my complaints with the a's

by mango315 on Aug 17, 2008 11:40 AM PDT Comment 63 comments

im fine that the a's want to rebuild....i am excited from a few years down the road to see a strong young team that can have a decent amount of playoff seasons...basically the day chavvy's contract is over is when i think the a's will officially have a chance at getting a good team

1. injuries - my biggest issue by far. i hate when people attribute this to bad luck. there has to be another piece to this puzzle. 43 times in the past 2 seasons? the strength and conditioning coach, or the a's workout routines, or some aspect of them training has to be flawed. So I expect the a's to go out and do something, tell the fans they are working on it.

2. moneyball - needs to be more adjusted. the a's have not been in a world series in almost 20 years. i think billy beane is a genius, but in baseball, a year without winning a world series is not a complete sucess. i think structurally but they need an RBI machine...someone who excels with RISP. also, moneyball needs to be more situational. if you are down and someone with decent power comes up with two outs, why not go for a big hit instead of trying to draw a walk. we basically have the most men LOB every game, so why put it into the hands of someone with low hitting with RISP....

0 recs | Comment 63 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Moneyball is not about having someone who's good w/ RISP or a good situational hitter

It’s about value for cost first, alternative ways to find quality players overlooked by others second, and getting something in return for them before they get too costly third. At least, that’s the way I’ve seen it.

This is probably the most basic explanation about the book I can think of.

Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog

by Flashfire on Aug 17, 2008 11:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Value for Cost

This is true - however, there does seem to be something wrong with their valuation process in terms of hitters because the major league hitting has been so poor for so long, and the minor league hitters haven’t translated whatever minimal success they’ve had at the major league level (Kurt Suzuki notwithstanding).

Also - the notion that if you put nine Scott Hatteburgs in the line-up is a flawed one because if you did put nine Scott Hatteburgs in the line-up, the defense and pitching on the other side would make adjustments and you’d wind up with nine Mario Mendozas. I suspect the same would be true of nine Jack Custs, albeit with slightly more power.

by richwol1 on Aug 17, 2008 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm with you there

Lately the “nine Jack Custs” thing has come up with a few people saying it’d make the A’s one of the best offensive teams ever and I say “Yeah, except when they’re striking out and making tons of errors in the field, so they still wouldn’t be a playoff team.”

Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog

by Flashfire on Aug 17, 2008 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not exactly what I'm saying

I think despite the strikeouts and the errors, nine Custs would get on base a lot, and if each Cust wound up hitting 30 HR for the year, a lot of those walks would score. But the problem is that pitching and defense strategies against one-dimensional players who have an inability to adjust would probably decimate a line-up of Custs.

by richwol1 on Aug 17, 2008 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There'd be adjustments, especially since a lineup of Custs doesn't adjust.

But – and I blame Michael Lewis for this one – as fun as it is to play around with the fantasy of an offense full of a certain type of hitter, when they’re as bad defensively as someone like Cust is you can’t just ignore the negative impact they’d have on team defense. They’d all have to play the field too.

Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog

by Flashfire on Aug 17, 2008 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cust has actually been improving

He’s still bad, but he isn’t costing as many runs as he was. He’s even made a couple web gem-ish plays. As far as the “something wrong with their valuation process” point, I don’t think any valuation system expected much from this season’s team. It’s less that they expected to be good and more that they just aren’t.

Really the problem the last couple years is that Chavez got hurt, Harden got hurt (he didn’t have injury issues pre-mlb), and Crosby didn’t pan out. That’s a whole lot of bad luck to strike a franchise, and we still had enough to make the ALCS in ’06.

It’s looking to me like we picked some great players in the last year’s worth of trades (Most notably Sweeney/Eveland/Smith who have outperformed expectations) so I personally wouldn’t be as quick to blame the process.

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Aug 17, 2008 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think Cust's fielding is even bad at the moment

I’m stunned by the amount of improvement he has made since the start of the season. He has made 3 (IIRC) well above-average catches in the last week or so, and also made all the routine plays without making any mistakes. His range is still so-so, which prevents him from being “good” – but I would not characterize his fielding since the ASB as being “bad”. I’d characterize it as “perfectly fine”.

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 Aug 17, 2008 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

It is, at least, tolerable as the "weak link" when he's so productive offensively

by thejd44 on Aug 17, 2008 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

+1

"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

by flipgatey3 on Aug 17, 2008 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed.

