I/O: Jack Cust is available -- via a Langerhans-type dingleberry deal. He's in the A's org but not on their 40-man. Here the M's are wandering in the desert in search of an HR fountain.
.
CRUNCH1: Obviously the M's have Ken Griffey Jr as the DH vs RHP, so for them this exercise seems mostly theoretical.
If for some reason you thought you could recover Cust's 140 OPS+'s from 2007 and 2008, you'd have to either (1) make Junior a coach, (2) give Cust (or Junior) some AB's vs LHP's and some of them at 1B/LF, maybe pushing Sweeney out of the org, or (3) go to an 11-man pitching staff and make the guys fight for AB's, Oakland-style.
It's not impossible; it's awkward -- but in this case it would be v-e-r-y awkward.
...........
CRUNCH2: SSI was one of Cust's few advocates when he came up and landed with a splash ... it's hardly like we're biased against. But the problemo is that Cust's approach to the game of baseball was warped in 2009.
To wit, David Goliebiewski's fine article and Dave Allen's great article provide the meat-and-potatoes to a saber buffet on Mr. Cust. Exec Sum is: Cust has been expanding his strike zone for the last year.
...........
But! Is this because Cust wants shorter counts, fewer K's, and a better AVG? Or is it a function of his age and declining reflexes?
Allen suggests, reasonably, that Cust's strike zone -- "swinging less hard at more pitches" -- is simply a choice on Cust's part. That's the $64,000 question, because his OPS+ dropped off to 105 with the new approach. In 2007-08, Cust had a Power Index (PX) well over 200, which is kind of like having a fastball that clocks 103 MPH. In 2009 that PX was only 127.
If that's true, some team could acquire a 130-140 OPS+ player for the cost of a Mike Morse.
No matter what contortions it would require, if Cust is a 130-140 Russell Branyan type, there for the taking, they couldn't afford to pass it up.
............
CRUNCH3: Just the fax, ma'am:
Huh!
I saw BaseballHQ's skepticism on Cust for 2010, sat down expecting to write that Cust was seeing his age decline phase ... and slap me silly if I don't agree with Allen's instinct that Cust simply chose to stop working super-deep counts. HQ is probably wrong on this one. There's nothing different about Cust, other than the fact that he's not stalking pitches any more.
...............
CRUNCH4: Possible objections to the above conclusion?
(1) His swing doesn't look slower, or weaker, to me. Here's a video example of Cust going 400+ the other way last year.
(2) You could wonder whether the problem wa that Cust has been booked -- that some hole in his zone was found -- but Allen's strike-zone report puts paid to that idea.
................
Dr's R/X: I'd say the odds are 70-80% that some team could (1) acquire Cust, (2) tell him not to worry about 3-2 counts and 200 strikeouts, and (3) score a 7-8 runs-per-27 DH.
There's probably a Russell Branyan out there for the asking. If Cust resurfaced in an AL lineup, I'd grab him.
.
Cheers,
Dr D
Of course this is 99% hypothetical because of Junior... but supposing the M's did want Cust. I wonder if Beane would refuse to deal Cust within the division, precisely because of the upside scenario.
I mean, why take a Mike Morse and give your rival a dice roll at a 140 OPS+?
Or would Beane not worry about it.
...I think Beane doesn't care about Cust or where he ends up. He's a hyper-confident chess grandmaster when it comes to GM'ing...he's made the call that Cust isn't worth keeping on a team that is, if this is even possible, worse than the Mariners in the power department. That speaks to how low his opinion of Cust is. I think he would crack up laughing if a division rival dialed in wanting Cust.
Beane's confidence may trump the usual concerns, who knows...
Game 1-1 in the 4th, C.J. Wilson hit ARod ... the SS-3B combo kicked a groundball around... then C.J. walked the bases loaded, 0 out.
Texas infield error then cost two runs and Francisco Cervelli, whatever that is, finished it up with an RBI single.
1) Hamilton was not a particularly good fielder before his injuries and even playing left, he's not going to be a good left fielder IMHO.
2) Borbon (CF) is young and flashy but takes bad routes to the ball from what I've seen. He's Adam Jones, part deux (defensively), leading me to believe he's going to be below average out there.
3) Vlad Guerrero has been promised occasional outfield time to stay in the games. That's a BIG negative.
4) Young at 3B, when healthy is above average but I suspect last year was a fluky upspike year and he'll come down to Earth.
5) Elvis Andrus is the real deal IMHO, so no comnplaints there.
6) Ian Kinsler is above average at second...right now they don't have Kinsler though...not sure how long he's going to be out.
