Not that I follow, but isn't baseball like men's tennis? lots of aces and double faults.
#LetsGoSwitzerlandThe Man Who Does Not Read Has No Advantage Over the Man Who Cannot Read. The biggest obstacle to progress is a habit of “buying what we want and begging for what we need.”You get the Freedom you fight for and get the Oppression you deserve.
@Alfonz24 said:
Not that I follow, but isn't baseball like men's tennis? lots of aces and double faults.
If you throw a pitch hard enough and put it in the right spot, it is basically unhittable. So yeah in a way.
Pitchers are simply throwing harder and harder, but now they are doing it with command too. Even when they make MLB, they are still learning to throw even harder, but still with command. Command is the key. It isn't just guys firing it as hard as they possibly can, but can't throw it for a strike. Not only do they throw it for a strike now, the top half puts it where they want within the strike zone. DeGrom has actually increased his velocity since started. Baseball is more in tune with how to increase velocity now more so than ever before.
When you watch a hitter take a 98 MPH fastball for a strike three, and you are honestly unsure of why he didn't swing, then you either never faced a pitch like that or you are just an angry fan. Both understandable, but neither point of view has any merit in discrediting a player like Trout when that happens.
Its really pretty simple. A pitcher is trying to put the ball in a place where it won't get hard, and a batter is looking for a pitch that he can hit hard.
The best pitchers have the requisite velocity and command to put it in those spots more often than the pitchers who are not as equipped.
The best pitchers are also not dumb. As the count is dictating that needing to throw a strike becomes more important to avoid giving up a walk, they will have to move that pitch closer to the meatier part of the strike zone. However, if Mike Trout is batting, they are more often going to stay by the far reaches of the strike zone and be ok with giving up a walk, because the chances of giving up a home run become too great if they catch too much of the strike zone.
If Freddie Patek is batting, and the count dictates going to the meatier part of the strike zone, then pitchers will simply throw it to the meatier part of the strike zone because a batter like that won't do much damage in relation to Trout.
The best hitter in the league like Trout simply will not get pitches that are in the part of the strike zone in which he puts major damage on. Pitchers will peck away at his weakness. The great pitchers will be more successful than the average pitchers in doing that...which is why they are great. If they are so great at doing it, then Trout will be forced to swing at those pitches and the result will either be a swing and a miss, or a poorly hit ball.
The truly elite pitchers will have this ability AND also throw the balls 95 MPH+. Those pitchers are unhittable when they are locating. Doesn't even matter who the hitter is.
Even those pitchers make mistakes. Those are the pitches you usually see ending up in the seats. There is a lot of luck involved too. If the pitcher makes a mistake, sometimes the hitter does not take advantage of it. Sometimes they do. There is some luck there. That is why you still see even the best pitchers get hit around sometimes, and the average pitcher throwing a no hitter out of the blue.
That is just fastballs.
This isn't new. Its been going on for decades. The difference now is that there are more pitchers equipped to throw harder and still retain the requisite command. There are also more hitters equipped to take the mistakes out of the park. Which leads to more strikeouts, more home runs throughout the lineup, and less complete games.
People yearning for yesteryear with more hit and run etc....its simply not going to happen when so many pitchers who are six foot five inches tall, throwing 98 MPH with command, and with ungodly breaking pitches, because even the best contact hitters still strike out more when facing those beasts, just like they did against Nolan Ryan...only there are more Nolan Ryan type arsenals around the league now, and with better command.
Hitters have to look to hit the ball hard when it gets into their hitting zone. The best hitters will take advantage of those pitches more than the worst hitters...thats why they are the best hitters. However, the best hitters do not get as many opportunities to take advantage of those mistake pitches, and that is why a guy like Mike Trout is soo good, because he STILL averages 39 home runs per 162, and still hits .300....despite pitchers dong their very most diligence trying to stay away from his hitting zone and being completely ok with the at bat ending up with a walk rather than the ball in the seats.
Yeah, man, I know all about baseball. Been watching for over 40 years. I've been a Royals full season ticket holder for almost a decade pre-COVID, and an MLB.TV subscriber for 5 or 6 years. Because of blackout restrictions, I can't watch Royals games on MLB.TV, so guess which team I watch, every chance I get? The Angels.
I'm quite certain that there can't be more than one or 2 people on this board that watches more baseball, and Mike Trout, specifically, than me. You don't need to regurgitate the stats that you pulled off the internet. I don't need the fancy schmancy stats to tell me what my eyes see.
I mentioned in a thread last year about his proclivity to take a tremendous amount of called 3rd strikes. People laughed. What?!?! The great Mike Trout?!?! Surely you're mistaken? Trout then managed to immediately go on a streak where he was called out on strikes a whopping 11 times in 13 games. Thus the idea for this thread was born. He's a decade into his career, and people don't know or realize that he takes an unusual amount of third strikes?
It's just weird. He normally destroys pitchers. He can do damage at will, it seems, but then at some point in the game, especially when it's close, a switch flips and he just watches the strikes go by. Some at bats, he won't swing one time in 3 pitches, and turn around and head back to the dugout. You, yourself, will quote all those stats proclaiming him the greatest player alive for what would appear to be 99 percent of the time, but then because of the excuse of baseball's increased talent pool and specialized relievers, he suddenly for that 1 percent becomes afraid to swing the bat? His teammates sure don't seem to have that difficulty with these supposedly awesome pitchers.
Game 5 for the Angels.
Down 4-0 in a big matchup with Houston, Mike gets the rally started in the 4th inning with a blast to left field for his first homerun of the year.
Fifth inning, down 4-2 now, representing the tying run, in a spot that I am used to seeing him routinely get rung up, he does exactly that. Called strike 3. I will cut him some slack this time, though, as even though I said previously that no one should complain when he gets hosed by a bad call, even I will say he was hosed! Pitch number 6 was called strike 3?!?!
.
.
The Angels would have to rally late once again to win, and Mike Trout was intentionally walked in his at bat, late in the events of the 8th inning scoring.
The Angels are now 4-1 and tied for first place.
This called third strike I guess makes up for the missed called third strike in the earlier game, and his total on the year for those following at home is now 3.
I'm quite certain that there can't be more than one or 2 people on this board that watches more baseball, and Mike Trout, specifically, than me. You don't need to regurgitate the stats that you pulled off the internet. I don't need the fancy schmancy stats to tell me what my eyes see.
>
Perhaps that is what missing...watching too much Trout and clearly having a bias. Who else is doing what you are asking of Trout? Whatever it is that you are asking.
You amy have been watching baseball for 40 years but are not quite understanding hitting. You should probably step up to the plate and face some of those pitches, then possibly would not be surprised why someone would get caught looking. Its happening all over MLB for reasons explained above.