You can see the confidence growing practically game-to-game. He’s much more fluid and doesn’t exude desperation any more in his body language whenever the ball’s hit his way. He seems to expect to catch the ball now, even.

And I don’t exude fluids when the ball is hit his way, either, which is a nice change — and good evidence of dramatic improvement. .

The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus

by The Dogfather on Aug 18, 2008 7:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Speaking of exuding fluids,

how fun would it be to do stadium cleanup after Dog Day? Ray Fosse, get on that interview.

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 Aug 18, 2008 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

“How great does it feel to be standing in the East Side Club for 8 hours with a garden hose?”

"Don't be an ass!" --Bill King

by batgirl on Aug 18, 2008 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Like a Raiders game, I expect --

— but with fewer syringes.

/ !!

The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus

by The Dogfather on Aug 18, 2008 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's a good way to come up with a serious mallardy.

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 Aug 18, 2008 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

yes i agree

but i mentioned i have no grief with the a’s building up a new team and getting young players

but a big aspect of moneyball is the fact that “9 scott hattebergs provide a team with everything it needs to be in the playoff” or whatever it was….a big aspect of this is high OPS and building base by base

by mango315 on Aug 17, 2008 11:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Injuries

I think there are several factors. Age is one. Many of these players are young, so they are still learning the rigors of playing everyday and how to take care of their body. Look at Mark Ellis. He knows the ropes now, and hasn’t missed much time lately. Also contrast that with an older variety of player, and we know why they get hurt. Because they are older. Another factor is just hard play. We’ve got players that play hard, and sometimes playing hard can lead to getting banged. But we can’t tell players to scale it back, can we? Another factor, in my mind, could be preparation. Younger players might think they don’t need to complete a full warm up every game, and then when they don’t they get hurt. I don’t think we can look at the conditioning program, because guys like Suzuki and Ellis (even Crosby) and Cust have been steady in the lineup. It’s frustrating, but if players did more to prevent injury through preparation, I don’t think we’d have as many injury issues.

Might as well Jump! - Van Halen

by sprtsnwyn on Aug 17, 2008 12:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

this is absolutely true

There are certainly baseball injuries that are unavoidable eg. broken bones in hands from a HBP or a ankle that gets caught sliding into a base etc. But this team has mastered the avoidable injuries. Pulled hammy’s and strained quads are completely avoidable with proper conditioning, which although million dollar athletes don’t want to believe it, result in not being in shape before the season starts. If muscles are adequately prepared to withstand the rigors of a season before it begins the muscles will not respond with pulls and strains. This team need to address the conditioning and the offseason workout regimens to ensure players are in shape from day one of spring training and that is as much a fault of the organization as the players themselves for not demanding better.

"Just looking at Lackey's face, you just want to beat him" -Ray Fosse

by marco magic on Aug 17, 2008 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't buy this

Sure, Frank Thomas strained/slighty tore his quad. But he’s 40 years old. I don’t think you can blame him not being in shape (and if you did, I’d like to see you do it to his face while he’s holding his giant pipe). Who else was hurt with, as you so wrongly call it, a “completely avoidable” problem? I think Crosby had a hammy that kept him out for just a couple weeks. Who else? Swooney’s have all been of the fluke variety. Same for Buck and Barton (though perhaps Barton’s was the most “completely avoidable” of them all, since swimming is stupid anyway). Chavez has a shoulder that has been ravaged, but I’m not sure how much stretching and being in better shape would’ve helped.

I’m sure I’ve missed an injury or two that fits into your little category, but mostly I think you’re so far off base you may as well be Emil Brown on a line drive to an infielder.

by thejd44 on Aug 17, 2008 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I too am not quite sold on "stretching" or "conditioning"

or any specific area necessarily being THE issue, but I do think there’s been a pattern of injuries to young and in-shape players as well as to the older, “known-injury risk” players. Buck, R. Sweeney, Crosby, and Street have all had multiple injury issues – of various body parts and levels of avoidability, to be sure – and now I’m crossing my fingers on Devine and Carlos Gonzalez (who hurt his hamstring in spring training and again following his call-up).