7) Chris Davis is well below average defensively at first.
8) Saltalamacchia and Teagarden are average at best receiving and holding down the running game.
I think the big gains they made on defense last year won't last. I think they're going to give up many more runs than Taro's WAR analysis might suggest.
Just checking some of the Rangers blog sites, they all pretty much describe their team as mediocre offensively, mediocre pitching, and mediocre defense.
There is no reason to fear the Rangers this year. In the future? Oh yeah. But this current version is no better than this year's M's or Angels. This is going to be a battle all season long, and Texas is not going to run away with anything.
at this point, it's tough for M's fans to even remember what shoddy defense looks like...
Though, apparently not by the home team fans. Vlad is not going to stay hot all season, and there's a good chance he gets hurt. Hamilton is a beast, but he's not exactly surrounded by all-stars...and I Morbon may or may not be ready to be effective as a table setter yet.
Well...we were horrid defensively in 2006-2008, so it hasn't been all that long...but yes...the '09 and '10 versions of this club are sensational with the leather...even Jose Lopez is taking to his position rather well despite the erratic throws to first.
We'll see you know. My prediction is Texas by 5 games over the 2nd place team.
I think the Rangers are very underrated defensively.
Every position on the field projects for above-average defense either than 1B (hardly a disaster especially with Smoak ready to take over). C, I have no idea about.
Obviously, defense remains the ellusive trait that nobody projects worth a darn.
That said - DER for 2009 -- Seattle #1: .712 -- Texas #3: .697.
Seattle led the AL by a WIDE margin. Texas was a solid #3 - though a 7-team bunch were squeezed between .687 and .698. But, Texas plays half its games in Arlington - a long known hitters park. NOBODY is going to make claims that the park in Arlington is doing the Texas DEFENSE any favors. On the other hand - it is pretty much universally understood that Safeco helps the defense in Seattle to some degree.
Well - is there any way to tell how much? Well, since DER/BABIP ignores HRs - why not take a glance at the home/road BABIPs for Seattle and Texas pitching?
Seattle: Home: .273 -- Road: .275 -- Seattle got 2 points of DER from park.
Texas: Home: .291 -- Road: .288 -- Texas lost 3 points of DER from park.
Hey - I get that we don't KNOW defense well. And there are routine spikes in defensive performance (in either direction). Sometimes that balls fall funny. But, is there any way to increase belief in defensive performance? Well, I'd suggest that consistency in splits is a 'tell' that a stat is likely 'real'. If a club has an isolated spike (good or bad), then it should tend to stand out. The Seattle home/road and 1st/2nd half splits in BABIP (.276/.272) show consistent excellence - with a minor variation.
Texas in 2009, were stable home/road -- but 1st/2nd half went .286/.294. Now, history shows a slight rise in BABIP in the 2nd half for all of baseball, (Seattle's improvement is an additional indication of REAL - especially since they swapped out a SS viewed as defensively weak).
Texas lost ground in the dog days during 2009. So, yes, there is some evidence that Texas was 'hot' defensively in the 1st half, but wilted in the heat. In 2008 they were legitimately dreadful (.318 BABIP at home, .317 on the road) - while their BABIP exploded from a .311 1st half to a .327 2nd -- during the 2008 season.
The lesson here is that Texas likely has a LEGIT top half defense -- but, they can expect to perform better in the first half, and see a defensive slide in the second half, (while their offense will pick up). The sun is the factor here -- the heat of West Texas wears on defenders for both teams. Call it fatigue - or drowsiness - or light air -- the end result is Seattle is advantaged - and Texas disadvantaged defensively. For Seattle to excell they MUST have a superior numeric defense compared to Texas.
Two weeks in, both teams are bottom half in DER. But I wouldn't trust DER much until a minimum of 40 games in. Too easy for single game results to skew the totals.
Texas' defense isn't as good (on paper) as Seattle's. But, they have youth and ability at the key defensive slots - and I expect much of their 2009 turn-around can be traced back to Nolan Ryan's game-planning. That hasn't gone anywhere. I see no reason at all to think 2009 was a defensive fluke for Texas any more than Seattle.
By June, both should be top 3rd in the AL DER race. And come August, Texas will start to slide, while Seattle shouldn't.
"even Jose Lopez is taking to his position rather well despite the erratic throws to first."
I wonder if moving a guy over to 3rd base is a way to fix a players lack of concentration out in the field. This was certainly an issue for Jose over the years and this was also apparently a problem for Figgins early in his career. I figure after having your life flash before your eyes a few times you eventually learn to focus out there.