and Gonzalez are all better HITTERS than Cust is.
Of course, I’m glad Cust homered today.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
People who argue semantics really piss me off
Because it’s intentionally diverting the conversation from the actual point, a point that everybody ought to grasp, for no reason other than to start an argument about it. Well, fine, I took the bait. Hitter, batter, guy who stands in the effing box with a piece of wood in his hand. Whatever. Cust is the most productive offensive player on the team. That’s what people mean when they call him the best hitter, and you know it. Why even bother getting into some semantic argument here when the actual point is a controversial enough topic?
http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/
by thejd44 on Jul 28, 2008 1:03 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
+1
It’s like saying “I think Cust is an asshole” and, when prompted to justify this declaration, explaining that your definition of “asshole” is “person whose offensive contributions largely lie outside of batting average.”
To which my response is twofold: 1. That’s not what the word means, and you know it, and 2. your choice of terms to mangle is obviously deliberate inasmuch as you would like to imply the real meaning of the word you used while claiming to only imply your invented meaning.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jul 28, 2008 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Except that most
“old school” fans, and writers, and ex players, and scouts, and even coaches, are referring to Batting Average when they use the term “best hitter”.
For example, in this poll of scouts by MLB.com this year, Ichiro was referred to as the best hitter:
Only one player really scored high in all of the above: Ichiro.The panel of scouts rated him tops in all of MLB in the categories of Best Hitter, Best Bat Control, Best Outfielder, Best Arm and Best Baserunner.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
makes me think that most people have different floating definitions of what hitter means
The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.
Or perhaps what makes someone a good hitter or a specific type of hitter
Cust is basically a high-strikeout slugger who makes up for some of his inability to make contact by walking more than most sluggers do.
I’d hardly call him an expert at handling the bat. I’m not expecting something like a Boggs or Gwynn, but he’s basically a ‘grip it and rip it’ hitter with a more discerning eye than most. If you need someone up there in a situation that doesn’t call for swinging for the fences, you’re definitely not going to count on Cust to get the job done.
With him, it’s basically playing for the home run or the walk and that’s a recipe that’s going to lead to getting on base a lot with some occasional excitement from the longball but also a lot of missed opportunities where someone with better bat control would be more likely to come through.
When Jason Kendall was hitting for high average in Pittsburgh, he didn’t do much power-wise but I’d say he was capable of doing something in most situations that called for a certain type of AB (sacrifice, moving a runner over, hit-and-run, etc.).
Ichiro is great with the bat and could probably hit for more power by all accounts, but given his approach he’s going to rack up a lot of hits without a large discrepancy between his average and his OBP – just a .047 career difference. Compare to Bonds, whose difference is .146. Granted, a lot of that came from so many intentional walks, but he had an excellent eye at the plate and hit for all that power.
It just comes down to what type of hitters people prefer. In a perfect world the best hitter is someone who can hit for high average with solid power numbers and a lot of walks, but those types are few and far between. That leaves most people with some combination: great contact hitters with little power, power hitters who aren’t so good at making contact, people who hit well and have a good enough eye to draw a lot of walks and so on.
I think the power hitter type who also walks a lot but can’t make routine contact is a big rarity and that’s part of why Cust is often difficult to analyze without such a strong reaction from various sides. He does certain things very well but fails in other areas most would probably think should come more naturally for someone – walking a lot without being a good contact hitter.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Rosa, are you related to Gene Mauch by any chance?
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
Best Hitter?
Please. He’s not the best hitter on the team. He’s the best guy at combining power and walks, which is some kind of accomplishment, to be sure. And he has the best OPS because of it. But best hitter, when you’ve got two guys up around .300, and Cust strikes out at an obscene rate and can’t do anything except jack balls out of the park on an occasional basis? Not a chance.
I mean, hitting home runs is a good thing. Walking is a good thing. But it seems to me it creates an OPS which is artificially high in that walks very rarely drive in runs and never move runners more than one base, and homers aren’t hit all that often in the context of total at-bats (unless your name is Barry Bonds and you’re jacked up on steroids). I think if there’s any weakness in the power of the OPS stat, it’s that it tilts toward folks like Jack Cust and away from guys who are actually professional hitters.
Best hitter on the club? I’d say Ryan Sweeney is a better hitter. I’d say Carlos Gonzalez is a better hitter. I’d say Kurt Suzuki is a better hitter. HITTER. Jack Cust is a better OPS guy than they are, but not a better hitter.
The walks are good. They're just...
...too much of his productivity.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Absolutely.
I could take a .220 average if it came with 40 HR out put and some more doubles. Heck, those numbers were what most teams had in the 70s and 80s out of their power hitter.
However, with about 2 months left Jack will probably hit about 28 HR.
Now, if Chavez, Sweeney, Thomas stay in the line-up for the rest of the games then I think Cust will have about 35 HR. He probably could have got to 40 if he had some support in the line-up.
That being said He should not be batting 3rd. The manager did him and the team a disservice by placing him 3rd.
who should hit there then
"It's not my fault your team's so shitty." -Steve Friend, head coach, Chabot College, to Laney College's head coach, who asked why we scored so many runs after we beat Laney 30-3 in 2006
I would say Mike or Ryan Sweeney would be a decent choice for 3rd hitter
Maybe with Suzuki hitting 1st, Cust 2nd and R.Sweeney third it would be a great start to the order.
Now with the Big Hurt hitting at clean-up it would be a pretty decent front four.
If Mike Sweeney is healthy then you could bat him 3rd but I wouldn’t make huge plans around him.
With a starting order of 1- R. Sweeney, 2- Cust, 3- M. Sweeney, 4- Thomas. We could afford some guys like Ellis/ Crosby hitting lower down in the order.
by Yellowhorse on Jul 27, 2008 11:35 PM PDT up reply actions
What exactly has Mike Sweeney done to deserve the third spot?
Is it his gaudy .338 OBP or his rockin’ .400 SLG?
http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/
by thejd44 on Jul 28, 2008 1:05 AM PDT up reply actions
mike and hurt are both injured
who should hit third?
"It's not my fault your team's so shitty." -Steve Friend, head coach, Chabot College, to Laney College's head coach, who asked why we scored so many runs after we beat Laney 30-3 in 2006
If you want to equate hitting directly to batting average, sure.
Cust is (by far) our best offensive player. I have yet to see any sophisticated statistical attack on this (and am not holding my breath).
It may be true that you can’t “hit” a walk, but a hitter can absolutely control how often they get one. It’s a skill. Cust has it in spades.
Also, Home Runs are very nice. He is the only player on the team with any kind of ability to hit them.
He has flaws, and he’s not going to get into the HOF. He is, however, very productive and the last player in the lineup the A’s should replace.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Okay
That’s why I got tired of hearing he was the best “hitter.” He’s not. As to whether he’s the best offensive player - based on the current official canon, he is. But the truth is, those kind of expert opinions, even based on statistical evidence, often change. It’s possible that somewhere down the line, someone will look at Cust’s statistics and prove he was a lot less productive than we thought he actually was. I’m not saying it will happen, but I’ve learned (by now, at the age of 58, gasp) that what is considered to be true and real one year is overruled by a new study the next.
so, because it might be proved wrong later, you're going to throw out all the evidence and formulate an opinion with your gut?
truthy.
