PDA

View Full Version : Cubs Trade Miles and Fox to A's


y2j2785
12-03-2009, 05:17 PM
Per Rotoworld:

According to ESPN Chicago, the Cubs have traded Jake Fox and Aaron Miles to the A's for "prospects."

http://www.rotoworld.com (http://www.rotoworld.com/)

Update: mlbtraderumors has more on this: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/12/cubs-trade-jake-fox-and-aaron-miles-to-oakland.html

JermaineDye05
12-03-2009, 05:23 PM
Per Rotoworld:



http://www.rotoworld.com (http://www.rotoworld.com/)

It was only a matter of time before Fox was traded to the AL, he can't play the field.

soxinem1
12-03-2009, 05:46 PM
It was only a matter of time before Fox was traded to the AL, he can't play the field.

I'd have taken him to DH, even though he is 28 and not fully established in MLB.

Jack Cust, you may be non-tendered.

JermaineDye05
12-03-2009, 05:50 PM
I'd have taken him to DH, even though he is 28 and not fully established in MLB.

Jack Cust, you may be non-tendered.

I hope so, and I hope he winds up in the NL (though this is slim) considering he destroys us.

Foulke You
12-03-2009, 06:04 PM
I'd have taken him to DH, even though he is 28 and not fully established in MLB.

Jack Cust, you may be non-tendered.
Jack Cust would make a solid DH for the Sox. High OBP, decent pop (despite playing at the Coliseum), and is only 29 years old. He does K quite a bit but he also gives you 100 walks.

sullythered
12-03-2009, 10:46 PM
Jack Cust would make a solid DH for the Sox. High OBP, decent pop (despite playing at the Coliseum), and is only 29 years old. He does K quite a bit but he also gives you 100 walks.
This sounds just about exactly like what people were telling me about Nick Swisher just after we accquired him.

The Immigrant
12-03-2009, 11:11 PM
This sounds just about exactly like what people were telling me about Nick Swisher just after we accquired him.

All I remember hearing about was swagger. Lots of swagger.

tm1119
12-03-2009, 11:15 PM
A Cust/Jones LH/RH DH platoon? Obviously not ideal, but could be pretty affective for what it would cost us. If the $ saved at DH could bring us a legit leadoff hitter than I would be fine with it.

oeo
12-04-2009, 12:14 AM
I'd have taken him to DH, even though he is 28 and not fully established in MLB.

I wouldn't. Not fully established is an understatement. The only thing he has going for him is the massive hype from Cubs fans and the Chicago media. What is the fascination with this guy? He had a couple good months at the age of 27, then fell off the face of the Earth. He looks more like a career pinch hitter than an everyday DH.

Jack Cust would make a solid DH for the Sox. High OBP, decent pop (despite playing at the Coliseum), and is only 29 years old. He does K quite a bit but he also gives you 100 walks.

No. Jack Cust is the epitome of homerun or nothing. Bring Thome back before you sign Cust.

TDog
12-04-2009, 02:11 AM
Jack Cust would make a solid DH for the Sox. High OBP, decent pop (despite playing at the Coliseum), and is only 29 years old. He does K quite a bit but he also gives you 100 walks.

Jack Cust isn't much of a hitter. For the third year in a row, he led the American League in strikeouts, which is no small feat. If you want to see how overrated at statistic on-base percentage can be, watch Cust play on a regular basis.

I would cringe if I ever were to see him don a White Sox uniform.

Craig Grebeck
12-04-2009, 04:06 AM
Jack Cust isn't much of a hitter. For the third year in a row, he led the American League in strikeouts, which is no small feat. If you want to see how overrated at statistic on-base percentage can be, watch Cust play on a regular basis.

I would cringe if I ever were to see him don a White Sox uniform.
Yeah! **** not making outs!

DumpJerry
12-04-2009, 07:22 AM
So far, all Cub fans I've spoken with hate this trade and want to run Hendry out of town for it (combined with previous crimes against Humanity). They all realize that Fox belongs in the AL because he bat, no glove, but to not get a MLB-ready bat in return is very :scratch: to them.

cws05champ
12-04-2009, 07:35 AM
So far, all Cub fans I've spoken with hate this trade and want to run Hendry out of town for it (combined with previous crimes against Humanity). They all realize that Fox belongs in the AL because he bat, no glove, but to not get a MLB-ready bat in return is very :scratch: to them.
Yeah, they wanted to trade Fox and a couple prospects for Halladay...:rolleyes:

Sargeant79
12-04-2009, 08:53 AM
This sounds just about exactly like what people were telling me about Nick Swisher just after we accquired him.