He is striking out a lot. He is doing more damage with the bat than anyone. Who else is doing it different/better in MLB now?
THe only way to discredit Trout is if one doesn't understand what it is to see 98 on the corner, or if one is a rabid fans. Both understandable...but neither holds any merit in trying to discredit Trout.
So he never gets hits when it counts??? Or barely ever? What is your definition of "when it counts"? Is it a feeling you have?
You seem to focus on called strike threes and get so angry. Are you happy when a guy swings and misses as strike three? Are you even happier when a guy pops out to the pitcher? You realize that 99.9 percent of the time those are all the same.
I asked, do you want him to make more contact and be a .333 hitter with a SLG% of .700? Who else does that now? Or even close?
He doesn't hit quite as good when it is late and close, when the dominant elite relievers are in the game. Ok. The league as a whole doesn't hit as good in those spots just so you are aware.
But it isn't like Trout just strikes out in those times, I would bet that his hitting in those times is still elite compared to the league.
I am curious going forward how you will paint his home runs or hits. Here you decide that being down 4-2 in the fifth is a key spot, which it is. So if he hits a home run in the first inning to take the lead, will that not be a key spot?? What is a key spot? The spot where your vast experience as a hitter tells you it is?
I could see a lot of flip flopping going forward. Of course, I'm sure there will be moving goal posts when he does good and it doesn't fit the narrative.
Fifth inning, down 4-2 now, representing the tying run, in a spot that I am used to seeing him routinely get rung up, he does exactly that. Called strike 3. I will cut him some slack this time, though, as even though I said previously that no one should complain when he gets hosed by a bad call, even I will say he was hosed! Pitch number 6 was called strike 3?!?!
.
>
Hmm, I'm curious about your moving goal posts. How come in Mike Trout's career when his team is down by one run he has a lifetime .300 average, .415 OB%, and .586 SlG%,? Being down by one run is not a key spot, but down by two in the fifth is? Your feelings give you this insight?
Who else the last ten years has done better in such a key spot when being down by one run??
So you just pick on the times where he strikes out and ignore all the rest?
Why don't you do that same method with every MLB hitter the last ten years? Do a running tally of whenever they make an out and act like it was the biggest situation in the world, and then when they hit a home run, just kind of gloss over it. LOL.
I'm not sure if you realize, and I will save you the suspense for your project, but Mike Trout will have more negative hitting events than positive all year....its the nature of hitting at the MLB level. It isn't Little League.
Highlighting each negative and glossing over the positive isn't going to change the fact that Trout is the best player in MLB for these last ten years. Someone may have a better season this year than him...that is also the nature of MLB hitting.
Mike Trout blasted a 2-run homerun in the first inning off of Zack Greinke that traveled 464 feet and gave the Angels a 2-0 lead. It was the first career homerun that Mike Trout had hit off of Greinke.
It was the only scoring the Angels would do all day. Greinke got a small bit of revenge in the 6th inning by getting Trout to chase a pitch for a swinging strikeout.
The Astros got 2 in the 2nd and 2 in the 9th to win 4-2, and retake the division lead by a game.
Trout's total of called third strikes on the season remains at 3.
I'm sorry everyone is so upset at my thread. Don't read it then.
There has been no moving of the goalposts. My premise has always been that Mike Trout takes an excessive number of called third strikes. They seem to almost always occur when the Angels are tied or trailing, and almost always from the 5th inning on. Whatever his reason for that is, it's very interesting to me to witness. I'm just documenting for everyone in real time the unusual habit, to me anyway, of Mike Trout to take a LOT of called third strikes. In conversation with many other baseball fans, I have found that they are unaware and incredulous that this is true.
I'm not sure what it means. Apparently taking a LOT of called third strikes makes you a fantastic baseball player and everybody will love you. You will win lots of MVPs, lots of games, and lots of championships. It has certainly been working for him.
I don't know what the number of called strikeouts will be that will suddenly cause a person to have their "wow" moment. The "hey, there is something to this." The "this IS odd" moment. Will it be 15? Will it be 30? Will it be 60? I don't know, but all I can do is total it up and present it to you. I know it will end up being a LOT.
If he's sitting there with 47 called strike third strikes at the All-Star break, and 41 of them come when the score is tied or the Angels are losing, with 37 of them coming from the 5th inning on, is that something that will make you say, hmmm?
I didn't keep an exact count last year. I believe he played 55 or so games, and I'm fairly certain he was in the low 20s as a total for called third strikes. Like I have already said many times previously, he ripped off an astounding run of 11 called third strikes in 13 games during a stretch where the Angels went 3-10. I don't believe a single called third strike in that stretch came at a point in the game when they were leading. I don't know what to call that, but there surely is a word for it.
You can ignore for a couple of months, but I invite you to check back in around July, and I bet you'll be stunned at the running total.
I also find it odd that the biggest Mike Trout supporters out there, the ones that continually quote the stats that document the considerable damage he wreaks on opposing pitchers, they are just fine with him not swinging the bat and instead getting called out on strikes. They shrug, meh, a strikeout is a strikeout, they say. He would likely have just popped up to the pitcher instead, they say. He almost certainly would have rolled one over to the shortstop for a double play, they say.
I say, it's Mike freaking Trout! Why wouldn't you want him swinging the bat, and why wouldn't you be expecting astounding success as a result?
I want him swinging.
I can't state this enough, but he had at bats last year where he never once swung the bat at a single offering, not one, and then just turned around and went back to the dugout. Whyyyy? He is Mike freaking Trout, obliterater of baseballs, I want him going up there looking to do damage.
@countdouglas said:
I also find it odd that the biggest Mike Trout supporters out there, the ones that continually quote the stats that document the considerable damage he wreaks on opposing pitchers, they are just fine with him not swinging the bat and instead getting called out on strikes. They shrug, meh, a strikeout is a strikeout, they say. He would likely have just popped up to the pitcher instead, they say. He almost certainly would have rolled one over to the shortstop for a double play, they say.
I say, it's Mike freaking Trout! Why wouldn't you want him swinging the bat, and why wouldn't you be expecting astounding success as a result?
I want him swinging.
I can't state this enough, but he had at bats last year where he never once swung the bat at a single offering, not one, and then just turned around and went back to the dugout. Whyyyy? He is Mike freaking Trout, obliterater of baseballs, I want him going up there looking to do damage.
Heeeeeey! Batter, batter, batter! Swiiiiiiiing!
Because you don't hit home runs on pitchers' pitches...and he gets more of those than anyone else, that is why he doesn't swing. It's not Little League.
LOL, Is he not doing damage? Who else in MLB averages 39 HR per 162 games and hitting over .300 for their career??
What more damage you want? You want him to hit only 19 homers a year like Brett?
