When I was a freshman in high school, my teams’ first baseball game saw me in centerfield and hitting ninth. I hit ninth because I was a bad hitter and I had missed a few practices. The first game I went 0-2…with two Ks…on a total of 6 pitches. I struck out because one reason: I wasn’t very good at hitting a baseball.
I think it is this logic of the strikeout that carries over with us from youth sports to professional sports. Case in point: Jack Cust. Mr. Cust is a walking machine, a power machine, and a strikeout machine. Though his power has been missing so far this year, he has still walked and struck out a ton. He’s only batting .155, but has an OBP of .380, meaning he has an unheard of difference of 225 points in his AVG and OBP. This is due to the fact that he’s second in the league with 20 walks.
He’s also struck out 24 times in 58 at bats.
This high strikeout rate has a large portion of A’s Nation howling that he is not being productive. They say he’s not clutch. They say he was a one-year wonder. They say he strikes-out because he’s not a good hitter, and his strikeouts are detrimental to the team. They say the A’s need to CUT HIM NOW!
Well, see, there’s a difference between Jack Cust and me my freshman year in high school: Jack Cust strikes out because he works deep into the count, and I struck out because I could not hit a baseball.
People don’t realize this though. Many baseball fans played organized baseball while young in little league or on their school’s team. In youth baseball striking out is the most embarrassing thing possible. It means you’re weak; it means you’re not good at hitting. Because the strike out is stored in our memory bank as the worst outcome, we then think that professional players that strike out a lot are bad players.
The bottom line is that a strikeout is an out. One out. Just like a pop fly is one out, and just like a groundout is an out. Sometimes a strike out is better than a groundout, like when grounding into a double play is a possibility.
And the fact remains true, despite his strikeouts, and slump so far in this short season, Jack Cust is an absolutely amazing hitter. Through an amazing track record, Cust has proven that he can hit like few others in the game can, as several stats indicate.
OPS+ is a stat that measures a player’s OPS (on-base percentage + slugging percentage) in relation to their ballpark. In 2007, Jack Cust put up an OPS+ of 147. For comparison, Alex Rodriguez’s career OPS+ is…147. Ryan Howard’s career OPS+ is 146. Todd Helton’s is 143, as is Gary Sheffield’s. All in all, Cust’s 2007 year was so good, that his OPS+ was better than the career OPS+ of the likes of Ken Griffey, Jr., Miguel Cabrera, David Ortiz, and Chipper Jones.
To get a different feel for Cust’s 2007 season, we can look at RC27 (Runs Created per 27 Outs). This stat attempts to quantify how many runs a team would score in a game if the lineup consisted entirely 1 player batting in all 9 places in the order. What’s important to note about RC27 is that it accounts for strikeouts, and punishes players for striking out. Still, Cust was 9th in the AL in RC27, weighing in at 7.49 runs per 27 outs. This number is higher than such big names as NL MVP Jimmy Rollins, Derrek Lee, Grady Sizemore, Ichiro, Placido Polanco, Alfonso Soriano, Manny Ramirez, Garry Sheffield, and Derek Jeter.
To get another view of Cust’s remarkable season, we can look at UVI, which is an all-encompassing stat, which also punishes players for strikeouts. The average UVI is around .470. Jack Cust put up a park-adjusted UVI of .576 last year. This is higher than many big name players, including Ichiro (.489), Matt Holliday (.573), Jimmy Rollins (.572), Manny Ramirez (.490), Derek Jeter (.470), and in the same neighborhood as Ryan Howard (.584).
Many A’s fans try to argue that Cust’s 2007 was all smoke and mirrors; it was just a lucky year. Well, if it was a “lucky” year, then how do you explain Cust’s amazing minor league career?
In over 1,000 minor league games, Jack Cust has put up a UVI of .576, identical to his major league UVI. Also he put up a career line of .286/.429/.518 (Average/On-base% / Slugging%), with 200 home runs. In other words, he was a very, very successful minor leaguer.
What’s also interesting to note, is that he struck out 1233 times in 1114 minor league games. So he struck out a lot then, and was a great hitter, and he strikes out a lot now, and he’s still a great hitter.