The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.
No...
You’re projecting your own shit on my statement.
I’m saying that based on current opinion, his stats show Cust’s the best offensive player on the A’s. But all of this is really recent stuff…and a lot of it winds up getting superceded by other research. Nothing to do with the gut.
Cust’s the best offensive player on the A’s. He’s a lousy hitter though.
DOES NOT COMPUTE
I’d really just like to know what your definition of a good hitter is then.
And I think your argument about evolving statistics is pretty weak. Offense has been measured consistently and accurately going back, at the very least, 5 or 6 seasons. I mean, Equivalent Average has been around since about 1995 I think, and I’m not sure how long OPS+ has been around, but it wasn’t invented last year or something.
The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.
Offense has been measured consistently and accurately
going back to F.C. Lane in the last days of the Dead Ball Era. Believe it or not, the linear weights used in Equivalent Average today are only slightly different than the ones Lane used to determine that Babe Ruth was the best hitter in baseball in his first year with the Yankees.
I shudder at the thought of how much calculation (by hand, no less) the man must have gone through to figure them out—but all things considered, his work holds up astoundingly well for being almost 90 years old at this point.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
The book "The Numbers Game" is where I learned about Lane
Also a great read, so I’d recommend that.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Which stats are you referring to?
The ones that haven’t been sufficiently vetted, I mean. I gather OPS is one of them.
What are some of the others?
Or did you mean to imply a more general longevity threshold, rather than calling specific statistics into question? (eg “all stats invented within the past X years are inherently dubious, given the caprice of the baseball analyst community”)
If so, what (roughly) is X?
Also, which stats do you trust, if any?
Ironical addendum: Actually, stat guys will tell you until they’re blue in the face that OPS is quite an inelegant measurement, that we’d all be better off if we ate our peas and listened to our mothers and took into account stuff like era and park factors and the like … on the other hand, I kind of doubt you’d be any more amenable to the dizzying agglomeration of underscores and plusses and five letter (upper and lower case!) acronyms they prefer.
Five or six years
is a drop in the bucket. I’m not saying these analyses are dubious. I’m saying that the sabermetric field is still a young one, and people are discovering things all the time. Look, dentristry is a lot older, and every time I go to the dentist they’re learning something new about teeth. It actually wouldn’t surprise me if we start seeing sabermatricians who start calling into question a lot of “givens” that other sabermatricians believe to be absolutely true. That’s the way fields develop. And, of course, there are always lots of anomalies.
To wit, Mr. Cust. Jack Cust is an extreme case, and I think probably worthy of study. I suspect at some point he will be studied, if he hasn’t already been. You have someone who appears to virtually either hit home runs (though not at a particularly great pace), be really streaky, walk a lot, and strike out a lot. So the question can be asked, I think: How valuable, really, is someone with Jack Cust’s skill sets, and does he confirm or deny the efficacy of some statistical evaluations?
Did you mean to reply to rebus above?
Anyway. I get the part about how we’re learning new things all the time, fields evolve, new ideas build on existing thought, and so on. That is unquestionably true.
But that truism seems equally applicable to every single stat (or human notion, for that matter) ever conceived, and doesn’t really do us much good when we’re trying to qualitatively differentiate between various metrics.
Alas, that seems to be exactly what you’re doing: Using it (the truism) to argue that OPS (and other sabermetric-y stats) are less solid than other (unspecified) time-tested stats.
So I’m trying to pin you down a bit, reduce the generalities, get specific.
To re-phrase my unanswered queries:
Do you mean to say that we can’t trust any stats, since the measurements we employ today may seem misguided in 2/5/25/300 years?
That ’s the logical extension of your various arguments here, but probably you don’t actually mean that. You mean something more nuanced, like:
Some stats are more valid/legitimate than others, due to staying power, analytical underpinning, etc.
If that better describes your thinking, then:
What are some examples of stats you trust? Like, which ones do you use when you want to find out if a hitter or pitcher you’ve never seen is any good?
Conversely, what are some stats you consider suspect?
Once Again
I’m not arguing against stats. What I’m arguing against is the idea that current modes of stat interpretation are fixed in stone. PT states above, for instance, that a version of the EqA has been around for ninety years, so even that “new” stat is old.
Right now, RBI is considered a fairly useless stat, and others have more value. Some people will use OPS to “prove” a player is better than another. This is what I’m talking about. But in regard to Cust - we’ve got this extreme case of a player who looks lousy based on “old time” stats and looks good (or better) looking at other parameters. Is it a crime to question whether Jack Cust fits within the system, or whether his skill set turns those stat evaluations upside down?
Also
In regard to whether Cust is the best “hitter” on the team —it’s all a question of definitions, and definitions are arbitrary. If “hitting” is defined to include the skill of getting lots of walks, then he’s the best hitter on the team. If “hitting” is limited to, well, hitting the ball -- then whatever his value as an offensive player, he’s not a good hitter. And given the extreme skew of his offensive contributions, I think it is reasonable to ask whether standard statistical interpretation is really valid when examining Cust.
In other words, is he really as valuable as the common interpretation of his stats say he is? (Assuming you’re not equating the two, and that someone can actually ask that question).
Well
One way to assess this is “Runs Created” which ignores how a player contributes and focuses entirely on how many runs they create (for example, a solo home run is 1 run created, a home run with a runner on second is worth just under 2 runs created, and a bases empty walk is some small fraction of a run created). It’s imperfect, but it attempts to measure what a player does and when a player does it.
Cust has 55 runs created this season (on pace for about 88). Barry Bonds holds the all-time single season record with 230. In recent years, the league leader has had between 140 and 170 runs created. Cust’s 55 (53 in THT) puts him at #89 in baseball for the season.
The question then becomes how RC differs from OPS in evaluating Cust. Last year, Cust was #9 in the AL with a .912 OPS. He was #36 in RC. I think a large part of the discrepancy is caused by the fact that the A’s rarely gave Cust a chance to create runs last year (and part because a walk is the worst positive outcome of an at bat).
Whether he was top-10 in the league or top-40, however, he was extremely valuable to us last year. This year, he’s had a worse season but is still well above average. The next closest A to his RC for this year is Mark Ellis (with 48, good for #114 in MLB).
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
In the end
I seriously doubt you’ll find any stat more sophisticated than batting average which doesn’t have Cust rated as the best on our team this year. I really wish there weren’t so many people making random FanPosts to complain about his “strickouts” or asserting that he’s terrible.
He’s the best we’ve got, he’s well above league average, and he’s coming of a pretty elite season.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Complaints
come because walks tend to be fairly quiet, and strikeouts tend to come with runners on base (because the guys who hit in front of Cust are on base with some frequency), and home runs seem rarer than they are because they come in bunches. So most of the your protests about Cust’s quality as an offensive player feel like “are you going to believe your eyes, or believe what I tell you?” (a line which, by the way, apparently goes back at least to the 1932 film “Girl Crazy”).