Pitchers aren't giving him C$#% shots. If he doesn't swing at C@#$ shot it is because he was most likely looking off speed and got fooled. Not sure if you ever faced a true breaking pitch, but they are pretty nasty. They aren't seen in Little League, so I would save the "Heeey Battter" for the Little League games.
When you swing at 98 on the corners, you either miss or tap out. If you enjoy tap outs to the pitcher, then encourage him to swing. If you want Trout to hit home runs, then don't encourage him to swing at those, because you know what will happen?? Pitchers will throw more of them there if they know he will chase their pitches, and his hits, home runs, and walks will all go down.
What Trout is doing is what you are supposed to do as a MLB hitter and he is doing it better than anyone in MLB. If someone doesn't understand that, then great....continue on.
However, I am not sure if you realize that hitting one home run is more positive than three strikeouts are negative. You seem to believe that by simply listing each strikeout out loud makes each strikeout negate each home run as if the negative value of one strikeout cancels out the positive value of one home run. Yeah, I know...'depends on the situation' blah, I know all of that and still doesn't change that.
@Darin said:
..., now you're just like Dallas,
you hate Brett and the Royals and it shows.
Well, just a second there, professor. I don't hate Brett, I've even acknowledged he's the fourth best third baseman in the history of baseball. What I hate are arguments made in blatant violation of facts, common sense, and all of the rules of logic. Recently, such arguments have been made, repeatedly, on behalf of Brett. I'm a big fan of Amos Otis, but if you try to argue that he is the greatest CF of all time I will mock that argument, too.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Darin said:
countdouglas- thanks for the informative thread.
This thread is "informative" in precisely the same way, and to precisely the same degree, that a thread documenting what happened in each bat by Paul DeJong when he came up in the third through sixth innings on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays would be. Yes, it would provide information, but it would be useless information from which only a fool would draw any conclusions.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Darin said:
countdouglas- thanks for the informative thread.
This thread is "informative" in precisely the same way, and to precisely the same degree, that a thread documenting what happened in each bat by Paul DeJong when he came up in the third through sixth innings on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays would be. Yes, it would provide information, but it would be useless information from which only a fool would draw any conclusions.
Sorry to disagree dallas, but there's simply no useful information here.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I, for one, appreciate this thread. I take the opinions (often varying) of others here and find them them both helpful and enjoyable. I do have a request for @countdouglas or others in the know. Has this observation of Trout been made by others and can anyone post links discussing it.
PS Before posting this comment, I saved the draft, then previewed it, then clicked on my countdouglas link to make sure I had the right one. I didn't, so I changed it to the second one. This could cause confusion for others and stop him from being properly tagged, so I wanted to point it out. The confusion comes from the infamous imposter count douglas who appeared recently for but a moment.
@Darin said:
Wow another out of the blue Brett reference.
19 HR a year is pretty damn good when you play in the park with the biggest outfield in baseball.
And yes I noticed you said Brett was more like a .290 hitter than a .305 hitter because of the park he played in.
Well you used to post like you were somewhat objective, now you're just like Dallas,
you hate Brett and the Royals and it shows.
Precisely incorrect.
I posted that Brett hit 19 home runs per year to show how much "damage" that 39 home runs per year is.
So a guy just glosses over Trout hitting a two run home run in the first inning and its impact on winning a game, and then highlights a strikeout in the sixth as "revenge" is informative? I'm more inclined to get Dallas's dog for the recap of each Trout at bat, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
Maybe do a play by play recap of all the tap outs to second base for Brett, and then treat each of them as if they wiped away one of his astroturf doubles he got, or one of his rare home runs.
I guess it is informative in the sense that it seems some people are just realizing that hitters in modern MLB make more outs than they get hits. I'll save the suspense, Trout will make MANY more outs than he hits home runs. If that is news to you...I'm glad it works.
I don't know what is worse in this thread, the fact that that OP doesn't know that MLB is filled with strikeouts that happen all the time, the fact that he believes a strikeout wipes away the value of a home run, or the Little League vernacular and strategy that is used to describe it all. I guess the OPS should be asking Trout to do a Kelly Leake next time he is getting intentionally walked.
PS, I'm objective as they come when it comes to sports and topics such as these. I don't have any stake in Trout. I don't have any stake in Brett, but when 39 home runs is not 'damage' for one guy, and 19 home runs IS damage for another guy...yeah, I'm probably going to comment. in addition tot the stuff dallas pointed out about common sense and logic.
If popping out in the infield or tapping out to second is applauded, but striking out means your 39 home runs and .300 average mean next to nothing....there is your bias my friend. So no, he isn't posting just facts. He is assigning bias to events and promoting completely improper value to every single thing when it comes to hitting at the MLB level.
Sorry to disagree dallas, but there's simply no useful information here.
Oh, we definitely agree. I said this thread contained plenty of "useless" information. But, to be fair, the thread has some good stuff in it; it's just the OP's posts that are useless (I assume they still are; I put him on Ignore after the first few).
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
So what are the called third strike on other stars in the same caliber as Trout? Bellinger, Judge Alonso?
#LetsGoSwitzerlandThe Man Who Does Not Read Has No Advantage Over the Man Who Cannot Read. The biggest obstacle to progress is a habit of “buying what we want and begging for what we need.”You get the Freedom you fight for and get the Oppression you deserve.
@thisistheshow said:
I, for one, appreciate this thread. I take the opinions (often varying) of others here and find them them both helpful and enjoyable. I do have a request for @countdouglas or others in the know. Has this observation of Trout been made by others and can anyone post links discussing it.
PS Before posting this comment, I saved the draft, then previewed it, then clicked on my countdouglas link to make sure I had the right one. I didn't, so I changed it to the second one. This could cause confusion for others and stop him from being properly tagged, so I wanted to point it out. The confusion comes from the infamous imposter count douglas who appeared recently for but a moment.
No, the count is in fact not the only one to notice. Here is a link that discusses this issue.
You do realize that article was published last year after his first 28 games where he got off to a slow start .255/.333/.564?
Then his next 25 games he went .315/.452/.652
That article suggested he was being too patient and was struggling. Probably not a good idea to draw conclusions based on a small sample size like that article did, because he turned it around quickly.
Lesson learned, know the sample size.
Much like this thread in the early going, Trout got caught looking a few times, and then bam, hit homers in two games in a row.
If Trout ever gets too patient and he starts batting .250 with 19 homers a year, THEN you will have a point...but it is idiotic to suggest he is being too patient when he has hit better than anyone in MLB for the last ten years. Who else averages a .300 batting average and 39 HR per 162 in MLB in this day and age?
So, no. Mike Trout has not been too patient in his career. If he starts taking strike threes and stops hitting home runs, then make a thread about that as it will then be the end of calling Mike Trout the best hitter in baseball.