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 Aug 17, 2008 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think pitchers are their own category

Injuries to pitchers are so common throughout baseball that you have to look at them separately from injuries to position players. Even if you never get hit by a line drive, or try to barehand a grounder, or collide with a runner making a play at first, pitching is terrible for your body.

The odd thing is that the A’s actually have had a pretty good track record with their pitchers’ health. It’s the position players who keep getting hurt.

"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s

by Nick on Aug 17, 2008 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The way the A's are pitching lately,

it’s terrible for my body.

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 Aug 17, 2008 8:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I take it you have never competed at a high level based on your bitter sarcastic response

or studied any even remote level of anatomy. Muscles are in and of themselves conditioned matter that build up residual fitness over a LIFETIME, not even just a a few months. I would have no problem telling Frank Thomas to his face with a lead pipe, “hey Frank do you think you may have relaxed your offseason routine a bit in the past few years for one reason or another (other injuries that would not allow him to keep muscles as finely tuned)?”

Now I did not write this to say the A’s would have only used the disabled list twice this year if guys were in shape, but over the past two seasons (which are the ones in question) we saw Milton Bradley go on the DL 3 separate times with a strained hamstring, Crosby once, Hurt once. This is the only issue I am debating. When I was playing semi-pro soccer these injuries were unacceptable, because the staff knew it meant you were not in shape coming into the season. Period.

I know it made you feel good to cite Chavez in your response, but that was so far off topic you might as well have run out that line drive Emil.

"Just looking at Lackey's face, you just want to beat him" -Ray Fosse

by marco magic on Aug 18, 2008 4:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm sorry, but your view of injuries is too simplistic

It’s easy to say that a muscle tear, which a pull is, albeit only a minor one, is due to improper conditioning. Now, please tell me what is proper conditioning, for say Frank Thomas. Unless you’re with the A’s training staff, or you’re Thomas’ personal trainer, you don’t work with him now. You don’t know what he does in training. You don’t know what he eats. You don’t know what recuperative measures, ie massage, sauna, if any, he takes.

So, how do you know that he is improperly conditioned?

To use an example, Terrence Trammell, 2 time Olympic silver medalist in the 110M hurdles, 2 time silver medalist in the World Championship, pulled his hamstring in the qualifying heats in the Beijing Olympics. Would you, and your semipro soccer team staff, say that he was somehow not in shape, and that it is unacceptable, period?

Sure, one can say that a tear happens because the muscle is asked to do something it can’t, ie is improperly conditioned for. The problem is that there are a whole host of factors involved with injuries.

Some biomechanical factors for injuries:
Force or stress component (force per unit area of tissue) on some part of the body is excessive, ie too large M(ass) or too large A(acceleration).
Torque about a pivot is excessive.
Momentum is too great to be adequately use / dissipated.
Work over a given time is excessive.
Power generated at a particular instant is too much.
Strain (change in length / length) in any tissue is too much.
Rate of Force development is excessive.
Frictional forces are too much, or too small.

and specifically:

Not enough warming up / stretching
Incorrect technique
Incorrect use of momentum
Too much R(ange) O(f) M(otion) about a particular joint
Not holding breath correctly
Inappropriate phases of muscle tension and relaxation
Acceleration or deceleration too great
Too much load on a particular part of the body
Trying to be macho and manly, and stupid training / competing through too much pain, a serious injury. See Dan Meyer, Oakland A, for such an example.
Not enough rest, recuperation, or poor dietary habits
Inability to visualise, predict, feedforward

If bad mechanics / technique, why?:

Athlete’s existing technique is poor.
Caused by residual pain / soreness, ie existing mechanics are disrupted by residual pain / soreness
Muscular imbalance / weakness
Limitation in range of movement (ROM), ie not flexible enough
Fatigue
Neural changes, ie a prior old injury that caused pain by have disrupted muscle recruitment pattern
Visual / balance change
Musculoskeletal changes, ie the guy got fat, or lost weight etc.
Emotional / personal issues

It’s easy in theory, to say that a muscle tear, happens due to poor “conditioning”. It’s much more complex to actually pinpoint the actual cause in reality.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Aug 18, 2008 8:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If Frank Thomas

is actually not in shape, I’m not saying that he isn’t, it’s the job of the A’s trainers, the manager, the GM, to tell him so, rebar or no rebar. And his age really isn’t a valid excuse. If he is too unfit to play, he should retire. He’s not an amateur athlete. He’s a pro being paid big money.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Aug 18, 2008 8:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