And which prompt me to ask questions about his value and to question stats and interpretation of stats because, watching him on a regular basis, he does seem so shitty.
Might I suggest that your observations may be from the wrong viewpoint?
Our system might not seem heliocentric from the back porch.
The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.
You know what, I was typing out a response, but I couldn’t quite get past a certain … I don’t know … puzzlement, I guess, like a memory you’re sure is real but doesn’t mesh with the facts, or a math problem that shouldn’t be hard but is, or an elephant wearing a tiara. So I was scratching my head and muttering to myself, fidgeting, wondering if my brain was working properly … sort of at a loss.
Then, in a revelatory flash, I realized several things:
1. You are not responding to me at all. Rather, you are responding to a bizarro world version of me, where I say entirely different things than I do here. (maybe my screen name is km47 there?)
2. You are never going to answer any of my questions directly.
3. I really can’t take this “it’s all arbitrary” stuff seriously. It’s just lame, and it makes me weary, semi-furious, and sad about the universe.
C’est la vie.
OK, in answer to your questions...
and to keep you from feeling weary, semi-furious and sad about the universe:
1. I’m not saying you can’t trust stats. I am wondering about how people interpret them.
2. Stats I trust, stats I don’t trust. In the past, I’ve tended to trust OPS, average, OBP, SLG. I wonder about stats like EqA and Runs Created because despite all the numbers involved, they do feel sort of arbitrary, as in, “Hey wait a second, you’re making this stuff up as you go along.” Having said that, I’m more likely to buy a stat like EqA than Runs Created because Runs Created is pretty artificial whereas EqA is an attempt to level the playing field.
But you’re right. I’m trying to get somewhere else. Which is: I know Jack Cust’s value in statistical terms. But it doesn’t seem to translate to what I’m watching on a daily basis. So - Statistics can’t be wrong, therefore either I’m nuts (and so are so many other fans) or maybe there’s something wrong with the interpretation of said statistics. I mean, look at nevermoor’s above post: based on Runs Created, the two best A’s are Cust and Ellis. Talk about making your head explode. It’s like I’ve entered Alice’s Looking Glass.
That’s why I’m wondering about all this. Have I answered directly now?
Runs created is arbitrary
however it does correlate well with offense.
The linear weight stats, like EQA, Batting Runs, BaseRuns, are based on actual game data that occurred in actual games. Some, like BaseRuns, are “tweaked” to fit the current modern era better. Whereas others, like EQA, are not tweaked, so that they work better with all eras.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
Here I think you (and a few others in this thread) are redefining “hitter” to support a pre-existing bias against Cust.
Is Ichiro a better hitter than Barry Bonds?
The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.
Bad Example
During his steroid prime, Bonds hit for higher average than Ichiro, more power than Ichiro and got a hell of a lot more walks than Ichiro.
The bias against Cust exists because the guy appears to totally suck at the plate. At every game, my two friends and I take bets whenever he comes up: Walk, Strike out, or something else. Actually, lately we’ve been going with walk, swinging strike, or called strike. I don’t know, but is someone a better hitter who never touches the ball with his bat vs. someone who actually gets hits? (I’m using hyperbole here, of course). But there is a reason why anyone who just watches him, and doesn’t pore over sabermetric statistics, wonders why he’s still in the majors. Again, it comes down to “Do you believe what you see, or what I tell you?” That’s not a “pre-existing bias. “
I’m not denying his worth here, by the way. Just saying what happens when we watch him at the plate.
1. Barry Bonds never had a 200 hit season. Ichiro has 6 straight 200 hit seasons.
2. Bonds’ highest season AVG for his career was .370. Ichiro’s is .372.
A lot of guys are frustrating at the plate and go through prolonged slumps. Aramis Ramírez has the same AVG as Cust since the break (.188). Dan Uggla is even worse (.167). They’re still very good hitters.
The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.
I'm going to go out on a limb here
and guess that of the 17 Florida Marlins fans, at least a couple of them think Uggla is terrible and should be replaced by Cesar Izturis (or whoever—insert banjo-hitting glove man of your choice) at the first available opportunity.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Bonds was a better hitter than Ichiro
When you put his totals in context. I’m not talking about batting average by itself when I talk about quality as a HITTER. It’s line drives, home runs, the whole package, even the fear factor.
The only reason any of this comes up is because Cust is so one-dimensional, and I think —as opposed to Uggla or Ramirez -- he’s not in a slump. This is who he is.
Oh, so I see we're back to considering things like walks in this case.
And fear factor, wow. How do you weight that in your measurement?
If it were me, I’d just take my memories of hits, mix them with clutch performances, and sprinkle in my confidence when said hitter strolled to the plate. Take with a tab of acid, and call me in the morning. I’ll have the results then.
And a ~.800 OPS hitter with a an 8 game span OPS of .664 is in a slump. You can’t sit here and say this is average production for Cust when it’s blatantly false.
The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.
8 games?
April: .669 OPS
May: 1.004 OPS
June: .741 OPS
July: .727 OPS
Still want to act like this isn’t a mostly season-long slump?
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Why break it up by month?
Why don’t we carve it up as nicely as possible to make it fit our conclusion– Cust Suxorz?
The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.
Because it tells the story better than you are?
Three poor months, one excellent month. An ~.800 OPS for the season with the majority of it well under that.
What part of this is so difficult to understand?
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
I'll just refer ya'll here. Please read it.
Also, we must regress any measurement we make, including, for example, splits. Let’s say you look at Eric Chavez’s awful splits against portsiders. You must – must! – regress those splits to the mean performance of all lefty-on-lefty matchups. The same thing goes for home/road splits, splits by lineup order, splits by position, splits by month, etc. What you find is that the many splits that are touted as important (“he hits .312 after the All-Star Break!”) are actually meaningless.
The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.
In the case of retarded splits like "by month",
you would have to regress all the way to the mean, because no one hits better in any month than in any other month. The astrological signs do not influence baseball performance.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
You two are both grasping at straws in an attempt to...
...ignore the fact that Cust has struggled mightily for the majority of the season. Having a month-by-month stat isn’t retarded or pointless at all, no matter how many different ways you want to deny it. It clearly shows when a player was at his best and worst within that season and it proves beyond any doubt that Cust’s excellent May is the only thing keeping some of those numbers you love throwing out so much in any kind of respectable area. For the past two months, his OBP has been pathetic for someone with his propensity of getting on base.
Just because the entire A’s offense stinks, that’s no reason to act like Cust is having a better season than he has. I don’t need some “regression to the mean” analysis, and there are players out there (and teams, lest we forget the A’s of the early 2000s) that have struggled during one part of the season and heat up during another part of it.
I’d love to see Cust regress to the mean because that would mean we’re in store for a great August and September. But, up to this point, the fact is he has struggled a high percentage of the season.
I’m done with this.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Maybe he IS influenced by astrological signs
What’s Cust hitting for his career during Sagittarius?
