Cust vs Wilkerson

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.

Wilkerson

Year	Age	Tm	PA	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	OPS+
2001	24	MON	136	11	24	7	2	1	5	17	41	.205	.304	.325	.628	63
2002	25	MON	603	92	135	27	8	20	59	81	161	.266	.370	.469	.840	117
2003	26	MON	602	78	135	34	4	19	77	89	155	.268	.380	.464	.844	115
2004	27	MON	688	112	146	39	2	32	67	106	152	.255	.374	.498	.872	119
2005	28	WSN	661	76	140	42	7	11	57	84	147	.248	.351	.405	.756	103
2006	29	TEX	365	56	71	15	2	15	44	37	116	.222	.306	.422	.728	86
2007	30	TEX	389	54	79	17	1	20	62	43	107	.234	.319	.467	.786	104
2008	31	TOT	309	21	58	12	2	4	28	35	68	.220	.308	.326	.634	71
2008	31	SEA	68	1	13	4	0	0	5	10	15	.232	.348	.304	.652	78
2008	31	TOR	241	20	45	8	2	4	23	25	53	.216	.297	.332	.629	69
162 Game Avg.	626	83	131	32	5	20	67	82	158	.247	.350	.440	.790	104

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table

Cust

Year	Age	Tm	PA	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	CS	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	OPS+
2001	22	ARI	3	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	.500	.667	.500	1.167	200
2002	23	COL	78	8	11	2	0	1	8	0	1	12	32	.169	.295	.246	.541	36
2003	24	BAL	84	7	19	7	0	4	11	0	0	10	25	.260	.357	.521	.878	129
2004	25	BAL	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	.000	.000	.000	.000	-100
2006	27	SDP	3	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	.333	.333	.333	.667	79
2007	28	OAK	507	61	101	18	1	26	82	0	2	105	164	.256	.408	.504	.912	146
2008	29	OAK	598	77	111	19	0	33	77	0	0	111	197	.231	.375	.476	.851	129
2009	30	OAK	612	88	123	16	0	25	70	4	1	93	185	.240	.356	.417	.773	104
2010	31	OAK	425	50	95	19	0	13	52	2	2	68	127	.272	.395	.438	.834	128
2011	32	SEA	86	5	12	1	0	0	7	0	0	16	25	.171	.326	.186	.511	55
162 Game Avg.	623	77	123	21	0	27	80	2	2	108	197	.243	.376	.443	.819	120

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table

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.

Home/Mariners News