Except that people don't seem to have any delusions about Cust being able to play the field.

Not that I think Cust would be a good idea. As was said already, Thome coming back would be preferable to Cust.

tm1119
12-04-2009, 12:15 PM
Jack Cust isn't much of a hitter. For the third year in a row, he led the American League in strikeouts, which is no small feat. If you want to see how overrated at statistic on-base percentage can be, watch Cust play on a regular basis.

I would cringe if I ever were to see him don a White Sox uniform.

Actually you have it backwards. OBP is a very important stat, and K's are extremely overrated. Cust is a run producer. As long as he is kept away from the field and probably LHP's too he can be very effective. Im not saying that he would be my 1st choice, but if we can bring him on say a 2/5 deal then I would be all for it.

TDog
12-04-2009, 12:44 PM
Actually you have it backwards. OBP is a very important stat, and K's are extremely overrated. Cust is a run producer. As long as he is kept away from the field and probably LHP's too he can be very effective. Im not saying that he would be my 1st choice, but if we can bring him on say a 2/5 deal then I would be all for it.

This might sound true if you don't actually watch baseball. The fact is, Jack Cust makes a lot of outs, and he makes a lot of unproductive, even regressive outs. He isn't even very good at driving in runs (although I know stats people say that isn't very important). If you were watching Jack Cust do for the White Sox what he has done for the A's over the last few years, he would be hated with the fervor that Dewayne Wise is, although with more justification because he would more often be in a position to disappoint his team's faithful.

I passionately hope Cust is never brought to the White Sox on any sort of a deal for any sort of role beyond filling the soft drink dispensers in the Bard's Room at the Cell or laundering players' uniforms. If he is, White Sox fans will soon rue the day, and any satisfaction I derive from being the first on the bandwagon to drive him out of town will be empty consolation for me.

tm1119
12-04-2009, 01:10 PM
This might sound true if you don't actually watch baseball. The fact is, Jack Cust makes a lot of outs, and he makes a lot of unproductive, even regressive outs. He isn't even very good at driving in runs (although I know stats people say that isn't very important). If you were watching Jack Cust do for the White Sox what he has done for the A's over the last few years, he would be hated with the fervor that Dewayne Wise is, although with more justification because he would more often be in a position to disappoint his team's faithful.

I passionately hope Cust is never brought to the White Sox on any sort of a deal for any sort of role beyond filling the soft drink dispensers in the Bard's Room at the Cell or laundering players' uniforms. If he is, White Sox fans will soon rue the day, and any satisfaction I derive from being the first on the bandwagon to drive him out of town will be empty consolation for me.

That didnt even make sense. Sounds like you just have a weird hatred towards Cust. Please explain to me how K's are any worse than any other out.
Cust is almost a mirror image of what Thome has been for the past 6 years. He may hit for a low average and K a lot, but he drives in runs and gets on base at a .370+ rate. All Im saying is that if we could get Cust for less than Thome then why not? Hes also younger and less injury prone at this time.

1989
12-04-2009, 01:14 PM
Great trade for the Cubs. Getting rid of Miles is the definition of "addition by subtraction"

oeo
12-04-2009, 01:22 PM
So far, all Cub fans I've spoken with hate this trade and want to run Hendry out of town for it (combined with previous crimes against Humanity). They all realize that Fox belongs in the AL because he bat, no glove, but to not get a MLB-ready bat in return is very :scratch: to them.

Tell them they have to give up real big league talent in order to do that.

TDog
12-04-2009, 01:39 PM
That didnt even make sense. Sounds like you just have a weird hatred towards Cust. Please explain to me how K's are any worse than any other out.
Cust is almost a mirror image of what Thome has been for the past 6 years. He may hit for a low average and K a lot, but he drives in runs and gets on base at a .370+ rate. All Im saying is that if we could get Cust for less than Thome then why not? Hes also younger and less injury prone at this time.

Cust only resembles Thome if you employ some sort of funhouse mirror. You could get Cust for less than Thome, and that would be a great idea, if you have no interest in winning.

Cust doesn't drive in a lot of runs relative to the opportunities he has had to drive in runs, in part because he strikes out so much. Last season, I saw him strike out with a runner on third and less than two outs at least 10 times. He came to the plate more than 600 times last year, and he only drove in 70 runs -- just 45 from the bases. I'm sure he came up with close to 180 runners in scoring position during the season.

The fact is, he hits for a low average, he strikes out more than anyone in the league (I'm sure most Sox fans are looking for an offensive league leader in strikeouts), and he doesn't drive in a lot of runs.

I didn't want to see Nick Swisher anywhere near the White Sox and I don't want to see Jack Cust anywhere near the White Sox.

tm1119
12-04-2009, 03:09 PM
Cust only resembles Thome if you employ some sort of funhouse mirror. You could get Cust for less than Thome, and that would be a great idea, if you have no interest in winning.

Cust doesn't drive in a lot of runs relative to the opportunities he has had to drive in runs, in part because he strikes out so much. Last season, I saw him strike out with a runner on third and less than two outs at least 10 times. He came to the plate more than 600 times last year, and he only drove in 70 runs -- just 45 from the bases. I'm sure he came up with close to 180 runners in scoring position during the season.

The fact is, he hits for a low average, he strikes out more than anyone in the league (I'm sure most Sox fans are looking for an offensive league leader in strikeouts), and he doesn't drive in a lot of runs.

I didn't want to see Nick Swisher anywhere near the White Sox and I don't want to see Jack Cust anywhere near the White Sox.

Cust the past 3 years:
07'- .256/.408/.504/.912
08'- .231/.375/.476/.851
09'- .240/.356/.417/.773 (a down year)
Thome the past 3 years:
07'- .275/.410/.563/.973
08'- .245/.362/.503/.865
09'- .249/.366/.481/.847

Hmmmm.... Looks pretty damn close to me. And then when you factor in that Cust played in a much worse lineup and a much worse hitters park, and also that Thome is closing in on 40 and declining rapidly the 2 are actually pretty close.

TheVulture
12-04-2009, 03:15 PM
Please explain to me how K's are any worse than any other out.


Easy. A sacrifice fly is an out that results in a runner advancing to home to score.

Nellie_Fox
12-04-2009, 03:28 PM
Please explain to me how K's are any worse than any other out. I've pointed out before that this is what is called a "false dichotomy." It assumes that the out is going to be made anyway. The true choice is between striking out and not striking out. If you don't strike out, that means you've either walked (better than a K) or put the ball in play. A ball in play can be an out, a hit, a sacrifice, an error.

To put it simply, if you reduce your Ks from 200 to 100, some of those 100 plate appearances will result in a positive outcome. The strikeouts are never a positive outcome. Strikeouts bad.

oeo
12-04-2009, 03:34 PM
Cust the past 3 years:
07'- .256/.408/.504/.912
08'- .231/.375/.476/.851
09'- .240/.356/.417/.773 (a down year)
Thome the past 3 years:
07'- .275/.410/.563/.973
08'- .245/.362/.503/.865
09'- .249/.366/.481/.847

Hmmmm.... Looks pretty damn close to me. And then when you factor in that Cust played in a much worse lineup and a much worse hitters park, and also that Thome is closing in on 40 and declining rapidly the 2 are actually pretty close.

You should have just used 2008 since that's the only year that was close. And even then, Thome hit 9 more doubles, drove in 13 more runs, struck out FIFTY times less.

It appears Cust is declining, as well. From what, I don't know...one pretty good year in which he didn't even reach 400 AB's? He was worse than Thome two years ago and he's worse than him now.

Pablo_Honey
12-04-2009, 03:43 PM
Cust the past 3 years:
07'- .256/.408/.504/.912
08'- .231/.375/.476/.851
09'- .240/.356/.417/.773 (a down year)
Thome the past 3 years:
07'- .275/.410/.563/.973
08'- .245/.362/.503/.865
09'- .249/.366/.481/.847

Hmmmm.... Looks pretty damn close to me. And then when you factor in that Cust played in a much worse lineup and a much worse hitters park, and also that Thome is closing in on 40 and declining rapidly the 2 are actually pretty close.

