Perhaps. Or, perhaps not.

WIth 2 strikes, Cust in 2008 has an OPS of 552. League average is 547. Basically average. Granted, park effects need to be considered. But, consider that league average includes every hitter.

Or let’s look at tOPS+ of Cust and MLB in 2 strikes situations. Cust’s tOPS+ in 2 strikes situations is 36. Which means that in 2 strikes situations, Cust’s park adjusted OPS is 36 percent of his overall OPS. MLB average tOPS+ in 2 strikes situations is 48.

What of 2007? In 2007, Cust’s OPS in 2 strikes situations was 589, tOPS+ of 31. MLB average 556 and 48.

Cust is acceptable in 2 strike situations, but he does seem to struggle more, relative to his overall level, compared to other hitters.

Let’s compare the A’s, a team known for a patient approach, with the Twins, a team known as a hacktastic team, and how each team does in 2 strikes situations.

In 2008, the A’s tOPS+ with 2 strikes is 39. That means with 2 strikes the A’s OPS is 39 percent of their overall OPS.

Admittedly, I feel the same way on occasion. However, to be fair to Cust, he knows what pitches he can handle and the ones he can’t. It doesn’t suit our purposes for him to roll over on a pitch he knows he can’t do anything with and ground into a dp.

Wishing that Cust would strike out less and put the ball in play more, is like wishing that Ichiro would hit more homeruns, walk more.

Sure, it MIGHT be possible; it is also possible that doing so would detract from the good parts of his approach.

Cust bats in the 3, 4 or 5 spots nearly all the time. A player hitting in those spots is there to drive in runs, not walk all of the time. It is no coincidence that Cust spent so much time in the minor leagues. That is exactly where he would be with just about any other organization except the A’s. Fortunately for him, there are no real legitimate, middle of the lineup, run producing hitters to take his place. You can look at all the stats that you want…here is the only one I want to know – what is the A’s record over the past two seasons with Cust hitting in the 3, 4 or 5 spot in the lineup. His job is to drive in/produce runs, not walk with a runner on second and two outs!

I think one can argue that a player’s first full year often sets the bar for how they’ll be perceived, particularly if power is involved, and Gross had some good power his first year. To compare (and here I’ll use the projection by ESPN) since both Hannahan & Cust are in their first full years.

Wayne Gross, 485 AB, 22 HR, 63 RBI, .233 AVG , .352 OBP .416 SLG .768 OPS

Jack Hannahan 467 AB 9 HR 49 RBI .225 AVG .309 OBP .347 SLG .656 OPS

Now let’s look at Jack Cust in this, his first full year, projected out:

Jack Cust 483 AB 28 HR 70 RBI .232 BA .378 .OBP 437 SLG .814 OPS

Cust is clearly a better hitter than Gross, Hannahan clearly a lot worse. I think, though, that the comparison with Cust is a better one because Gross was a decent third baseman and Cust is mostly a DH who can play some outfield. Gross was considered more or less marginal at the time - as I think Cust might have been had statistical evaluation remained as primitive as it was back in 1977.

If we look at Wayne Gross’s ability to play third base, and his first full year stats, it’s pretty obvious that if current evaluations were used in 1977, Gross would be considered an average player because of the combination of his power, his OPS and his ability to play third base, rather than well below average, which he was considered back in 1977.

but that’s not a very good argument. It would have a radical short-term effect on the game, but that effect would be somewhat unpredictable, and players would adjust (I believe) within a couple of seasons.

The cost of continuing with the status quo is less than the cost of switching in the short term but much greater in the long term. It’s like the QWERTY keyboard.

at least if his absence is caused by law school, I can rest content knowing that he is suffering mightily.