Otherwise, enjoy the show. If you like batters grounding out to second base regularly, just watch recaps of a season long full of at bats from George Brett....he will give you a lot of outs made for your viewing pleasure.
....add to the above, the moment Trout does change his approach in an extreme way, or if pitchers adjust and he doesn't....and it results in him going .278/.388/.498....then he is no longer the best hitter.
If he chooses to ONLY swing at 188 pitches the entire year, and he still goes .308/.420/.600 with 39 home runs.....then he is still the best hitter in baseball even if he swings at the least amount of pitches than anyone ever has.
@thisistheshow said:
I, for one, appreciate this thread. I take the opinions (often varying) of others here and find them them both helpful and enjoyable. I do have a request for @countdouglas or others in the know. Has this observation of Trout been made by others and can anyone post links discussing it.
PS Before posting this comment, I saved the draft, then previewed it, then clicked on my countdouglas link to make sure I had the right one. I didn't, so I changed it to the second one. This could cause confusion for others and stop him from being properly tagged, so I wanted to point it out. The confusion comes from the infamous imposter count douglas who appeared recently for but a moment.
No, the count is in fact not the only one to notice. Here is a link that discusses this issue.
You do realize that article was published last year after his first 28 games where he got off to a slow start .255/.333/.564?
Then his next 25 games he went .315/.452/.652
That article suggested he was being too patient and was struggling. Probably not a good idea to draw conclusions based on a small sample size like that article did, because he turned it around quickly.
Lesson learned, know the sample size.
Much like this thread in the early going, Trout got caught looking a few times, and then bam, hit homers in two games in a row.
If Trout ever gets too patient and he starts batting .250 with 19 homers a year, THEN you will have a point...but it is idiotic to suggest he is being too patient when he has hit better than anyone in MLB for the last ten years. Who else averages a .300 batting average and 39 HR per 162 in MLB in this day and age?
So, no. Mike Trout has not been too patient in his career. If he starts taking strike threes and stops hitting home runs, then make a thread about that as it will then be the end of calling Mike Trout the best hitter in baseball.
Otherwise, enjoy the show. If you like batters grounding out to second base regularly, just watch recaps of a season long full of at bats from George Brett....he will give you a lot of outs made for your viewing pleasure.
@Darin said:
I will give you credit 1948 swell,
I saw and listened to many George Brett at bats and when he was in a slump he hit
groundballs to second base a lot. Most hitters strikeout a lot in a slump.
You knew George was going bad when even pitches on the outside corner he was pulling to second base.
But luckily he did have the ability to hit .400 for months at a time and those slumps became distant memories.
Darin it pains me to rag on Brett....its just some sports talk smack. He was great. I'm only bringing those ground ball outs up to show that even the best makes tons of outs and strike out. It doesn't negate the great stuff they do to the degree that the OP is showing as if the negative of a strikeout erases the positive of a home run. Outs do hurt, and it is good to see people recognizing strrikeouts hurt, but they seem to forget that ground outs hurt just as much 98-99% of the time.
If Trout hit .310/.425/.600 and struck out looking on every single one of his outs, he would still be the best hitter in MLB today.
As for the OP and his 'insight' because he is watching the game and getting mad when Trout doesn't swing at a pitchers' pitch. Watching the Mariners/Sox now, and the Sox have the bases loaded and nobody out and the pitcher Graveman is reallllly struggling with his command. He already loaded the bases with nobody out. He is all over the place.
Zach Collins, first pitch, ball one wild. Second pitch touches the very bottom of the strike zone and he pops up to short. Waste. Should have worked the count for a C#$* shot.
Luis Robert on the first pitch swung at a pitch eight inches inside and fouls it off! Why are you swinging at pitch eight inches inside when the pitcher is wild and the bases are loaded with one out?? Why are you swinging at a pitch eight inches inside in any event?
Next pitch eight inches inside for a ball. Should be 2-0. Next pitch, breaking pitch low and away. A pitchers' pitch, but Roberts pulls a decently hit line drive to shortstop. Double play(got baserunner at second nothing he could do). Not much else he could have done with that pitch unless he had the ability to drive it up the middle...but if he had that ability, he would most likely sacrifice his light tower power to do that.
Roberts doomed that at bat by swinging at that first wild pitch. Should have been sitting 2-0 and looking for aC*#& shot.
Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah. You can do that all day, opposite of what the OP is doing to Trout.
Sox waste a bases loaded opportunity with bad pitch selection for hitters. That's what happens when you swing at balls instead of letting them be called 'balls'.
That type of approach by those guys are why they are not Mike Trout and never will be. How good do you think Robert would be if he stopped chasing pitches out of the zone???? He actually hits the ball further than Trout does.
Thing is, Robert may simply not have the ability to do that, and the only way he is going to do any damage is to be a high frequency swinger who makes a lot of outs and doesn't get on base often...and hits some long home runs. Maybe that will change. But as of now that is why pitchers like throwing pitches out of the zone to him.
Or Javy Baez, same thing different side of town.
I'm not going to fault Robert or Baez by not being able to lay off 97 MPH or ungodly sliders and splits. It is damn hard. No other hitters in the history of baseball have seen that as much as these hitters have had to. That is what happens to the majority of MLB hitters right now. The very few hitters who do that better than everyone else in the nation are known as Hall of Famers.
The few in the Hall of Fame who do it better than most other Hall of Famers....is where Mike Trout is at. They do not swing at balls, they swing only(mostly) at the pitches they can hit hard, and have the ability to do damage as well.
The expense of Trout's extra called strikes/strikeouts nets him a .300/.410/.600 slash line in an era where that is unattainable on a consistent basis by anyone else, and that puts Trout as the best hitter of his era and in(early) contention for GOAT talk.
PS, even the Gods of the game still chase that stuff....so don't bother replying by showing Mike Trout swinging at a ball.
You can do that above exercise every at bat for every player and do the same thing that OP is doing.....and in the end, the guy with the slash line of .300//410/.600, which is much better than any other hitter in the league, is STILL going to be the best hitter in the league no matter how many times he strikes out. Sox fans sure wished Robert had struck out instead of hitting into a double play.
What is the gap between a GOAT hitter like Trout and a merely great hitter like Brett? Here's one way to visualize it:
Brett
Trout
Now Ken Keltner and Oyster Burns were fine hitters, but they were not Frank Robinson and Mickey Mantle.
I don't know; I hope I'm not talking to anyone here. It pains me, though, to think that anyone who considers himself a baseball fan could watch one of the greatest hitters to ever play the game and not realize that they were doing so. Babe Ruth made 8 times as many outs as he hit home runs; it is just sad to think that someone could watch him play and only talk about the outs. Talk about missing the point.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I don't know; I hope I'm not talking to anyone here. It pains me, though, to think that anyone who considers himself a baseball fan could watch one of the greatest hitters to ever play the game and not realize that they were doing so. Babe Ruth made 8 times as many outs as he hit home runs; it is just sad to think that someone could watch him play and only talk about the outs. Talk about missing the point.