...by Toronto

:-)

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Aug 18, 2008 8:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

yesterday Cust blunder

He missed a hard hit ball for a double which cost the A’s the two runs. Even the announcer said a faster outfielder would have caught the ball. The A’s need to make a decision either Cust or Thomas at DH. Next year there will be Cunningham, carlos, sweeny and buck with patterson as the 5th so Cust is not needed.

by Arcman on Aug 17, 2008 4:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Apparently we need a high school English course here

Main Entry:
    blunder
Function:
    noun
Date:
    1693

: a gross error or mistake resulting usually from stupidity, ignorance, or carelessness

Being too slow (or not getting a great jump) to make a very difficult play is not a blunder. It’s what makes Cust passable, but not special, defensively. He’s not going to make all the superstar plays. He is, however, not botching the simple ones. He’s also making a few nice plays here and there. To call not making an amazing catch a blunder is pretty silly.

by thejd44 on Aug 17, 2008 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Can I try?

Let’s see…

“Patronizing”: Treating in a condescending manner; demeaning; denigrating

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 Aug 17, 2008 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

sorry

i don’t know if thejd was patronizing there. his actual point was harmless, and also correct.

by flipgatey3 on Aug 17, 2008 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, I definitely was

But I’m just really, really bad at trying to teach people things without being an asshole about it. It’s the reason I didn’t go into teaching. I just hope that I don’t undermine my arguments and that people can take the snide part of it with a grain of salt and still see the (from my perspective) valid argument at the core.

by thejd44 on Aug 17, 2008 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

i dunno man

i saw no problem with anything after the definition. nothing there was demeaning. it was all true.

by flipgatey3 on Aug 17, 2008 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm putting that first sentence in my potential-sigline file

There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Aug 18, 2008 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I tend to do that.

by thejd44 on Aug 17, 2008 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

LOL - I can't comment on the Cust play itself

as I missed the game because I was teaching. See how it all comes together? :-)

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 Aug 17, 2008 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well I missed the Cust play because ...

I can no longer bear to watch my beloved A’s.

by iceplant on Aug 18, 2008 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

are you serious?

you’re trying to tell me that cust is not as good as carlos gonzalez (okay, maybe), aaron cunningham (never been in the majors), ryan sweeney (sweeney, not sweeny, and he is hurt a lot and has no power), travis buck (he of the .160 average this season), and eric patterson? really? when cust has an ops of .825 and is the only one in the lineup who can hit a home run? oh, right, it’s because he strikes out too much. got it.

by flipgatey3 on Aug 17, 2008 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think his point is that Cust could produce the .825 OPS at DH

and three stronger fielders (e.g., Gonzalez, Sweeney, Cunningham) could patrol the OFers. Sadly, this isn’t actually true, at least in 2008, as Cust is hitting far worse when he DHs than when he plays the OF. Who knows whether that’s a quirk or a trend.

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 Aug 17, 2008 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

the frank thomas syndrome from the early 2000's

by flipgatey3 on Aug 17, 2008 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's been shown that players on average are a good bit worse at DH

so it’s real to that extent, but the extreme split this year is a quirk. It also means, depressingly, that our best hitter is not even a particularly valuable player…

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Aug 17, 2008 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't especially want Cust at DH anyway,

just because when you’re trying to add a “masher” it really helps if you don’t have to rule hitters out because they can only DH (or play positions you already have filled) – Frank Thomas, 2006, being a perfect example, as well as guys like Hafner and Ortiz, and potentially Chavez and/or Giambi.

No matter how much A’s fans get frustrated with Cust, the offense is so bad the A’s need a couple more good hitters AND Cust.

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 Aug 17, 2008 9:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's also perfectly legitimate

to rotate players to the DH, although most teams have a regular DH these days.

"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s

by Nick on Aug 18, 2008 8:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You can thank Preparation H for that

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 Aug 18, 2008 9:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There are blunders and then there's blunders.

Frank Thomas is a great hitter. Yesterday.

Jack Cust is a less-than-mediocre ballplayer . 25 HR do not offset his other deficiences. Not even close.

In each case, their departure would be addition by subtraction.

" ………. and the line played out,
When he made a blunder with his tail
And the boat capsized, we lost five of the crew
And we never caught that whale,
Brave boys,
We never caught that whale."