Look, the point isn’t that Cust has struggled for parts of this season. We know that. The point is that the fact that he has struggled for parts of this season is irrelevant to his actual value as a player, because “cold months” do not beget more cold months.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
RBIs are considered a useless because they don't measure a player's offensive contributions accurately.
Because that’s a fact, not an opinion.
The mathematics isn’t as important as the reasons they are more precise and more accurate.
The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.
If you're interested, here's an "old time"
article, by Branch Rickey, on stats:
Baseball people generally are allergic to new ideas. We are slow to change. For 51 years I have judged basebal by personal observation, by considered opinion and by accepted statistical methods. But recently I have come upon a device for measuring baseballl which has compelled me to put different values on some of my oldest and most cherished theories. It reveals some new and startling truths about the nature of the game. It is a means of gauging with a high degree of accuracy important factors which contribute to winning and losing baseball games. It is most disconcerting and at the same time the most constructive thing to come into baseball in my memory.
As a statistic, RBIs were not only misleading but dishonest. They depended on managerial control, a hitter’s position in the batting order, park dimensions and the success of his teammates in getting on base ahead of him. That left two measurable factors—on base average and power—by which to gauge the over-all offensive worth of an individual. We applied them to some of the game’s greatest hitters and arrived at a rating for each.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
No, it's not equated directly to batting average, but the actual ability to hit better.
Since we’re talking about them, Suzuki, Sweeney and Gonzalez are all better than Cust is at putting the bat on the ball and making something happen. When Cust isn’t hitting home runs, the best value he has to the team is by walking. That’s not enough.
Yes, we all know Cust is the best on the team at getting on base and hitting for power – at least, when Frank Thomas is out of the lineup. But there are others on the team who are better hitters.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
If a player walked 3 times a game, struck out once, every game all season
He’d be beyond useful to his team even though he’d have a batting average of .000 and a SLG of .000. You’re underestimating how important getting on base is. It doesn’t matter if the rest of the team sucks and can’t drive him in. He doesn’t get penalized for that.
http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/
by thejd44 on Jul 28, 2008 1:07 AM PDT up reply actions
And that would be a .750 OBP. We're not talking about anything remotely close to that...
...so please keep it within range of reality. Thanks.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Wouldn't Happen
The argument assumes that the defense wouldn’t adjust to this hypothetical batter. If the guy couldn’t hit the ball, pitchers would throw it in the strike zone on a regular basis, and he’d be in the minors within two weeks. In fact, the only way a Jack Cust can exist is because he DOES hit homers, and has the potential to hit homers, often enough so that pitchers are forced to be careful with him. Thus the walks.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Cust’s OBP dropped faster than his average when he began slumping, and it’s probably true of the A’s as well. If someone can’t hit the ball when it is thrown in the strike zone, then pound the zone.
So you're finally back to giving Cust credit for walking so much?
Glad we’re all on the same page there.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Huh?
People read what they want to read. The guy walks. That’s what he does. That’s why I suggested elsewhere he should perhaps be a lead-off guy. He can’t hit worth spit, other than those weekends when he jacks out two or three in a row, but he sure can walk. Always been on that page.
As long as you give him credit for creating those walks.
In fact, the only way a Jack Cust can exist is because he DOES hit homers, and has the potential to hit homers, often enough so that pitchers are forced to be careful with him.
Sounds like you agree that his abilities lead to him getting walks.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
homeruns and walks were buried in the offensive strata by Bill James to tempt us
Who needs competence as long as everyone smiles? @('.')@
+1 richwol
OPS is way overated, if anything, in today’s game slugging is undervalued, (not homeruns, mind you but slugging). You can’t go 1st to 3rd on a walk, or 2nd to home on a walk, or 1st to home on two walks but you can on a double. plus when you hit a single with a runner on 2nd, and there is a play at home, you can sometimes advance to 2nd base (doesn’t count in the stats).
Good things happen when the runners run.
They’re called RUNS for a reason.
by connie mack on Jul 28, 2008 10:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Slugging is underrated?
Have you taken a look at what sluggers are getting paid? I’m not even talking about the stars, but just good ones, like Carlos Lee.
“Chicks dig the long ball”. Slugging is unlikely to ever be underrated.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
uh, do you realize what OPS *is*?
It’s On-base percentage Plus … Slugging percentage.
Worse than being dead is being hot. @('.')@
people should really stop giving a hoot about the line up order
batting Cust 3rd, with this offense, is about the only way to ensure he gets 4 plate appearances a game.
you do want more plate appearances for the best hitter in the line up, right?
right?
The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.
Does he have the highest batting average on the team?
No. Therefore, he can’t possibly be the team’s best hitter. I mean, how could you claim that? You would have to give him credit for “walks” and “home runs.” Wouldn’t that defeat the purpose of baseball, which is to hit as many singles as possible?
Take that attitude and next thing you know you’ll be doing things like “taking pitches in 3-0 counts” and possibly even “not swinging at every single 2-strike pitch to avoid striking out looking.” And we can’t have that, now can we.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
your clogging up this blog with posts PT
{/Dusty Baker}
The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.
The guy can't hit very well
But he is the team’s best offensive player. Two different statements, two different meanings.
Why are you guys so defensive?
Further...
Cust has a great eye for the strike zone. He’s got big muscles. His skill set is extremely limited. I think it’s a question of definitions. Someone who walks a lot and occasionally jacks one out isn’t as good a hitter, I don’t think, as someone who knows what he’s doing with his bat. That doesn’t take anything away from his abilities as an offensive player. But it’s a different skill set.
Jack Cust is a very extreme case, in my opinion, at this point. He’s a two-dimensional player, and one of those dimensions is extremely streaky. If his OBP were higher —or were remaining constant -- I would seriously ask if maybe he should lead off. Put him in front of guys who can hit (singles, doubles) like Suzuki and Sweeney, and maybe, just maybe, he’ll help be part of more rallies. Also, because he does have a high OBP, he should have more at-bats than someone like, say, Carlos Gonzalez. And maybe he’d strike out less because there’d be less need for him to jack one out, and his greatest skill, which is his ability to delineate the strike zone, would be in full play.
The problem is that Cust's only two skills,
walking and HRing, require him to bat in two very different spots in the lineup. His walks are mostly useful when there is no one on base, so that they are in fact as good as singles and you are not counting on him to be an RBI guy. Yet his HRs are most useful when there are people on base.
If Cust were capable of walking more (but hitting less) with the bases empty, and walking less (but hitting for a higher average / hitting more HRs) with runners on, he’d be a lot more valuable than he is.
As is, he helps set the table a lot for others. Which is not what you want your sluggers to do, yet he has to be regarded as a slugger or else he’s just a station-to-station guy who doesn’t run especially well and you may as well have Kendall.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Traditional line up roles are really all that keeps Cust from being a great lead off hitter.
He’d only lead off once a game, and he only has 27 extra base hits on the season. Any of those that happen to come in his first plate appearance of the game (probably less than a third) would be offset by the extra plate appearances he’d get by virtue of his lead off spot. Something like 70–90 more.