Gosh yes. Its baffling. Not only that, but to get so mad a called strike three and not so mad at a swinging strike three??
When you are little your coach tells you to 'go down swinging'. That actually has some merit in a youth league because when making contact at that level there is a much higher probability you will get a hit because most fielders don't have range, and their error rate is extremely high...and the strike zones tend to be huge and erratic. Some leagues better than others of course.
A lot of fans seem to carry those youth league philosophies and apply them to MLB. The older you get, the less important 'making contact' becomes and the more important making 'hard contact' is.
You only make hard contact by swinging at the pitches that allow that to be. That is why Trout is so good.
If Mike Trout struck out on every one of his outs and still hit .310.410/.600 he would be 98% as good as someone who NEVER struck out and hit .310/.410/.600.
It is true that a hitter 'can' become too patient and pass up their c&#^ shots or find themselves behind in the count too much, and I'm sure Trout goes through that from time to time(slumps), but he obviously adjusts pretty quickly because he turns that around quickly. What matters in the end is he ends up hitting better than anyone else in the league on a yearly consistent basis.
For the love of God, of all the old school fans on here....Mike Trout is a .300 hitter. One of only nine active .300 hitters(3,000 PA)...and he has ridiculous power. Then add the OB% on top of that. Ridiculously great.
So no live updates?? Trout line drive double in the first and scored a run. Trout go ahead home run in the fifth.
Soft single in the 7th....maybe find a way to discredit that. 3 for 4 with a 2B and a HR so far. I guess that is what it takes to avoid getting lambasted....Trout has to get more hits than outs.
Or maybe he will make an out in the ninth and will be retroactively viewed as 'unclutch' like the people do to the player who hits two grand slams in the game and then strikes out with the bases loaded in the 9th inning down 9-8. Some guys just can't do enough.
Trout getting lambasted by the OP in the early going, taking too many pitches.... and he is hitting .435. Still not enough. Needs more hits than outs.
It's a shame their pitching staff stinks again.
Just a public service announcement. In 1985 George Brett had one of the best seasons in the 1980s, and yet there were 43 games where he failed to get a hit, and 93 games where he failed to drive in a run. It would be easy to go play by play and highlight all his negatives and downplay his positives like the OP has done to Trout in this thread, and 'attempt' to make Brett's tremendous season look bad. That's baseball hitting folks. Not picking on Brett...actually complimenting him by using him as an example.
Trout made an out in the 9th inning off a guy that I am sure that 98% of the people on here have never heard of....yet these are the velocity and types of pitches that he offered Trout in the 9th:
79 MPH curve ....for a ball
97.9 MPH FB...foul ball
87.8 MPH slider...foul ball
98.3 MPH FB....ball
98.6 MPH FB.....line out to CF
Trout sucks. He didn't get a hit in the ninth inning with two guys on and game tied off of the third different pitcher he saw in the game......a pitcher throwing filthy stuff.
3 for 5, two runs scored, double, home run, RBI. The home run was a bomb too. Hit some school across the street. Maybe the kid will find the ball at recess.
Still has more hits than outs so he may be safe from the ire of the OP....
Wow! I don't check in because of the off day and I see there is some lively discussion!
I do think there is some misunderstanding. I'm sorry everyone is so angry that it is hard to flesh out the nuance. I do think Mike Trout is a great player. I just think he gets a pass on a lot of things where he's not good. I won't even start on his defense, as the forum would melt down.
There is a reason that the DH was instituted. There is a reason for pinch hitters. There is a reason for platoon players. Teams are trying to win games by replacing a batter that is less likely to do significant damage at the plate with a batter that is more likely to do significant damage at the plate.
I'm just saying that I want the Mike Trout that sometimes stands there like he's a one inning reliever who's been instructed to just watch 3 fast ones go by so he doesn't get hurt to be replaced by Mike Freaking Trout, destroyer of pitcher's confidence! I just want him to try to do damage. Nothing good comes from Mike Trout watching balls go by. He had the speed to beat out hits, or force the defense to make plays and perhaps an error. The Mike Trout that just stands there seems to take an at bat at the most inopportune times. Let's just watch 162, and see what happens.
Game number 7.
The 4-2 Angels visiting the 3-3 Blue Jays in Dunedin, Florida.
First inning - first pitch that he sees, Trout doubles to left field. He comes around to score the first run of the game.
Third inning - with the score tied 3-3, on a 1-2 pitch, Stripling goes upstairs and Trout watches it go by for strike 3 called.
.
.
Fifth inning - Mike Trout decides he's going to be Mike Freaking Trout, and blasts the first pitch 444 feet for a solo homerun and a 4-3 lead.
Seventh inning - tied 5-5, Trout taps a ball out towards third and easily beats out an infield single without a throw.
Ninth inning - still tied 5-5, Trout lines out to centerfield.
The game goes into extra innings, with the Angels winning 7-5. The Angels moved to 5-2, staying one game behind the Houston Astros. Trout did not bat in the extra frames. He went 3-5 with a RBI, 2 runs scored, and a called strike 3.
That's a total of 4 called 3rd strikes through 7 games now.
That's a total of 4 called 3rd strikes through 7 games now.
You keep saying you just want him "to do damage," lol. If he is hititng .300 with 39 HR per 162 and it is better than everyone else in MLB in the last 8 years...what more damage can you expect? It's not Little League.
There is no nuance in it.
You may as well be keeping a tally of how many bags of peanuts the vendor sells in the game. It has the same value as focusing on posting the pitch locations of each called strike.
He's doing more than anyone else in MLB and you simply want him to do more. I get it. You want him to swing at every pitch and tap out to SS more. Once he becomes a high volume swinger like that, he is no longer going to be the best player in the game.
If it were so easy to do what you are asking, then how come nobody else in MLB is doing it at the level he is?
Nobody is angry....just laughing at the silliness of keeping so much of the focus on taking strikes and brushing away the fact that he is still hitting better than anyone in the game regardless of how many strikes he takes.
I'm sure you scream at the TV and yell when he lets a 98 MPH fastball let go for a strike. Or scream at the TV when a guy gets hit in the head by a 98 MPH fastball as you watch the replay in slow motion and say, "Why couldn't he get out of the way of that!!??. Look how long he had to get out of the way!"
Countdouglas you simply don't understand baseball if you are complaining about Mike Trout watching a 3rd strike but cheering on hitters swinging and missing for strike 3. Despite watching countless Angels games, for some reason you don't seem to understand Trout's plate discipline (which does result in the occasional called 3rd strike) is a big reason why he is and has been the best player in baseball for a decade. Trout swings at pitches he thinks he can hit, it is really a simple concept. You seem to believe he should be able to do damage on any pitch in the strike zone but that is just not how hitting works even for the GOATs of the game.