A nod to Herman Melville (who couldn’t run or field either) and The Limelighters.

by Smoky on Aug 17, 2008 8:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Hmm...If you look at some of the other players

who can/could hit 25 HRs but aren’t/weren’t much coveted, you’re talking about Richie Sexson, Dave Kingman, Ron Kittle, Rob Deer. Those guys don’t give you a .378 OBP – more like .300 to .320 (the exception is Sexson at .344 career, but he has sharply declined since the start of 2007).

Cust’s .378 OBP and .800+ OPS pretty much make him automatically an above-average offensive player no matter what.

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 Aug 17, 2008 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

In otherwords

Nico is trying to tell you to educate yourself about what gives hitters value as politely as possible.

You can say Cust isn’t great. You can say he’s ill-equipped to carry a team (although Pujols couldn’t carry this team). But you cannot say he is less-than-mediocre or the the A’s would be better off without him. He is our best hitter by a fairly wide margin (though only top-100 or top-75 in MLB by some meaningful measures such as RC or WS).

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Aug 17, 2008 8:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Above Average?

That term disturbs me. I will agree that under certain conditions - basically with a team that has other hitters on it - Jack Cust would be an extremely valuable player. Where a walk essentially leaves someone stranded at first base, Cust is a lot less valuable, and his homer totals don’t add up to much when you consider that he’s been used in the 3-4-5 slots most of the season, and just has a tad over 50 RBI at this point.

It’s a leap to go from “less than mediocre” or “the A’s would be better off without him” to “above average hitter” in general. And it’s a leap, because of Cust’s extreme skills, that is subject to question. As for whether he’s the A’s best hitter - well, I ’d argue that Frank Thomas is.

by richwol1 on Aug 17, 2008 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here we go again

1: You can’t penalize Cust for his teammates. What he produces is what he produces and, fortunately for us, it’s more than the majority of MLB hitters (although, concededly, not at the elite level)

2: His homer totals add up to as many as Vlad, Encarnation, and Longoria. They are within one of Matt Holliday, Jason Bay, David Wright, Kevin Youkilis, and Rick Ankiel. They are more than Troy Glaus, Luke Scott, Brian McCann, Milton Bradley, Xavier Nady, Chipper Jones, etc. Dude is a slugger and denying that only makes you look silly. Again, you can’t fault him for being in the 3-4-5 slots and having few RBIs, the former is because he’s this team’s best hitter and the latter is irrelevant to an analysis of his individual ability.

3: You’re right, it’s a leap. Smoky was completely wrong and reality is a leap away.

4: If Frank Thomas can stay healthy next year, there’s a very high probability that he’ll be better than Cust (he certainly was in 2006/2007). He isn’t this year (and has been far less valuable to the team) because of the injuries and their effect on his stats when he has played. OPS+ this season: Cust, 123 vs. Thomas 104 (118 w/Oakland).

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Aug 18, 2008 8:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here we go again

1. For Chrissake, it’s not his fault he’s a one-dimensional player. But on the A’s, that one dimension translates to a less-than-valuable player than someone like Kurt Suzuki. That doesn’t mean he’s a worse hitter/batter than Suzuki, just that on the A’s he’s currently not as valuable. With runners on base, I’d rather see Sweeney or Suzuki come to the plate.

2. Cust is batting .213 with RISP and has a slugging percentage of .266. That stinks, one again, particularly on a team that needs Cust to drive in runs. Yes, it’s not his “fault” he’s not that kind of the player. But again - on this team, he’s less valuable than he’d be on a team which actually drives in people who get on base via walks. Hell, I’ve said elsewhere that he’s probably the team’s best lead-off hitter because he walks so much.

3, Okay.

4. The difference in OPS+ is fairly irrelevant right now if we consider that Thomas got off to a very slow start for the first couple of weeks after the trade and isn’t quite on his game right now. \ I’d give this statistic another look in a week or two. Obviously, Cust is a better hitter when the other guy is on the DL. However - if you’re looking at RIGHT NOW, and someone coming to the plate, are you seriously arguing you’d rather see Cust?

by richwol1 on Aug 18, 2008 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You want Suzuki or Sweeney up with runners on base?

So who’s getting on base? That would be Cust, a heck of a lot more often than anyone else.

