Options
So Mike Trout is the best ever huh??? ........Not so fast.
MLBdays
Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Think I'd take the LEGEND over the KIID. How bout you?
2
MLBdays
Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭✭✭
MLBdays
Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
Not a close call ........ Mike Trout farts and MLB Network gathers for a bonfire.
Strikeout rate for Trout 21.3%. Ouch.
Trout should go down as the best player never to win a world series.
Wait a minute, I forgot Ted Williams.
Trout should go down as a pretty good player.
i tire of all the fawning over trout. he is a nice player. everyone is all wound up over his war numbers. i am somewhat unimpressed. he gets a good sized bump for playing center field. he only does that adequately. in fact, he is probably a below average center fielder with a poor arm. the only thing i see that he truly excells at is walking. underwhelming to me. i would much rather have Pujols on my team.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Pujols starts with a 13% advantage for park/era advantage relative to Trout. Unless you care how they each made their outs - and you shouldn't - Trout is better than Pujols at just about everything.
It's worth noting, too, that Pujols was himself a candidate for GOAT at that point in his career, so even if Trout were trailing him it wouldn't really mean anything. Pujols obviously fell off pretty dramatically and dropped out of the conversation, but Trout is still in the mix because he hasn't (yet?).
Bonds, Cobb
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
I kind of agree with what you are getting at. If you are focusing on "striking the ball" I would say Pujols had the better peak years (so far) at the plate. I didn't see him much, but it looks like he was next to impossible to walk. The years he did walk around 100 times there were a LOT of intentional ones. I'm not really downgrading him for that, but if he would have been a little more selective, his OPS and OBP would be higher.
Personally, I like a guy that's up there to HIT. Kirby Puckett was like that.
Albert had 12 straight years of 634 PA which is impressive (to me) and his batting average, while also maintaining a great SLG, during the 2002-2010 run is "better". Significantly higher Total Bases numbers as well.
He hits into a lot of double plays! Walks in those situations would have really helped his numbers.
Trout, as you said, gets (and deserves) a "bump" for playing a higher profile position. I can't say if he's a good defender or not, he doesn't have many assists though. His big advantage is his OBP because he walks a lot. If he's batting 3rd that's ok, but if he's batting clean up, I would rather see a bit more aggressive at bats. Trout's stolen bases were very impressive for a while, but it looks like he has stopped running.
If Trout can continue for several more years at this pace, he certainly will be considered the far superior "all-around" player.
Albert's last 4 seasons have hurt his offensive numbers and since he never could run and plays 1B, I'm thinking he has been surpassed.
It may seem old fashioned, but i want my middle of the order hitters to be looking to drive the ball. If a hitter is so selective that they are taking tons of borderline strikes/balls in an attempt to draw walks, I would either adjust their order in the lineup or have the hitting coach and him look at ways to get more aggressive. just because BB are all the rage at this moment in time, doesnt mean they always will be. remember when GWRBI was a stat?
as far as trout or any other player deserving a war bump for playing average to below average CF, i just dont see it. I consider a very high level first baseman more of an defensive asset than a below average/average CF with a weak arm.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I dont know that i would be giving any era adjustment for either player in this discussion considering they are teammates and are playing in the same era.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
There's more to baseball than just batting statistics.
this is true. however, there are very very few players who are all time great at both offense and defense. most players excel at one aspect and are adequate at the other. So when we compare players, unless they are one of the very few all time greats who where both high level defenders and hitters (see Mays, Willie) we usually will compare their strengths.
being a great hitter brings more value to a team than being a great fielder. this is why Jimmie Foxx has more value than Keith Hernandez. This is also why Alex Rodriguez was more valuable than Ozzie Smith. Joe Morgan > Mazeroski etc. it is also difficult to accurately assess exactly how great a defender players were.
As far as base running, other than stolen base percentage, it becomes difficult to determine how great a player was in any quantifiable way. there is a lot of conjecture at work.
for those reasons, i feel it is most useful to compare players Batting value.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Trout never hits cleanup. He has exactly 3 PA at cleanup for his entire career. For his career, over half his PAs are hitting #2, with the rest split about 33/66 between #1 and #3. For 2020, however, he's about 40/60 between #2 and #3.
Well sure, they are now, but if we're only comparing their years on the Angels then you don't need much analysis to see that Trout is better. The relevant years for Pujols are not the one's on the Angels, but his first 1,229, all of which were spent on the Cardinals in a higher scoring era. And to ignore the difference in their circumstances misses more than enough to lead you to the wrong conclusion. Through 1,229 games, Trout is better than Pujols. Not by a lot, and in fact by a lot less than the 13% difference in their circumstances, which is why that 13% is way too important to ignore.
Thanks for the information! For me, that makes Trout more valuable.
I just assumed he was a 3-4 hitter. Surprised he hit 2nd so often.
Just my thought on this subject.
Living in the Phila. area I have never seen him play nor do I ever hear any of his highlights.
Come to think of it , I've never seen any highlights to show me he's above average.
But, he has a lot of friends, being from here.
Oh, and by the way, Mike Socha was my Catcher in a little league, All Star, game. With his father as the manager.
He's a myth to me, except at the Eagles games.
Mike Trout is a cheap spinoff of Albert Pujols, just like Walker Texas Cat was a cheap spinoff of Walker Texas Ranger.
the problem with Mike Trout is the same problem with Albert Pujols, the thing that stopped him fro true greatness --- both players got stuck in that armpit known ask the LA Angels. had Pujols stayed in the NL with anyone his numbers probably wouldn't have declined across the board after he left St. Louis, if Trout had played anywhere else, like with the Yankees, they'd be marveling at his statistics instead of comparing him to superior players.
Teams and Cities can kill careers, trust me, I live in the greater Cleveland area.
I guess we need to define what an "era" is. I would not consider players whose careers overlapped by 10 years as having played in different "eras" yes, Pujols played years before trout debuted, and trout will presumably play years after albert retires, but when they played together during a 10 year stretch, I would certainly consider them contemporaries.
there are yearly fluctuations and ebbs/flows of statistics. some years home runs are up, some down. I dont think it is intellectually honest to consider these yearly variances as "eras". the whole point of determining "eras" is to compare players who were not contemporaries. It is how we compare players from the 60's and 70's to players from the 20's and 30's.
I think it is abundantly fair to compare player value without any era adjustment when their careers overlap by a decade or more. now when you get to career overlaps of 8 years, 6 years, 4 years etc. then it becomes a bit less clear. I would not consider players such as Ruth and Williams as contemporary even though their careers ended and began just a few years apart.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Trout must be pretty good if you have to take stats out of context for the second best first baseman of all time to make him look worse.
First, you're getting hung up on half of what I said and completely ignoring the other half; what I said was "park/era" advantage and the Angels play in a terrible hitter's park.
Second, Pujols had his peak years in a different era than Trout had his peak. I don't know how you are defining "era", but the implication of what I think you're saying is that comparing someone who played from 1960-1980 to someone who played from 1970-1990 requires no era adjustment. This is identically the same as saying that comparing stats from the 1960's to stats from the 1980's requires no adjustment. My opinion has nothing to do with anything here - that is simply incorrect. If you shorten the timeframe to 1965-1980 vs. 1970-1985, you've only got 5 non-overlapping years at each end, and you're still just plain wrong if you don't think an era adjustment is necessary. I didn't try to break out how much of the Pujols/Trout park/era adjustment is park vs. era (and I won't now), because there's no point to the exercise - they are both required.
OP says "best ever" I don't think anyone believes that, do they?
He certainly looks like the best player over the last 8 years, but not "ever".
If he can keep playing at this level (or close) for another 6-8 years, he could have an argument imo. Look at Frank Thomas' first 7-8 years.
Comparing him to Puhols is not a great comparison as Trout certainly better all around. Pujols looks to be the better "slugger" and had his numbers not dropped off so far, would be much more highly regarded, although playing 1st base was always going to hurt him.
I get the comment that a "lousy" outfielder shouldn't get more credit than a superb 1st baseman.
Is Trout really that bad in the field? You still have to have a lot more tools to play in CF than at 1st.
I don't know about best ever, but it seems allot easier to sell Trout cards than Barry Bonds ones.
A lot of people have problems with Bonds' steroid use and the fact that he doesn't deserve to be considered one of the best of all time.
Buyers also often focus on newer or current players.
1986 Topps Tiffany Bonds are selling for $4,000.00.
87 OPC bonds are also very popular. I do think recency bias plays a big role here
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
"I get the comment that a "lousy" outfielder shouldn't get more credit than a superb 1st baseman."
TOTALLY AGREE. I think some of the metrics stuff is just goofy.
I am a stat guy, but over time the emphasis WAR has gotten and its dependance on positional adjustment have soured me to the stat. I fully understand the value of positional adjustment. Catchers deserve it. SS deserve it to a lesser extent. but when lousy or below average defenders at middle of the field positions get advantage simply for being their current teams best option, sort of gets my goat.
Fan graphs uses defensive runs saved as the basis for their positional adjustment. this is where each players WAR number begins due simply to position. the number is then adjusted to account for games missed.
Position Full Season Adjustment
C +12.5
1B -12.5
2B +2.5
SS +7.5
3B +2.5
LF -7.5
CF +2.5
RF -7.5
DH -17.5
trout and Betts are a good comparison. Betts is a fantastic defender who played right field because he was stuck behind JBJ in Boston. He was fully capable of playing high level CF. Trout is the best option LAA have for center. he is barely average, probably below average in CF. is it fair for him to start out with a 10 run positional adjustment advantage simply because of the team he played for? if the two players were to have switched teams, Betts would have been a CFer and Trout no doubt put in LF because of his weak arm. that would have led to a 10 run differential in Betts favor. Keep in mind, both players have the same ability level, they just swapped teams. explain how that is equitable and an accurate way to compare?
another example is when AROD joined the yankees. he was a superior SS to Jeter, but agreed to move to 3B to keep the peace. those 2 players WAR numbers are skewed due to no fault of their own abilities. but if you didnt know the context, you wouldn't know why their numbers are misleading.
I also think great defensive players at "lesser" positions are more valuable than average players at more "important" positions. I would take a great 2b or 3b over an average SS.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I also think great defensive players at "lesser" positions are more valuable than average players at more "important" positions. I would take a great 2b or 3b over an average SS.
TOTALLY AGREE
This is a great example of my complaints regarding some of the "advanced" statistics. They tend to average everything out.
All center fielders get the same +2.5. Byron Buxton (when he manages to get on the field) should rate higher than his replacement(s). He is a tremendous fielder and would probably be a star/superstar player if he weren't made of glass.
Another example is my complaint about the value of the base on balls. It's rated something like 2/3 of a single. The value should not be the same for a lead off type hitter as it is for a clean up hitter, and should actually be highest for a #9 batter.
Question, and I really don't have an opinion here because I've never paid much attention to the Dodgers, but how good is Bellinger defensively?
Kinda depends on the positions being compared. I would probably go along with the swap you mentioned. But do I take a great 1B over an average 2B or SS? No.
One problem with WAR, and many other measurements, is that they start from the assumption that replacement (or average in other stats) players have no value. Obviously, they do, or teams wouldn't bother putting them in the lineup. MOST of any player's value lies in being average, and quite a bit lies in being good enough to be a replacement player. By measuring and comparing only the part of the player's value that lies above one of these lines, their relative values get distorted.
If it's not clear why this is so, imagine comparing two icebergs and ignoring what was below the water; you might see one iceberg as being twice as big as another iceberg when in fact the difference was 1% or 2%. A baseball team composed of nothing but average players might win half its games; to say that the total value of the players on that team was zero - the same as the total value of the players on a team that won no games at all - is absurd.
The two biggest problems with WAR are the positional adjustment and the fact that their fielding measurements simply don't work. Using offensive WAR when comparing two players at the same position often works OK; in no other situation does WAR provide reliably accurate information.
Trout is not top 10 in terms of best ever. But he is a great player and will be a HOF'r. My two cents. I like Trout and think he is a class act from what I've seen.
I would add that I have yet to find a fielding metric that i believe actually is an accurate measurement of the skill of defensive baseball. It is just too dependant on too many factors that are out of the control of the player.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
imagine comparing two icebergs and ignoring what was below the water; you might see one iceberg as being twice as big as another iceberg when in fact the difference was 1% or 2%
dude, stick to what you know and please leave science alone.
It was an analogy, and it made sense to everyone, including you, dude. The "science" is irrelevant.
I would say one thing in favor of Trout. Even if he's an average/below average CF, it takes more talent/skill to play out there than at 1B.
Trout could play 1B, could Albert have ever played CF at all?
This is exactly right, and there is no fielding metric that doesn't take this into account to some degree. There are certainly gray areas, and there are cases where a team has players who can play multiple positions, and so on, and all of these things matter in evaluating the fielding "value" of a player. But, none of this really matters when comparing a CF to a 1B - the guy who plays CF is a better fielder than the guy at 1B; and he's not just a little better, he's much better. Exactly how much better is wide open for debate, but it's a lot. Ryan Howard was possibly the worst fielder in the history of baseball - and yes, I'm including Little League - and he couldn't even play first base; but his manager had him stand there anyway, because it just doesn't matter that much who you put there. If the Phillies had put Howard in CF, they might have allowed 10 runs a game.
1st base is actually a lot more important than most people give it credit for.
Try scooping an errant throw coming 95 mph from third base or SS.
Hosmer was really good at scooping balls in the dirt and he got a lot of chances at those when he was in KC.
He recorded a lot of outs when a lot of those throws would have gotten past an average or bad first baseman.
Not to mention Hosmer is about 6 foot 4 and could grab a lot of high throws also.
Hosmer was also a lot more mobile/agile than most first basemen. How many times did you see him run a ball down in foul territory and catch it on a dead sprint with his back to the infield? He made catches that Cabrera and Pujols and Fielder, etc, could only dream about.
this is exactly why a good first baseman is valuable. more valuable than a lousy outfielder for sure
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Other than Catcher which is obviously the most unique defensive position.....I think they are almost equally valuable. Each one has a very unique/difficult aspects to what they do. I hated fielding my area at 2nd base and having to hold the runner at 2nd base or covering the bag on steals. Not easy to do and you can find yourself out of position. 3rd base is usually the worst for the sun in the Summer. Try pitching and having to cover 1st base....it is extremely challenging. I played and always thought all infield positions were the hardest. Ground balls hit 100 MPH are just downright ridiculous. Judging fly balls I thought was easier than ground balls.
I played in the outfield and when pressed to play 3rd base, thought the balls were coming at about 200MPH and were going to take a bad hop into my testicles. Played a little 1st and remember our SS had these long arms and his throws always started out looking like they were coming in perfect, but would dive down and to the right, hated when that happened.
I could run a bit and always enjoyed chasing down a line drive into the gap when I was in the outfield where I felt comfortable.
I understand all the points being made, but you have to be able to RUN to play the outfield. First base (athletically) is a piece of cake.
Obviously the 1st baseman is important, he's involved in a LOT of plays.