If you wanted to make an actual argument or inject any value in this conversation, you would highlight players that you think are better than Trout at the plate and compare the number of called 3rd strikes they have in a season to how many Trout averages. I have yet to see any mention of even one hitter that you think is doing it "right".
Your take from the game last night appears to be, Trout struck out looking for the 4th time in 7 games. You seem to be missing the forest for the trees with your hot take on Mike Trout taking too many called 3rd strikes.
@fergie23 said:
Countdouglas you simply don't understand baseball if you are complaining about Mike Trout watching a 3rd strike but cheering on hitters swinging and missing for strike 3. Despite watching countless Angels games, for some reason you don't seem to understand Trout's plate discipline (which does result in the occasional called 3rd strike) is a big reason why he is and has been the best player in baseball for a decade. Trout swings at pitches he thinks he can hit, it is really a simple concept. You seem to believe he should be able to do damage on any pitch in the strike zone but that is just not how hitting works even for the GOATs of the game.
If you wanted to make an actual argument or inject any value in this conversation, you would highlight players that you think are better than Trout at the plate and compare the number of called 3rd strikes they have in a season to how many Trout averages. I have yet to see any mention of even one hitter that you think is doing it "right".
Your take from the game last night appears to be, Trout struck out looking for the 4th time in 7 games. You seem to be missing the forest for the trees with your hot take on Mike Trout taking too many called 3rd strikes.
Robb
Bingo. Nailed it.
Abreu, Goldschmidt and Freeman are probably the closest hitters to trout from 2010-present, in terms of hitting for average and power like the OP seems to like. They are all high strikeout batters. Difference is that Trout does "more damage" than all of them:
Trout has a higher lifetime batting average than all of them. That should please all the old school fans.
Trout has a higher lifetime slugging percentage than all of them.
Trout has a higher lifetime OPS+
Trout 176
Goldschmidt 142
Freeman 138
Harper 138....even though old school guys don't like him because his average is lower and he walks a lot.
Abreu 136
Arenado, even with Coors has a lower average than Trout. 121 OPS+
Jose Ramirez strikes out only about 80 times a year. I guess that is the OP's poster hitter. .281 AVG and .496 SLG. 123 OPS+.
Or Altuve, .311AVG, .458 SLG. 138 OPS+....but he even strikes out 83 times per 162.
The kicker is that the OP keeps calling on Trout to "do more damage" yet Trout is averaging more HR per 162 games than all of those guys. What more damage is he expected to do? He already dwarfs every single hitter.
The young guns are all prolific strikeout hitters too in MLB, and Trout dwarfs them too. Trout has a higher average than all of them, and higher OPS+:
There is not one hitter playing now that is close to Trout's lifetime OPS+. Not even the young guys with less plate appearances. The older guys still playing have hit a wall in the past 8 years to drop their OPS+ way below.
Will see how Trout does going forward. Nobody should be talking GOAT until you see what he does for the next eight years.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Will see how Trout does going forward. Nobody should be talking GOAT until you see what he does for the next eight years.
Agreed, and I don't think Trout could reasonably be considered the GOAT yet. But he is, alone among anyone in MLB for the past 20 years at least, "in the conversation" for the title. Well, I suppose there may be a couple of rookies or real short timers who
haven't shown us their best stuff yet, but of the players who've been around at least a few years, Trout is the only one who could turn out to be the GOAT. And whether or not he claims the title will be unrelated to how many called third strikes he took, or how many bags of peanuts the stadium vendors sold.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
OP doesn't understand why Trout can't do that on every pitch in the strike zone. Still hasn't answered who exactly in MLB is doing that on a regular basis more than Trout, while also hitting .300????
Not even counting the walks(which put him into the stratosphere compared to his peers).
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Will see how Trout does going forward. Nobody should be talking GOAT until you see what he does for the next eight years.
Agreed, and I don't think Trout could reasonably be considered the GOAT yet. But he is, alone among anyone in MLB for the past 20 years at least, "in the conversation" for the title.
For first 10 seasons, Albert Pujols is right there with Trout.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Will see how Trout does going forward. Nobody should be talking GOAT until you see what he does for the next eight years.
Agreed, and I don't think Trout could reasonably be considered the GOAT yet. But he is, alone among anyone in MLB for the past 20 years at least, "in the conversation" for the title.
For first 10 seasons, Albert Pujols is right there with Trout.
Trout 176 OPS+ currently at 5,551 plate appearances. 201 SB. 37 CS......58 GIDP.
Pujols 172 OPS+ after his first 6,782 plate appearances. 74 SB. 34 CS....203 GIDP
Just looking at hitting, yes Pujols right there, but still a hair behind. But offensively, when you look at the base running and the Grounded into Double Plays....it really isn't that close offensively.
Defensively, no matter how anyone views Trout's CF ability, doesn't matter, it still brings more defensive value to the team just being able to play CF, than what Pujols brings defensively.
Pujols had a couple more good seasons after that prime, with a 148 OPS+ and 138 OPS+, then he started falling off the cliff hitting wise and was.
I may amend my earlier statement about saying it is too early to put Trout into the GOAT equation. When you add his baserunning and being a centerfielder....he is a special player.
Mantle held a 176 OPS+ up until 7,202 plate appearances and finished at 172 with 9,910 career plate Appearances. There is your benchmark for a hitter who also mans a premiere defensive position and has speed, for post WWII. Lets see how it goes. Will be an interesting run.
My gut is telling me that Trout has several prime years left and we may not have seen his best hitting year yet. His running days most likely over.
I think it is ultimately futile comparing Trout to any Pre-War player for many reasons. To be upfront, the evidence and logic points to me leaning heavily toward a modern player in that comparison, but that is another 'huge' discussion.
@craig44 said:
in the last 20 seasons, Bonds dwarfs what Trout has done.
Bonds has a lifetime 182 OPS+ through 12,606 plate appearances.
Trout has a lifetime 176 OPS+ through 5,551 plate appearances.
Base running between them is basically a wash.
Trout holds the defensive edge by playing CF and Bonds LF.
During Bonds's unreal years in SF, his home park was rated as a pitchers park and he gets a boost in his OPS+ as a result. However, that park was not hurtful to LH pull hitters due to its configuration, of which Bonds was, so his OPS+ should not be getting a boost. It should be getting a negative toward his OPS+.
From 2000-2007 Bonds had a 1.289 OPS at home. Bonds was not hurt by his park.
From 2000-2007 Bonds had a 1.193 OPS on the road.