Your argument is really more that Cust should bat leadoff or #2, not that he is less than an average offensive player.

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 Aug 18, 2008 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Okay

I’m not arguing that Cust is less than an average player. I’m arguing that the phrase “Cust is an above average player” is being used as a dagger to throw at people who find his work at the plate fairly nauseating. Obviously, if you look at his OPS, those numbers are above average, in a statistical sense. But people use the phrase in both specific and non-specific senses, which is why I’m arguing against the phrase - not that the phrase is right, or wrong.

If you look at the aggregate of statistics on the A’s, Cust has the best hitting statistics. But at this point, big shit. The guy’s function in the line-up is to drive in runs, and he’s not doing that. It’s not his fault he’s being misused, but there you have it.

by richwol1 on Aug 18, 2008 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What you might be saying, and I might agree,

is that when it comes to driving in runs Cust is not above average. After all, he will only HR 25 times out of 600 plate appearances and in the other 575 is a distinct dearth of singles, doubles, triples, and contact, compared to most major league hitters.

So he is not an “RBI machine” – Emil Brown really does get hits a higher percentage of the time, and really does put the ball in play a higher percentage of the time, than does Cust.

Cust came up the other day with runners at second and third and two out, and I sarcastically thought, “Great.” Because he’s only going to get a hit 23% of the time, and a walk is about as helpful as picking up a hitchhiker and taking him halfway to where he needs to go.

So Cust is great at getting on base, very good at providing power (which is important), but not great at driving in runs.

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 Aug 18, 2008 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, that's true

Maybe he’s a #2 hitter in a great order. In ours, however, it doesn’t matter too much since it isn’t like we have much actual talent.

What’s crazy is the argument that Cust somehow has a net negative impact on the team.

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Aug 18, 2008 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess you don't see the contradiction...

Cust hits a home run a grand total of 4% of his plate appearances, give or take. Virtually the rest of his OPB is built on dink singles and walks. The aggregate says, in your terms, “above average player.” But then you throw in the strike-outs and the lousy RISP percentage, and suddenly you start seeing why people complain about the guy.

by richwol1 on Aug 18, 2008 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That was a slip to Nico

I agree with nevermoor’s above comment.

by richwol1 on Aug 18, 2008 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Most leadoff hitters have lower OBPs than Cust,

and most hit for less power. At the very least, he’d be an above-average leadoff hitter – and if you prefer speed and base-stealing ability from your leadoff hitter, drop Cust to “second leadoff hitter” at #2.

My point is that Cust is regarded as a slugger or RBI guy because of the HRs, yet as you point out, in 96% of his plate appearances he does not HR. So what about the rest? …

…You need table setters and table clearers and as the former, Cust is great. Stop regarding him as a “table clearer” and he becomes a very good offensive player – as a table setter. The HRs then become gravy – damn good gravy because 25 HRs is nice to have.

So instead of looking at Cust as a 25 HR guy who only hits .230, you can also look at him as a .378 OBP guy who also hits 25 HRs. Focus on the OBP first, put him in a spot where OBP is more important than batting average, contact, or RBI, and he’s excellent – and with above-average power as a bonus.

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 Aug 18, 2008 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes...

However - he’s being put in the #3-5 slot, with the expectation that he’ll drive in runs, and he’s being handed that role. And in that role, he’s not doing his job. I’m okay with blaming Geren on this one. I’ve found a lot of Geren’s in-game moves and pre-game moves to be perplexing.

by richwol1 on Aug 18, 2008 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My reply to that "criticism" of Cust would be

to ask, rhetorically, whether Placido Polanco would be an above-average offensive player if Jim Leyland decided to start batting him cleanup and he continued putting up a line of .306/.351/.417 with 7 HRs (his career averages). The answer is “yes”.

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 Aug 18, 2008 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe yoga is the answer.

I mean, look what it’s done for Travis Buck and Dan Johnson.

The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus

by The Dogfather on Aug 18, 2008 7:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

But if they get hurt and miss work, it shouldn't hurt to miss work.

Maybe Yogi is the answer.

Butterscotch

by Ice Cream on Aug 18, 2008 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I tried yoga, but it turns out

I’m lactose intolerant. :-(

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 Aug 18, 2008 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, and I tried Yogi

but it turns out I’m straight.

And let me just say again: Eeww.

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 Aug 18, 2008 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs