You know it’s so awesome to be surrounded with smart people and to have quick access to their work.
Let me provide an example before moving on to my real grievance. Let’s say you were asked to identify who the better-hitting catcher is between John Jaso and Jeff Mathis. If the anonymous questioner only gave you 2011 data, then you would see that Jaso is hitting .167/.205/.286 (44 plate appearances) while Mathis entered Monday night’s game with a slash line of .214/.227/.381 (46 plate appearances). If you had no previous knowledge, no ability to look up old information, nothing but 2011 data, then you might say Mathis, but alas, you are rarely that restricted.
RJ Anderson and the Process Report
More beyond the jump…
I dislike the compairson of Brad Wilkerson to Jack Cust. Mainly because at the time of the signing Wilkerson had been two years removed from any type of productivity. Where as Cust had a decent season.
|162 Game Avg.||626||83||131||32||5||20||67||82||158||.247||.350||.440||.790||104|
|162 Game Avg.||623||77||123||21||0||27||80||2||2||108||197||.243||.376||.443||.819||120|
Now there are certainly some key facts that are not included and I’m not in any way trying to say that Cust is still all there. I’m just saying that the comparison of Wilkerson to Cust isn’t a very good one.
Despite their similarities in their prime they were not the same people at the time they signed with the Mariners. Wilkerson was a terrible sign at the time by a desperate front office. Cust was a value sign that presented a significant upgrade over the past years black hole. There was some evidence of decline but not nearly to the effective that there was with Wilkerson. It was also just as likely that Cust would still be of offensive value to this team.