Sweeney might be another good bat to put first, but, since he walks much less than Cust, it makes more sense to put him in the second spot in the order.
The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.
The problem with batting Cust leadoff is that after
the first inning, when he comes up later on he is always batting following the team’s worst hitters. Which means more solo HRs and two out walks – wheeee. There’s really no spot where his “walks without hits” and “occasional HRs” are complementary. And the HRs ARE only occasional because no one HRs more than occasionally. Cust will HR, on average, about once every 6 games. That’s once/week.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
As opposed to...
Getting on base as often as he does, and then having guys who do get singles and doubles driving him around the bases. Cust’s homers come in spurts, two or three at a time. The rest of the time he’s not driving anyone in, and no one behind him is driving him in. At least if he’s leading off, you have Sweeney and Suzuki up next to get him around. I suspect he’d wind up scoring more runs in that capacity than he’d drive in batting after Sweeney and Suzuki.
Cust this season: 19 HR, 49 RBI, 50 R
Even your simplest mathematical claims don’t add up.
Who needs competence as long as everyone smiles? @('.')@
Mathematical Claims?
What mathematical claims?
No mathematical claims were made in that post.
And I don’t see what prompted you to list those stats
"Behind both goals were banners bearing the word 'Calamity' while another carried the warning: 'You will drown in the Bosphorous.'"--Threats made by Turkish soccer fans to the British from a match in 2003. Tribute to their miraculous run in Euro 2008.
RIP Tim Russert, quintessential Buffalonian.
by Cutthemullet on Jul 28, 2008 12:03 AM PDT up reply actions
"he's not driving anyone in and no one behind him is driving him in"
While this isn’t a mathematical claim, it is probably what Monkeyball was refuting
hard to refute hyperbole by throwing out numbers...
without accompanying analysis, or at least explanation, of them.
"Behind both goals were banners bearing the word 'Calamity' while another carried the warning: 'You will drown in the Bosphorous.'"--Threats made by Turkish soccer fans to the British from a match in 2003. Tribute to their miraculous run in Euro 2008.
RIP Tim Russert, quintessential Buffalonian.
by Cutthemullet on Jul 29, 2008 2:33 AM PDT up reply actions
No one said you couldn't bat your worst hitters 5-6-7
and, with the A’s lineup, there’s not much difference at this point between about six players in the line up (in terms of quality). You pretty much want anyone not named Cust, Sweeney, or Suzuki batting ninth.
I would argue that there’s no spot where his walks and homers are NOT complementary.
The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.
No, they AREN'T two different meanings
Everybody who says Cust is the team’s best hitter absolutely means he’s the best offensive player and that’s blatantly obvious. Seriously, why the hell is everybody trying to create some bullshit non-issue semantic argument here? It’s annoying. Very, very annoying. Come on people, you’re all better than this. Quit creating straw men. It makes you look like a dumb ass.
richwol, this is not just directed at you. I posted something similar to flashfire earlier in the thread. It goes out to everybody who is trying to pick an argument where there isn’t one.
http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/
by thejd44 on Jul 28, 2008 1:10 AM PDT up reply actions
I guess...
I resent the idea that someone who can’t hit the ball very well is being designated as “the team’s best hitter.” That’s all. But the horse has been beaten to death at this point, so it’s time to concede the point.
Also
His hitting skills are kinda lacking, and if we’re talking about hitting skills, we’re emphatically NOT talking about his ability to get on base due to walks. So I think the distinction does exist. But you’re right. In talking about Cust, it’s not worth arguing about.
His hitting skills are kinda lacking, and if we’re talking about hitting skills, we’re emphatically NOT talking about his ability to get on base due to walks.
Yeah, yeah you are. That guy at the plate when the pitcher throws the ball is called the hitter. He’s hitting. He’s hitting even when he’s taking pitches. Now batting = now hitting.
The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.
Your definition
And you’re welcome to it. Not mine.
I would like to see him hit 2nd.
In our current weak hitting order he would be a good fit for 2nd. He gets the 4 plate appearances you mention. Batting 2nd would be advantageous because he takes a lot of pitches, which would allow a lead-off man to steal second.
If he strikes out the team still has 2 more chances to get a hit.
The number 3 hitter should have a higer batting average.
i don't want rajai davis hitting leadoff
so i don’t see the point of your third sentence ;)
"It's not my fault your team's so shitty." -Steve Friend, head coach, Chabot College, to Laney College's head coach, who asked why we scored so many runs after we beat Laney 30-3 in 2006
What?
There are other guys who could steal bases other than R. Davis. You could put R. Sweeney, Ellis (once he gets out of his funk) at leadoff and occasionally steal a base.
Its not the only reason to hit Cust 2nd.
by Yellowhorse on Jul 27, 2008 11:43 PM PDT up reply actions
the Cust point is good I think, seeing as he's basically an extreme version of Swisher.
I’d like to see the top 4 look like this for a few weeks:
1- Sweeney
2- Cust
3- Suzuki
4- Gonzalez
I think Gonzalez handles challenges well, which is why I like him 4th. He’s only had 5 AB there so far. Suzuki and Sweeney could be flip flopped, but that’s less optimal for lead off steals.
The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.
I think Patterson is going to lead off
The downside of hitting Cust #2 is that it pretty much eliminates any chance of a hit-and-run. What’s the chance he actually makes contact? And if he does, what’s the chance it’s a grounder through the hole, -5%? Cust as the #3 hitter makes more sense
Patterson
Sweeney
Cust
Suzuki
Gonzalez
Dammit. Our offense sucks. :(
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Jul 28, 2008 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions
If batting Cust second reduces the chances that the A's hit and run
then by all means, bat him second.
The hit and run is such a breathtakingly stupid play. I have no problem with stolen bases (as long as you aren’t terrible at it) in and of themselves, but for God’s sake, let the hitter hit normally.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Our hitters don't do that very well, so maybe
making an infielder move could help in a “Whackamole” kind of way.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
it was kinda tongue in cheek
because i think it would be a decent idea, BUT…
...then all the people who can’t stand “strickouts” would make fAnPoStS about how cust never moves the runners over with his “strickouts”.
"It's not my fault your team's so shitty." -Steve Friend, head coach, Chabot College, to Laney College's head coach, who asked why we scored so many runs after we beat Laney 30-3 in 2006
The ideal
is to surround Cust with some other “hitter” types, this puts his ability to get on base to good use. As it is, his ability to “simply” get on base is not much of an offensive threat. Whether the A’s lineup as it stands can be juggled to make use of this is why we bang our heads against the wall. Given a proper lineup arguments like this are rendered meaningless. Cust is a piece, not a solution.
Enjoy the game
I think what it comes down to is while Cust's overall percentage stats (OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+) are solid...
...he’s different from others in that he cannot be the focal point of a team’s offense because of the type of hitter he is. In those instances where he gets hot he can carry a team for a couple weeks, but more than that he’s a table-setter with all the walks. He’d be a very good complement to a better offense, but he’s not an offensive leader.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Basically, the only way you can be an effective
middle of the order hitter who mostly scores runs, rather than driving them in, is to do both at the same time a LOT, i.e., hit 40 HRs. As a 28 HR/110 BB guy (as he is on pace to be this year), who rarely singles or doubles, Cust is FAR more adept at leaving others in position to drive in runs than he is at driving them in himself.
On a team like the Yankees that would have terrific value, because “keeping the line moving” and putting Abreu, A-Rod, Giambi, up with runners on base will play lots of dividends. But on most teams, a player who neither runs especially well (steals, first-to-third, etc.), nor drives in runs especially well, has no place in the lineup where he is more than a “station-to-station table setter” most of the time.
Cust also happens to be arguably the best “station-to-station table setter” in the league, because he has the most HR power of any “usually get one base or get out” Kendall-type hitter in the league. But he HRs once/week, and the rest of the ABs he is nothing more than a very good leadoff hitter without the accompanying speed.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Right on.
Not here to start more drama but I have seen many posts and comments regarding Cust, and I have come to the conclusion that “you get the bad and the good” with him and it seems that people here really like Cust. Looking at detailed numbers on Cust and seeing him when I can on TV here in FL, I am sorry, for me it is more bad than good. Maybe if he (they key word here is HE) would change is approach and stop swinging for the bleachers and actually TRY to put the ball in play I could deal with a .240ish average, more “in the park” extra base hits and less walks. Wishful thinking. Until management gets serious about adding quality hitters, I will just sit back and cringe when he (and the rest of O) are batting.
Which detailed numbers suggest he is more bad than good?
If there are any (excluding batting average and strikeouts) I’d really like to see them.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
..
http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=custja01&year=2008
Looked at BASES OCCUPIED and CLUTCH HITS. Again, my observation to the initial post.
The only bad "Clutch hits" ones
Are 2 outs, RISP and “margin > 4 runs”
Late & Close and Tie Games he’s a maniac (.959 and .927 OPS). Late & Close are PA in the 7th or later with the batting team tied, ahead by one, or the tying run at least on deck.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
A perfect example of why situational hitting is completely and utterly bogus
You can cherry pick certain “clutch stats” where he is underperforming and leave out all the other stats that might indicate he actually is a clutch hitter.
What does he just not “gear up” quite as much for the 2 out RISP situations as he does for late & close stats? I mean…aren’t the late & close situations actually more indicative of a clutch hitter (if you’re so inclined to buy into the notion of clutch) than are the 2 out RISP situations?
by GusanoQuemador on Jul 28, 2008 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions
I completely agree
Just pointing out that even in those stats Cust comes off looking pretty good. I’m firmly in the “clutch is a media myth” camp. After all, Jeter is “clutch” A-Rod is “not-clutch” according to many, yet A-Rod significantly outperformed Jeter in last year’s playoffs.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
How about situational hitting?
I’m not agreeing with OakFaninFL saying he’s more bad than good (in totality) but these stats aren’t impressive (OakFan just posted a link):
situational hitting:
with a runner on second base: .222
runners on first and second: .222
runner on third: .167
bases loaded: .286 (yay!)
first base only: .246
men on, two out: .190
man on third, two out: .222
RISP: .214
RISP, two out: .186
Parenthetically, and really weirdly (and obviously not significant because of relatively small sample size), Cust is batting .407 when he’s the sixth man in the order. The guy is also batting .143 when facing a 3-2 count; his OBP in that situation is .490, so fouling off a close pitch in order to get another chance is probably not that great an idea for Cust, as PT says.
Not trying to beat...
a dead horse, everyone has their opinion and it seems like this post has past the ED (expiration date) with the original topic. I am not saying he is the worst the A’s have, believe me, but I am just not impressed overall.
How big is your sample?
The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.
The entire season, I'm guessing?
After all, that’s what most people are talking about.
What are YOU talking about?
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Yes, the entire season
You can find the stats on the espn.com site, under splits.
Same place that lists the OPS by month rebus seems to have a problem with seeing.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Why stop at month?
Why don’t you break it up by week? Or game? What makes the month so special?
Can't get enough of the Oakland A's? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's
Because splits measure things like that and it's out there to be looked at?
Why care about pre-All Star Game? Post-All Star Game? Why care about day games? Why care about night games? Why care about a team’s record each month?
Maybe because the monthly splits are an easy way to summarize each sixth of the season? Maybe because it makes it clearly obvious that Cust’s May is the only thing keeping his overall stats from being as bad as they’ve been the rest of the season?
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
splits can be useful reflectively ...
Jack Cust’s productivity was largely consolidated in one month, sure … that’s a fact and tells you something interesting about the season to date. It does not, however, tell you anything about his likely production going forward.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Cheese 'n Rice!
Cust has seven at-bats with the bases loaded. SEVEN.
Cust has 86 at-bats with RISP, 40 with 2 outs.
This does not matter. I will repeat, this does not matter.
Have you really decided to base your opinions on a blip of statistical noise?
The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.
Hey, judging Cust on 80 random ABs worked for the Orioles
Actually, it worked terribly for the Orioles, who suck. But they’re a major league team, so they must know what they’re doing.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
He did great for the Orioles
I imagine they judged him on his defense and baserunning.
The A's colors are green and gold.
"Cust is batting .407 when he’s the sixth man in the order"
That may have to do with that when Cust is batting 6th, we probably had a full/healthy squad, that can protect each other better in the line up.
by asfansince1989 on Jul 28, 2008 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions
which is the entire point
of why our team sucks and no one likes cust…if thomas and big mike are in the lineup, cust all of a sudden is loved by everyone (see that 1.004 ops in may)
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
Ah, asfansince1989, but "protection" is a myth
At least that’s I teach the kids in Sex Ed class.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Protection seems like a myth
Because we only notice it when it fails. When a line up offers protection to a hitter, and he puts up good number, we just take it as granted. But when all the other big bats go down and we are looking to Cust to carry us, his failing becomes so much more magnified. I think you can draw pretty good parallel in sex ed too.
by asfansince1989 on Jul 28, 2008 9:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Firefox just crashed on me when I was going to respond
The universe is telling me to get back to work.
It's probably past being worth the time, anyway.
Those who want to ignore the reality are free to do so.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
If "the reality" is a bunch of completely arbitrary and irrelevant splits
then yes, I do in fact want to ignore it, because it’s worthless and I’d rather not waste my time.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
We disagree on what's irrelevant or important to factor in, but I do agree with you on one thing:
I’d rather not waste my time on it any more.
We’re not going to change each other’s minds and we’re also not going to convince one another that either of us is wrong.
Time to move on to something else.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Hence, past ED...
It was a good topic with good comments.
Just hope we can be at .500 or better at the end. Would be more than I expected when the season started. Ciao for now.
Great
We need just a few more posts on this matter and that will then equal the number of times Cust has struck out so far this season.
IMO the home run factor with Cust tends to polarize Cust supporters to the extreme.
If the guy is such a Good Hitter then why does he not cut his two strike swing down a little and he may hit a few doubles and singles instead of striking out. If he’s a ML hitter good enough to be on the roster then he should be good enough to do what he’s doing now except try not to hit every pitch that he swings at 10 miles.
It’s called making a minor adjustment. Maybe he is not willing to make that adjustment or has tried and he can’t.
He doesn't change his two strike swing
because he’s batting a whopping .110 with two strikes!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
all you did was isolate his high K%
batters will hit for a significantly lower average with 2 strikes. Cust’s seems egregiously low because of his already low average.
The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.
Cust’s overall batting avg on contact: .382
Cust’s batting avg on contact with 2 strikes: .349
He is making worse contact with 2 strikes but it’s still well above league average. If you want a “minor adjustment,” I claim he is making one. If you actually mean “complete change in his hitting philosophy,” which is usually what people mean when they say “minor adjustment,” then no, he isn’t.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
+1
on the “minor adjustment” part.
pretty tough to make a philosophical adjustment in the middle of a season at the highest level of competition in your sport.
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
All I meant by Minor adjustment
was just that in this case. Cut the swing down on 2 strikes. I don’t know how hard it would be to do that as I am not, or never was a hitter.
I don’t think you could make a major adjustment and I see why they would not ask him. He has been hitting like this for years and I would think it would be almost impossible and may well screw him up completely.
Cust's seems to be what it is because
after the count gets to two strikes he gets a hit 11 times out of 100.
I didn’t isolate anything, by the way, I just literally reported the stat shown on the telecast yesterday (before Cust bombed a two-strike HR).
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
The point is,
that’s basically the exact same thing as saying “he strikes out a lot.” The guys at the top of the “BA w/ 2 strikes category” are all going to be very low K guys, and the guys at the bottom are all going to be very high K guys. Think about it: a high % of Cust’s outs are Ks, and Ks can only happen with 2 strikes, so of course it’s going to be really low. And of course everyone already knows he strikes out a lot, so….
The A's colors are green and gold.
Batting with two strikes is generally a low BA proposition
(.190 ish?). It’s just that there’s low and there’s low. I know the reason, I was just posting the stat without comment because it demonstrates that once Cust gets to two-strikes you’re reeeeealllllllly hoping for a walk!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Cust paying for A's lack of offense
I think Cust looks bad on the A’s because his walks don’t look productive, and the reason for that is that there is no one to drive him in when he walks. If there’s an Albert Pujos behind Cust, and they make the opponent pay frequently when they walk Cust, we would all be patting Cust’s back and saying “walk’s as good as a hit”, and his HR would be just icing on the cake.
Also it’s still better if Cust strikes out on some great off speed stuff, rather than GIDP. If we had another good hitter behind Cust, this difference would plainly clear. But the fact is that we don’t have a good hitter behind Cust, the only other 2-3 decent hitters we have, we put them in front of Cust so in case he hits a HR we can maximize the return.
This in turn makes me feel that with runner(s) on, Cust is our last hope, if he can’t get ‘em in, we are done. I’m disappointed many time with Cust batting, but in the end, I think Cust is just bringing into focus how impotent the rest of the offense is.
I'd take a few more GIDP over a ton of strikeouts because if he's putting the bat on the ball more often chances are...
...he’ll get more of them past the infield as well.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
i would not
i see what you mean though. hard to say
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
I agree 100%, asfansince1989 - basically,
it’s like having a busboy who sets the table beautifully, but then the waiter never shows up to take the order. From the customer’s point of view, the busboy has not actually been all that helpful.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
But if you're the restaurant owner
you fire the waiter not the busboy.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
I fire the customer,
but maybe that’s why Chez Nico went out of business.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Just to note
Ichiro and Cust have grounded into the same number of double plays this year: 5.
Last year, Ichiro had 7 to Cust’s 6.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
A better comparison would be Jose Vidro, given their respective speeds...
and while Vidro actually has very few GIDP this year for some reason, combine 2007 and 2008 and he has 25 to Cust’s 11.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Speed is definitely a big factor, but I cited Ichiro because even though he IS very fast he...
...still hits into some double plays that are more a product of a hard-hit ball right at someone and the double play is turned even before he can reach first. But, he’s the one making a lot of contact. Of course Cust would probably be more in Vidro’s range if he made as much contact, or at least in Crosby’s range (which is 10+ a year).
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Guys who hit the ball do tend to hit into more DPs -
It’s not surprising when Tony Gwynn, Wade Boggs, etc. hit into DPs more often than guys like Kendall.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
people hit into more double plays
than kendall? wow.
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
Yes, of course
The point of my post was to say, “if Cust made a lot of contact, he would probably GIDP like Vidro does. I.E. a ton.”
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Great point
Cust gets on plenty, but ends up stranded more often than not. Sweeney clearly should hit behind him in some capacity.
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Jul 28, 2008 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions
I think you touch on something important here
“I think Cust looks bad on the A’s because his walks don’t look productive”
Walks are never that exciting unless it happens when leading off the 9th inning in a close game. When was the last time you pumped your fist when you saw Cust get leadoff walk in the 3rd inning? Emotionally it’s not as exciting, but statistically (and actually) that walk in the 3rd helps the team out just as much as a leadoff walk in the 9th inning. We just don’t notice it as much because it’s not in the 9th inning.
And I think as a whole, the folks who don’t like Cust appeal to their emotions too much in judging him, rather than just taking a look at the back of his baseball card and realizing that this guy helps in ways that sometimes go unnoticed.
by GusanoQuemador on Jul 28, 2008 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Basically my sense is this
Cust has warts. Big obvious warts. So big and obvious that people get mesmerized Austin Powers-style and say: look at that average and those strikeouts, he SUCKS.
Cust’s other problem is that his attributes are not otherworldly. He hits for good power, but he’ll probably never lead the league in SLG or Home Runs. His one near-unique skill (drawing walks – where he’s #2 in baseball behind Dunn) isn’t sexy because a walk is usually the worst positive outcome you can have in an at bat.
This gives people access to the “sure he hits some home runs, but not very many and otherwise he can’t hit” argument, which is seductive but flawed. Because he’s such a unique player, there is a real temptation to focus on his warts and ignore his virtues. (In the same way, some would ignore his warts and focus only on his attributes). The thing is that when you look at the whole package, the conclusion that he’s a well-above average offensive player (and the best on our team) is clear.
I find it intensely frustrating that people on this site I otherwise admire feel so strongly opposed to him, but I’ve lost patience. As far as I know there is no comprehensive stat that shows Cust as below average (let alone terrible). There are his warts and splits. I’m just going to move on with my life and continue to be grateful that my team can see past 1950s baseball card stats and realize that he’s a huge asset.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
I'm neither a Cust lover nor hater, but I would add
that while many underrate walks, some also overrate them. Cust has only 9 doubles this year to go with 19 HRs (0 triples). That means that only 28 times, in 391 plate appearances, has his AB gotten him beyond first base, and overwhelmingly, his times to first base have not advanced anyone two bases – or often even one.