Another argument that Cust-bashers make is that he is horrible on defense. They say that he runs horrible routes and cannot cover the ground in the outfield. Well, the stat FRAA measures how many runs a player “saves” or “costs” his team over the course of a year. In 2007, Jack Cust had an FRAA of -5, meaning he cost the A’s 5 runs over 162 games. Yes he was below average, but barely, and the 5 runs he cost the A’s over the course of the year were insignificant, given his big bat. To compare his FRAA to another outfielder, Grady Sizemore had an FRAA last year of -6; Sizemore’s defense hurt the Indians more than Cust’s defense hurt the A’s. Of course Sizemore played more games at a harder position, but my point is that some superstars also hurt their teams on defense.
Also, it’s interesting to note that Cust’s 2008 FRAA is 0, meaning if Cust continues to play the field at the same rate, he will cost the A’s zero runs throughout the season with his defense. Is Cust great on defense? No, but he’s just slightly below average on defense.
Concluding thoughts
Jack Cust is an amazing hitter. He strikes out a lot, but he walks a lot too. His strikeout numbers are high because he sees a lot of pitchers (4.4 pitchers/ plate appearance), not because he is bad at hitting. Offensively, Cust’s 2007 numbers stack up with some of the best in the game. Cust’s defense is underrated. So why do so many A’s fans want him cut from the team? Strikeouts? Well, Ryan Howard strikes out a ton, and not many people in Philly Land are calling for Howard to be cut from the team. Do people dislike Cust because he’s in a horrible slump? Well, Frank Thomas is in a worse slump, and A’s fans were ecstatic when he came back to Oakland. Also, even in a horrible slump, Cust is putting up an OBP of .380, something that not many slumping sluggers can do…He’ll soon snap out of the slump, and hopefully get the recognition he deserves. After all, Cust has only been to the plate 78 times, a very small number compared to the amount of times he’ll come to the plate over a whole season.
comments (5) write a comment »
write a new comment
5 months ago
Cust!
5 months ago
Everything here is pretty much true. Don't hate on Cust because of one bad month--he'll be fine.
5 months ago
I suppose you could make the case for underrated, but you would have a much easier time convincing me he's overrated. I've heard the stories of Cust and his pre-major league days and how he used to mash the ball into another area code, plus various other tales that seemed Ruth-esque. Every column written about Cust gushes about his ability and ridiculous power.
Fine. All of that is entertaining and might contain some truth, but when he's only put together one good season it's premature to play the underrated game. If he quietly puts together a couple 2007 seasons (in which he posted .256/.408/.504), then we can call him underrated and under-appreciated and worthy of every A's fans approval. You're right, Ryan Howard strikes out a ton, more than Cust in fact...but his 40+ HR power and 130-140 RBIs tends to overshadow those K's. So, I guess I don't see the value of that argument.
from 5 months ago
I could see how people think Cust might be overrated because of the publicity he got in the SI article. (or I think it was an SI article). But as of right now, I feel he's underrated. Most A's fans have forgotten the monster from last year and just see him as a strike out machine...It's not that A's fans don't like him, they want him cut from the team right this instant.
One thing you have to consider with Howard is that 1) he plays on the East Coast so he gets more coverage 2) he plays with an amazing collection of talent around him 3) he plays in a stadium the size of a shoe box (which is why adjusted stats like OPS+ have Cust's 2007 season around the level of Howard's OPS+).
I hear your argument on him being a one year wonder, but I just think the fact that he's getting on base so much, coupled with his track record, proves that he is a great player that is in a slump.
from 5 months ago
Hey, to respond to the Howard thing, he's going to get more RBI because he has Rollins and Utley in front of him. Who does Cust have? RBI doesn't reflect a hitter's ability as much as it does the people who hit before him. Cust also walks more than Howard, but he actually strikes out more. Remember Cust's numbers from last year were from mid-May on, whereas Howard's are from the whole year. Take Cust's numbers and make them a full year, and you get mid-thirties HR and upwards of 200 Ks.
Howard is 10% better maybe.
I would say in the end it's tough to pin "under or over" rated on Cust because there are two camps on him. One says he's amazing, the other says he is awful. The answer is closer to the first, but like you say, to those (like me, he's my favorite player) who think he's so amazing, he probably is a bit overrated. But saying that he doesn't deserve an MLB job because of a "slump" with a .380 OBP for a month is insane. The flip side of the "he's only had one good year so he needs to prove it wasn't a fluke" argument is that he's only had extensive MLB time in one year, and he deserves a half-season of MLB time to prove that it WAS a fluke.
write a new comment