Right, both guys are 3-outcome hitters - homer, walk or strikeout. That's where the similarities end. First, Thome's put up good numbers at a steady decline DESPITE being past his prime. Now take a look at Cust's numbers. He has nothing going for him right now. He's getting on base less, hitting for less power all the while maintaining a low batting average. Seriously, a guy whose OPS has roughly dropped a FULL point every year is not what we need.

Also, I wouldn't say high strikeout totals are bad by themselves, but they do often indicate that the batter has terrible contact rate and/or tendency to swing for the fences all the time. The only guys that can get away with such high strikeouts are beasts like Fielder, Howard and Reynolds, and that's only because they hit enough homeruns and keep good enough batting average to justify their strikeouts. Unless Cust can play at half of those guys' levels, no thanks. Do we seriously need more homer-or-nothing hitters?

DumpJerry
12-04-2009, 03:58 PM
Strikeouts bad.
:Floyd::Danks::burly
Some of us disagree with that statement.:smile:

tm1119
12-04-2009, 04:07 PM
I've pointed out before that this is what is called a "false dichotomy." It assumes that the out is going to be made anyway. The true choice is between striking out and not striking out. If you don't strike out, that means you've either walked (better than a K) or put the ball in play. A ball in play can be an out, a hit, a sacrifice, an error.

To put it simply, if you reduce your Ks from 200 to 100, some of those 100 plate appearances will result in a positive outcome. The strikeouts are never a positive outcome. Strikeouts bad.

Despite all of the strikeouts he is still productive is my point. Strikeouts will never stop a player from being productive. Would you like a player to put the ball in play instead of K? Absolutely. But players like Adam Dunn, Howard, Fielder, Mark Reynolds, Pat Burrell, and others prove that high K numbers aren't enough to stop a productive season.

Cust's walk rates are always in the top 5 of the AL, and even his situational hitting isnt bad. He grounds into far less DP's than most hitters of his type(only 7 all of last season). His success rate of making productive outs was 29% when the leage average is 32%. Which proves that K's dont completely kill that stat.

Look I merely suggested that Cust wouldnt be a bad option to be our DH against only RHP's. This argument just got way out of hand by the guy who is making Cust out to be the worst player ever or something.

DSpivack
12-04-2009, 04:08 PM
:Floyd::Danks::burly
Some of us disagree with that statement.:smile:

Buehrle doesn't. :tongue:

TDog
12-04-2009, 04:32 PM
Cust the past 3 years:
07'- .256/.408/.504/.912
08'- .231/.375/.476/.851
09'- .240/.356/.417/.773 (a down year)
Thome the past 3 years:
07'- .275/.410/.563/.973
08'- .245/.362/.503/.865
09'- .249/.366/.481/.847

Hmmmm.... Looks pretty damn close to me. And then when you factor in that Cust played in a much worse lineup and a much worse hitters park, and also that Thome is closing in on 40 and declining rapidly the 2 are actually pretty close.

You obviously don't see Jack Cust play a lot of baseball. He should never, every play for the White Sox in any capacity.

If Cust looks like Thome, this is an argument against using statistics to measure talent.

eriqjaffe
12-04-2009, 04:42 PM
If Cust looks like Thome, this is an argument against using statistics to measure talent.Even the raw numbers don't hold any weight. Cust in his prime doesn't put up numbers as good as a clearly-in-decline Thome.

Cust has one of the ugliest swings I've ever seen. Any more of an uppercut, and he'd have better luck hitting balls dropped from the press box.

Foulke You
12-04-2009, 05:48 PM
Despite all of the strikeouts he is still productive is my point. Strikeouts will never stop a player from being productive. Would you like a player to put the ball in play instead of K? Absolutely. But players like Adam Dunn, Howard, Fielder, Mark Reynolds, Pat Burrell, and others prove that high K numbers aren't enough to stop a productive season.

Cust's walk rates are always in the top 5 of the AL, and even his situational hitting isnt bad. He grounds into far less DP's than most hitters of his type(only 7 all of last season). His success rate of making productive outs was 29% when the leage average is 32%. Which proves that K's dont completely kill that stat.