His bases-empty walks are valuable, but many of the rest simply are a lot less valuable than even a single would be, let alone a double – yet he is a slugger by nature and you would like to hope for a lot of 2Bs, not just the kind of out that keeps a runner frozen a second base. 28 XBH is very few for a slugger, regardless of how many are HRs.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jul 28, 2008 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
That's one way of translating tangible stats to contribution to runs
But I think it needs a couple of tweaks. the basic assumptions behind the math is contribution of hits, walks to runs are linear. I doubt this is accurate. In a most typical case where we limit the number of hits and walks per inning to a few, the linear model may apply. To think about the linearity, just try a simple mental exercise, typical game you may get ~ 10 hits, and you score 3-5 runs. if you double that, 20 hits, chances are you are looking ~ 15 runs, instead of 6-10 runs. On the other end, if you only get 2 hits, would you score 0.6-1 run? Chances are you got shut out.
In the middle of that curve, we can fit a linear model, but when you move away from the league average where the model is constructed, it doesn’t work as well. Different type of hits may react differently in terms of non-linearity. I would predict that if you do the same model, but only limiting the numbers to A’s offense, the walks and singles would translate into runs at a lower rate than the league average. Some times the most complicated model may not beat what human eyes observes. As Yankees announcers said, (I paraphrase), “who cares if the A’s walks, there is no one to drive them in”. You can express that in terms of common sense as those guys did, or you need to look at your assumptions of the model and see if it holds for the A’s.
by asfansince1989 on Jul 28, 2008 9:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Woops, forgot my conclusion
What I’m saying is that using the model in the quoted article, we would be predicting offensive production if we stick our guys onto an league average offense. Since the A’s is clearly below league average, the non linearity penalizes them, so they will tend to disappoint vs that expectation.
by asfansince1989 on Jul 28, 2008 9:37 PM PDT up reply actions
That's fine, but...
1)The A’s offense is not all that different than the run environment used in to get those values. And the A’s aren’t really that far from league average that the values will be shifted in any significant way.
2)To the extent that it is different, the relative weights of different events aren’t going to change much relative to each other. Cust’s walks are worth less in run terms, but so too are other hitters’ singles. And really, the difference would not be large at all.
The A's colors are green and gold.
Agree the effect is probably not too drastic, but definitely measureable
I don’t have anything complicated, just a quick and dirt look at OPS vs Runs. A’s has a .693 OPS, 0.052 lower than the AL average .745, which is about 7.0% lower. A’s has scored 442 runs, 44 lower than AL average 486, which is 9.1% lower. I wouldn’t call the 9% a giant difference, but definitely significant. And the fact that the run produced difference in more than the OPS difference is an indication of the nonlinearity in the model. I would say the prediction of Cust’s run production contribution is definitely accurate within 10%, but I think the model may over-estimate his value by something in the ball park of a few %. No doubt he’s still the most valuable offensive player on the A’s.
Would I think will be useful to do would be to re-do this model based on A’s offense numbers, compare against the model against league average, and use the difference to identify what kind of hitter would thrive the most (or penalized the least) by being in A’s offense.
by asfansince1989 on Jul 28, 2008 11:35 PM PDT up reply actions
nice post
"Behind both goals were banners bearing the word 'Calamity' while another carried the warning: 'You will drown in the Bosphorous.'"--Threats made by Turkish soccer fans to the British from a match in 2003. Tribute to their miraculous run in Euro 2008.
RIP Tim Russert, quintessential Buffalonian.
by Cutthemullet on Jul 29, 2008 3:00 AM PDT up reply actions
You need to take into account park effects
For example, AL average OPS in Oakland is 725.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
Yeah, there in lies the rub
My had a second thought after I posted my earlier reply is that the models may well predict that a HR hitter would be penalized the least by being on A’s offense since HR’s drive themselves in, so they rely less on team mates. As long as the A’s can get on base, which they seem to be closer to league average than their hitting ability, I think that may be a likely outcome. Then the next logical thing to think is what would park effect do to the HR hitters? Then when we try to eliminate ball park effect, we end up getting a smaller and smaller sample size. So in the end we could be no clearer about how to improve the A’s offense than when we started.
by asfansince1989 on Jul 29, 2008 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions
There's an easier way to do this
Just look up the difference between Runs Scored and Equivalent Runs over at BP. They have, as it were, already done the math for you.
The A’s have actually outscored their Equivalent Runs by 21 runs this year. Mostly because they’ve been lucky with runners in scoring position. The A’s are beating their linear weights, not falling short of them.
Side note: Jesus, the Angels are lucky.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Thanks for the tip
Hopefully the luck will catch up with the Angels in 2009, 2010, just when the A’s will get good again
by asfansince1989 on Jul 29, 2008 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions
And it's got nothing to do with a lot of the nonsense coming forth in this thread
like can’t go 1st to 3rd on a BB! or second to home! zomg!
Those things are accounted for in the numbers, since they’re based on actual values in actual games, and to the extent that poor offense affects it much, singles and doubles, and HRs are worth a lot less when no one is on base.
The A's colors are green and gold.
Projections
In fact, I just got the ok to give you a a sneak preview of the Oakland offensive projections. I’ll present them here in terms of runs/650 PA, using the above formula.
Player Runs/650 PA
Jack Cust 105
Eric Chavez 91
Daric Barton 90
Dan Johnson 90
Todd Linden 84
Mark Ellis 84
Emil Brown 81
Jack Hannahan 80
Travis Buck 80
Bobby Crosby 76
Rob Bowen 76
Anthony Recker 72
Donnie Murphy 71
Jeff DaVanon 70
Kevin Melillo 67
J.J. Furmaniak 66
Ryan Sweeney 64
Kurt Suzuki 63
Wes Bankston 62
Richie Robnett 58
Danny Putnam 56
Nick Blasi 50
Gregorio Petit 50
Cliff Pennington 40
Suffice to say, there is no credibility here.
"Behind both goals were banners bearing the word 'Calamity' while another carried the warning: 'You will drown in the Bosphorous.'"--Threats made by Turkish soccer fans to the British from a match in 2003. Tribute to their miraculous run in Euro 2008.
RIP Tim Russert, quintessential Buffalonian.
by Cutthemullet on Jul 29, 2008 2:56 AM PDT up reply actions
"The thing about Bonds," offered an older member of the Giants’ coaching staff, "is that he didn’t actually hit the ball very much. This is supposed to be one of the game’s great hitters, but don’t you have to actually hit to be considered as such? Growing up, the great players of our generation didn’t take tons of walks. They actually focused on hitting the ball." Perhaps the most startling difference between Lewis and Bonds is their ability to hit the ball. Bonds only hit .276 last year, and with two full months left in this season, Lewis has 92 hits, on pace for well over 150. But Bonds failed to get more than 150 hits in any of his last six seasons, and failed to even get over 100 in the last two.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
My brain just died
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
That excerpt is from an article
that appears to be a satire.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
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.