Look I merely suggested that Cust wouldnt be a bad option to be our DH against only RHP's. This argument just got way out of hand by the guy who is making Cust out to be the worst player ever or something.
I happen to think you raise an interesting argument for Cust and I share a lot of your opinions on him. The number comparisons the last few years are not exact but very close to what the aging Thome has put up in the last few years. The durability issue also comes into play as Cust would likely need fewer trips to the DL. Cust isn't the ideal solution but you could do far worse than adding a DH who walks 100+ times a year, hits 30HRs, and drives in 80RBI. Strikeouts tend to come with the territory for HR hitters and I will aknowledge that he does K quite a bit.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Cust was also on a bad Oakland team the last couple years. We would also have Andruw Jones to possibly platoon with him similar to what the M's did with Griffey and Mike Sweeney last year. He could also get a slight bump playing in the AL Central, a smaller ballpark, and being sandwiched between a Paul Konerko and Alex Rios in the lineup. Sure, I'd much rather have a stud like Adrian Gonzalez which would allow Paulie to DH but I wouldn't be as opposed to a move for Cust as others are. It wouldn't be an Earth shattering move by any means but the way some are reacting, you would have thought I suggested we sign Augie Ojeda or Nick Punto to DH. :rolleyes:

Tragg
12-04-2009, 08:47 PM
Cust the past 3 years:
07'- .256/.408/.504/.912
08'- .231/.375/.476/.851
09'- .240/.356/.417/.773 (a down year)
Thome the past 3 years:
07'- .275/.410/.563/.973
08'- .245/.362/.503/.865
09'- .249/.366/.481/.847

Hmmmm.... Looks pretty damn close to me. And then when you factor in that Cust played in a much worse lineup and a much worse hitters park, and also that Thome is closing in on 40 and declining rapidly the 2 are actually pretty close.
They don't look that close to me. And for the DH, you're looking for power, and the slugging is the 'least close".

Daver
12-04-2009, 09:01 PM
That didnt even make sense. Sounds like you just have a weird hatred towards Cust. Please explain to me how K's are any worse than any other out.


You're kidding right?

chunk
12-04-2009, 09:02 PM
I've pointed out before that this is what is called a "false dichotomy." It assumes that the out is going to be made anyway. The true choice is between striking out and not striking out. If you don't strike out, that means you've either walked (better than a K) or put the ball in play. A ball in play can be an out, a hit, a sacrifice, an error.

To put it simply, if you reduce your Ks from 200 to 100, some of those 100 plate appearances will result in a positive outcome. The strikeouts are never a positive outcome. Strikeouts bad.

But at the same time, you increase chances for a negative outcome as well, such as a GIDP. A K is no worse than any non-sacrifice out, but is better than a GIDP.

tm1119
12-04-2009, 09:25 PM
But at the same time, you increase chances for a negative outcome as well, such as a GIDP. A K is no worse than any non-sacrifice out, but is better than a GIDP.

Exactly. With the exception of the small number of AB's with a sacrifice opportunity there is no proof that a K is any worse than anything else. Obviously there are at bats where a player doesnt want to K, but there is no correlation what so ever to high K numbers leading to any kind of diminished production for a player. Average with runners in scoring position is the stat you would want to look at to judge a players true effectiveness. See Ryan Howard: K's 200 x's a season but still drives in the most runs because he is a great situational hitter. If you dont think someone like Adam Dunn and his 150+ K's would help this team greatly then you are out of your mind.

Nellie_Fox
12-05-2009, 01:36 AM
But at the same time, you increase chances for a negative outcome as well, such as a GIDP. A K is no worse than any non-sacrifice out, but is better than a GIDP.A GIDP is the ONLY negative you can come up with for putting the ball in play. Yes, it is better to strike out than to GIDP, but those will be few compared to the positive outcomes of not striking out. I was only arguing with those who say that strikeouts don't matter because they are no worse than any other out, and I was pointing out that that is not the only possible outcome of not striking out. Can you still hit for power while not striking out a bunch? Oh, hell yeah. Look at Pujols. It used to be fairly common; even power hitters used to be embarrassed to strike out a lot.

chunk
12-05-2009, 02:03 AM
A GIDP is the ONLY negative you can come up with for putting the ball in play. Yes, it is better to strike out than to GIDP, but those will be few compared to the positive outcomes of not striking out. I was only arguing with those who say that strikeouts don't matter because they are no worse than any other out, and I was pointing out that that is not the only possible outcome of not striking out. Can you still hit for power while not striking out a bunch? Oh, hell yeah. Look at Pujols. It used to be fairly common; even power hitters used to be embarrassed to strike out a lot.

All I'm saying is that Ks are a dramatically overrated stat on both sides of the plate.

The most empirically predictive stat of runs is OPS, followed by OBP. That's what the team needs to be building for. OBP is generally regarded to be the more important component of OPS. IIRC 1 point of OBP is worth 5 SLG.

It's a distortion of the stats since OBP and AVG are posteriori statistics, but if you pretended that they are probability and a priori, which they can sort of be, a Frankenstein of OBP, AVG, swing rate and the like can be created to show that a 3-true outcome player is the least likely to hit into GIDP. Cust is probably not the solution, but he wouldn't be a terrible DH.

TBH, I expect the Sox to sign one of Pods/Crisp and then some crap at DH like Aubrey Huff.

TDog
12-05-2009, 02:18 AM
Exactly. With the exception of the small number of AB's with a sacrifice opportunity there is no proof that a K is any worse than anything else. Obviously there are at bats where a player doesnt want to K, but there is no correlation what so ever to high K numbers leading to any kind of diminished production for a player. Average with runners in scoring position is the stat you would want to look at to judge a players true effectiveness. See Ryan Howard: K's 200 x's a season but still drives in the most runs because he is a great situational hitter. If you dont think someone like Adam Dunn and his 150+ K's would help this team greatly then you are out of your mind.

You're kidding, right?

Setting aside any personal attack implied by your questioning my sanity by doubting that Adam Dunn would help the White Sox (which isn't the topic), setting aside that Jack Cust is not Adam Dunn, and setting aside that I'm pretty sure Cust hit less than .240 with runners in scoring position and he is a poor situational hitter, your strikeouts-aren't-so-bad argument is ad hoc. After the fact you can lament that a hitter who struck out at least didn't hit into a doubleplay. This assumes that if he hit the ball, he was going to make at least one out.

In practice, if you have a hitter who you know is going to strike out up to one out ever three times he steps up to the plate because he has led the league in strikeouts in each of the last three years, you have a hitter who has less of a chance of being productive. Cust probably had about 600 plate appearances and struck out more than 180 times. With those numbers, close to one-third of the time he comes up to hit, he isn't even giving himself a chance to get a hit or advance runners, the need to advance runners not being a rare situation at all. Cust probably struck out close to a dozen times last year with a runner on third and less than two out when pulling a ground ball or hitting a fly would have scored the run.

Also from a practical standpoint, if you have a hitter who strikes out a lot, you don't have the luxury of starting the runners on the 3-2 pitch with less than two outs because you don't want to run into a doubleplay, increasing the percentages of a high-strikeout hitter hitting into a doubleplay if he hits a ground ball.

You are probably right that Cust didn't hit into as many doubleplays as Paul Konerko because Cust struck out almost 100 times more than Konerko. Cust isn't a very good hitter. He is one of the reasons the A's aren't very good.

chunk
12-05-2009, 02:46 AM
You're kidding, right?

Setting aside any personal attack implied by your questioning my sanity by doubting that Adam Dunn would help the White Sox (which isn't the topic), setting aside that Jack Cust is not Adam Dunn, and setting aside that I'm pretty sure Cust hit less than .240 with runners in scoring position and he is a poor situational hitter, your strikeouts-aren't-so-bad argument is ad hoc. After the fact you can lament that a hitter who struck out at least didn't hit into a doubleplay. This assumes that if he hit the ball, he was going to make at least one out.

In practice, if you have a hitter who you know is going to strike out up to one out ever three times he steps up to the plate because he has led the league in strikeouts in each of the last three years, you have a hitter who has less of a chance of being productive. Cust probably had about 600 plate appearances and struck out more than 180 times. With those numbers, close to one-third of the time he comes up to hit, he isn't even giving himself a chance to get a hit or advance runners, the need to advance runners not being a rare situation at all. Cust probably struck out close to a dozen times last year with a runner on third and less than two out when pulling a ground ball or hitting a fly would have scored the run.

Also from a practical standpoint, if you have a hitter who strikes out a lot, you don't have the luxury of starting the runners on the 3-2 pitch with less than two outs because you don't want to run into a doubleplay, increasing the percentages of a high-strikeout hitter hitting into a doubleplay if he hits a ground ball.

You are probably right that Cust didn't hit into as many doubleplays as Paul Konerko because Cust struck out almost 100 times more than Konerko. Cust isn't a very good hitter. He is one of the reasons the A's aren't very good.


Eeeeh, you're getting too close to using posteriori stats as a priori. Just because a hitter historically strikes out 1 out of 3 at bats doesn't mean he has a 1 out of 3 chance to strike out in the present at bat. That's not how this works.

Even the best hitters have a 60-65% chance of making an out in any given at bat.

Besides, look at the all-time strikeout leaders and tell me they suck. http://www.baseball-almanac.com/hitting/histrk1.shtml

Frater Perdurabo
12-05-2009, 07:37 AM
Besides, look at the all-time strikeout leaders and tell me they suck. http://www.baseball-almanac.com/hitting/histrk1.shtml

Are you trying to argue that because Jackson, Thome, Griffey, A-Rod, Mantle, et. al. struck out a lot, strikeouts aren't that bad, and therefore Jack Cust isn't that bad?

Those HOF-caliber players are among the all-time leaders in strikeouts beacuse they were exceptional power hitters who had very long careers, played almost every day, hit toward the top of lineups, and therefore accummulated a heck of a lot more ABs than Jack Cust, AKA "Poor Man's Rob Deer" ever will!

tm1119
12-05-2009, 05:54 PM
Are you trying to argue that because Jackson, Thome, Griffey, A-Rod, Mantle, et. al. struck out a lot, strikeouts aren't that bad, and therefore Jack Cust isn't that bad?

Those HOF-caliber players are among the all-time leaders in strikeouts beacuse they were exceptional power hitters who had very long careers, played almost every day, hit toward the top of lineups, and therefore accummulated a heck of a lot more ABs than Jack Cust, AKA "Poor Man's Rob Deer" ever will!

See no one is claiming that Cust is a great player though. All I said was that he wouldnt make a bad DH against RHP's only given his career .244/.382/.484 line against RHP's. Its just after certain people came in and made this claim that Cust is an awful player and doesnt even deserve to be anywhere near the Sox.
And yes, those players do prove that a hitter can be very successful with high K rates. Again though, not comparing Cust to be anywhere near that level of player.

TDog
12-05-2009, 08:13 PM
See no one is claiming that Cust is a great player though. All I said was that he wouldnt make a bad DH against RHP's only given his career .244/.382/.484 line against RHP's. Its just after certain people came in and made this claim that Cust is an awful player and doesnt even deserve to be anywhere near the Sox.
And yes, those players do prove that a hitter can be very successful with high K rates. Again though, not comparing Cust to be anywhere near that level of player.

Yet, most players, an overwhelming majority of players who strike out in nearly one-third of their plate appearances, as Jack Cust did last year (the prior year his strikeout rate was higher), are unsuccessful hitters.

Your original point, that Jack Cust wouldn't make a bad designated hitter against right-handed hitters, is what I take issue with. Your interpretation of statistics notwithstanding, Jack Cust IS an awful player and doesn't deserve to be anywhere near the White Sox (unless you are alleging that Greg Walker will fix his swing and change his approach to hitting). As little as I have thought of Nick Swisher's baseball skills long before he was traded to the White Sox, I would place Jack Cust on the list of players who Nick Swisher is better than.

tm1119
12-05-2009, 08:41 PM
Yet, most players, an overwhelming majority of players who strike out in nearly one-third of their plate appearances, as Jack Cust did last year (the prior year his strikeout rate was higher), are unsuccessful hitters.

Your original point, that Jack Cust wouldn't make a bad designated hitter against right-handed hitters, is what I take issue with. Your interpretation of statistics notwithstanding, Jack Cust IS an awful player and doesn't deserve to be anywhere near the White Sox (unless you are alleging that Greg Walker will fix his swing and change his approach to hitting). As little as I have thought of Nick Swisher's baseball skills long before he was traded to the White Sox, I would place Jack Cust on the list of players who Nick Swisher is better than.

Ok if you say so man. Im just going to stop taking you serious if you say stuff like this You clearly have some sort of bias against A's player or something. Nick Swisher is not a bad baseball player and neither is Jack Cust.

TDog
12-06-2009, 01:51 AM
Ok if you say so man. Im just going to stop taking you serious if you say stuff like this You clearly have some sort of bias against A's player or something. Nick Swisher is not a bad baseball player and neither is Jack Cust.

I don't have a bias against all A's players, just the ones who aren't very good at baseball.