I'm not good enough at math to figure out how much that should take off his OPS+, but I'm comfortable in saying his 182 OPS+ is a little higher than his true value.
Prior to the obvious juicing years for Bonds, he had a lifetime 163 OPS+ through 1999. Nobody knows exact year he started juicing, but up through 1995 it was an OPS+ of 159. Whichever point you pick as the juice/non juice, it is going to be below Trout's level of play.
Through 1995 is when Bonds had similar amount of plate appearances as Trout will have at the end of this season. Trout sitting at 176(with the year to be determined still), and Bonds was 159.
How great would it be if Trout keeps it up and is still close to even to a juiced Bonds?
Time will tell how the next eight years go...but I wouldn't use the word "dwarfed" by any stretch, and that isn't even touching the steroids factor.
Trout lost out on some of the wow factor in 2019 when he got hurt. He had 45 home runs in 134 games. He was looking at an easy 50+ HR year. Same for 2017 when he had 33 in 114 games. I think an eye catching 57 Home Run season would have done well to create a higher perception of Trout with an eye popping raw season.
@Tabe said:
For first 10 seasons, Albert Pujols is right there with Trout.
And at the time Pujols was in the conversation for GOAT. But his hitting dropped off quickly after that and he played himself out of the conversation. Trout may very well do the same thing, but as long as he keeps hitting the way he always has he'll stay in the conversation. If he does it for long enough, then he'll remain in the conversation forever.
@craig44 said:
in the last 20 seasons, Bonds dwarfs what Trout has done.
Barry Bonds last season was 1999, more than 20 years ago. Tater Head, King of the Mutants, took Bonds' place in 2000 and, not surprisingly, outplayed all of the mere humans he played against. If you would like to discuss Tater Head, King of the Mutants, as a GOAT candidate then you're free to do so, but I think it's silly.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Sorry, was hosting guests at my house all weekend, so didn't get to watch any baseball. I don't have much to say about the Friday and Saturday games except that Trout padded his slash lines, but didn't do anything of consequence that affected the outcomes of either game. Neither game was close, so I would not have expected him to take any called third strikes, and he did not. That is still 4 called third strikes through 9 games played.
The nuance will be apparent once you realize the game situations WHEN he takes his called third strikes. Let's just watch 162.
Speaking of hosting guests, the Kansas City Royals will be hosting Mike Trout and the Angels for a 3 game series starting Monday. Kauffman Stadium is the site of Mike Trout's biggest playoff moments. It's where he got the "1" in his 1 for 12 career playoff line, a solo homerun in the first inning of game number 3 of the 2014 ALDS. In that series, he also had 2 walks and a caught stealing.
Speaking of stealing bases, game 3 of the 2014 ALDS was the setting for probably the third most famous postseason stolen base in history. You have Jackie Robinson stealing home in the World Series. You have Dave Roberts stealing second in the ALCS. And then you have this:
.
.
And here it is from the centerfielder's point of view.
.
.
.
That stolen base was the flapping of a butterfly's wings...
Then, the very next inning, this occurred on back to back hitters.
.
.
.
That ripped the heart out of the Angels. They never seriously gave any resistance from that point to the last hitter of the game.
.
.
.
Singer, Duffy, and Keller are the projected starters this series, and of course I can't wait to see the results when Wade Davis and Greg Holland are on the mound, even after all this time and their dominance having receded. Should be good.
@Tabe said:
For first 10 seasons, Albert Pujols is right there with Trout.
And at the time Pujols was in the conversation for GOAT. But his hitting dropped off quickly after that and he played himself out of the conversation. Trout may very well do the same thing, but as long as he keeps hitting the way he always has he'll stay in the conversation. If he does it for long enough, then he'll remain in the conversation forever.
@craig44 said:
in the last 20 seasons, Bonds dwarfs what Trout has done.
Barry Bonds last season was 1999, more than 20 years ago. Tater Head, King of the Mutants, took Bonds' place in 2000 and, not surprisingly, outplayed all of the mere humans he played against. If you would like to discuss Tater Head, King of the Mutants, as a GOAT candidate then you're free to do so, but I think it's silly.
if it is your assertion that Bonds cheated and therefore does not deserve mention as a GOAT candidate, that is fine. But in order to be intellectually honest, you better do the same with all players who "cheated" you know who I am going to bring up. to name just a very few: Ruth, Mantle, Williams, Aaron, Mays, Schmidt, Rose, Ford, Drysdale, Perry and so many others.
if it is your assertion that Bonds cheated and therefore does not deserve mention as a GOAT candidate, that is fine. But in order to be intellectually honest, you better do the same with all players who "cheated" you know who I am going to bring up. to name just a very few: Ruth, Mantle, Williams, Aaron, Mays, Schmidt, Rose, Ford, Drysdale, Perry and so many others.
I know I am going to regret asking this, but please tell me how Babe Ruth cheated.
And I know, or think I know, what you would say if I asked you about most of the others, and if you were intellectually honest you would recognize the vast difference between what they did and what Tater Head, King of the Mutants did.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
if it is your assertion that Bonds cheated and therefore does not deserve mention as a GOAT candidate, that is fine. But in order to be intellectually honest, you better do the same with all players who "cheated" you know who I am going to bring up. to name just a very few: Ruth, Mantle, Williams, Aaron, Mays, Schmidt, Rose, Ford, Drysdale, Perry and so many others.
You bring this flawed argument up all the time.
The guys you listed may have cheated, but it didn't make them great ballplayers. In fact the (possible) steroid shot Mantle got actually ended his season and he went 1 for 6 in the World Series, playing in only 2 of the 5 games.
Bonds without steroids was certainly a top 20 player, but never in the GOAT conversation.
A firecracker and a nuclear bomb are both explosives, so I guess they are the same too.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Comments
Not that I follow, but isn't baseball like men's tennis? lots of aces and double faults.
If you throw a pitch hard enough and put it in the right spot, it is basically unhittable. So yeah in a way.
Pitchers are simply throwing harder and harder, but now they are doing it with command too. Even when they make MLB, they are still learning to throw even harder, but still with command. Command is the key. It isn't just guys firing it as hard as they possibly can, but can't throw it for a strike. Not only do they throw it for a strike now, the top half puts it where they want within the strike zone. DeGrom has actually increased his velocity since started. Baseball is more in tune with how to increase velocity now more so than ever before.
When you watch a hitter take a 98 MPH fastball for a strike three, and you are honestly unsure of why he didn't swing, then you either never faced a pitch like that or you are just an angry fan. Both understandable, but neither point of view has any merit in discrediting a player like Trout when that happens.
Its really pretty simple. A pitcher is trying to put the ball in a place where it won't get hard, and a batter is looking for a pitch that he can hit hard.
The best pitchers have the requisite velocity and command to put it in those spots more often than the pitchers who are not as equipped.
The best pitchers are also not dumb. As the count is dictating that needing to throw a strike becomes more important to avoid giving up a walk, they will have to move that pitch closer to the meatier part of the strike zone. However, if Mike Trout is batting, they are more often going to stay by the far reaches of the strike zone and be ok with giving up a walk, because the chances of giving up a home run become too great if they catch too much of the strike zone.
If Freddie Patek is batting, and the count dictates going to the meatier part of the strike zone, then pitchers will simply throw it to the meatier part of the strike zone because a batter like that won't do much damage in relation to Trout.
The best hitter in the league like Trout simply will not get pitches that are in the part of the strike zone in which he puts major damage on. Pitchers will peck away at his weakness. The great pitchers will be more successful than the average pitchers in doing that...which is why they are great. If they are so great at doing it, then Trout will be forced to swing at those pitches and the result will either be a swing and a miss, or a poorly hit ball.
The truly elite pitchers will have this ability AND also throw the balls 95 MPH+. Those pitchers are unhittable when they are locating. Doesn't even matter who the hitter is.
Even those pitchers make mistakes. Those are the pitches you usually see ending up in the seats. There is a lot of luck involved too. If the pitcher makes a mistake, sometimes the hitter does not take advantage of it. Sometimes they do. There is some luck there. That is why you still see even the best pitchers get hit around sometimes, and the average pitcher throwing a no hitter out of the blue.
That is just fastballs.
This isn't new. Its been going on for decades. The difference now is that there are more pitchers equipped to throw harder and still retain the requisite command. There are also more hitters equipped to take the mistakes out of the park. Which leads to more strikeouts, more home runs throughout the lineup, and less complete games.
People yearning for yesteryear with more hit and run etc....its simply not going to happen when so many pitchers who are six foot five inches tall, throwing 98 MPH with command, and with ungodly breaking pitches, because even the best contact hitters still strike out more when facing those beasts, just like they did against Nolan Ryan...only there are more Nolan Ryan type arsenals around the league now, and with better command.
Hitters have to look to hit the ball hard when it gets into their hitting zone. The best hitters will take advantage of those pitches more than the worst hitters...thats why they are the best hitters. However, the best hitters do not get as many opportunities to take advantage of those mistake pitches, and that is why a guy like Mike Trout is soo good, because he STILL averages 39 home runs per 162, and still hits .300....despite pitchers dong their very most diligence trying to stay away from his hitting zone and being completely ok with the at bat ending up with a walk rather than the ball in the seats.
@1948_Swell_Robinson
Yeah, man, I know all about baseball. Been watching for over 40 years. I've been a Royals full season ticket holder for almost a decade pre-COVID, and an MLB.TV subscriber for 5 or 6 years. Because of blackout restrictions, I can't watch Royals games on MLB.TV, so guess which team I watch, every chance I get? The Angels.
I'm quite certain that there can't be more than one or 2 people on this board that watches more baseball, and Mike Trout, specifically, than me. You don't need to regurgitate the stats that you pulled off the internet. I don't need the fancy schmancy stats to tell me what my eyes see.
I mentioned in a thread last year about his proclivity to take a tremendous amount of called 3rd strikes. People laughed. What?!?! The great Mike Trout?!?! Surely you're mistaken? Trout then managed to immediately go on a streak where he was called out on strikes a whopping 11 times in 13 games. Thus the idea for this thread was born. He's a decade into his career, and people don't know or realize that he takes an unusual amount of third strikes?
It's just weird. He normally destroys pitchers. He can do damage at will, it seems, but then at some point in the game, especially when it's close, a switch flips and he just watches the strikes go by. Some at bats, he won't swing one time in 3 pitches, and turn around and head back to the dugout. You, yourself, will quote all those stats proclaiming him the greatest player alive for what would appear to be 99 percent of the time, but then because of the excuse of baseball's increased talent pool and specialized relievers, he suddenly for that 1 percent becomes afraid to swing the bat? His teammates sure don't seem to have that difficulty with these supposedly awesome pitchers.
Game 5 for the Angels.
Down 4-0 in a big matchup with Houston, Mike gets the rally started in the 4th inning with a blast to left field for his first homerun of the year.
Fifth inning, down 4-2 now, representing the tying run, in a spot that I am used to seeing him routinely get rung up, he does exactly that. Called strike 3. I will cut him some slack this time, though, as even though I said previously that no one should complain when he gets hosed by a bad call, even I will say he was hosed! Pitch number 6 was called strike 3?!?!
.
.
The Angels would have to rally late once again to win, and Mike Trout was intentionally walked in his at bat, late in the events of the 8th inning scoring.
The Angels are now 4-1 and tied for first place.
This called third strike I guess makes up for the missed called third strike in the earlier game, and his total on the year for those following at home is now 3.
>
Perhaps that is what missing...watching too much Trout and clearly having a bias. Who else is doing what you are asking of Trout? Whatever it is that you are asking.
You amy have been watching baseball for 40 years but are not quite understanding hitting. You should probably step up to the plate and face some of those pitches, then possibly would not be surprised why someone would get caught looking. Its happening all over MLB for reasons explained above.
He is striking out a lot. He is doing more damage with the bat than anyone. Who else is doing it different/better in MLB now?
THe only way to discredit Trout is if one doesn't understand what it is to see 98 on the corner, or if one is a rabid fans. Both understandable...but neither holds any merit in trying to discredit Trout.
So he never gets hits when it counts??? Or barely ever? What is your definition of "when it counts"? Is it a feeling you have?
You seem to focus on called strike threes and get so angry. Are you happy when a guy swings and misses as strike three? Are you even happier when a guy pops out to the pitcher? You realize that 99.9 percent of the time those are all the same.
I asked, do you want him to make more contact and be a .333 hitter with a SLG% of .700? Who else does that now? Or even close?
He doesn't hit quite as good when it is late and close, when the dominant elite relievers are in the game. Ok. The league as a whole doesn't hit as good in those spots just so you are aware.
But it isn't like Trout just strikes out in those times, I would bet that his hitting in those times is still elite compared to the league.
I am curious going forward how you will paint his home runs or hits. Here you decide that being down 4-2 in the fifth is a key spot, which it is. So if he hits a home run in the first inning to take the lead, will that not be a key spot?? What is a key spot? The spot where your vast experience as a hitter tells you it is?
I could see a lot of flip flopping going forward. Of course, I'm sure there will be moving goal posts when he does good and it doesn't fit the narrative.
This thread has prompted me to use the "ignore" button for the first time since joining.
It was liberating!
>
Hmm, I'm curious about your moving goal posts. How come in Mike Trout's career when his team is down by one run he has a lifetime .300 average, .415 OB%, and .586 SlG%,? Being down by one run is not a key spot, but down by two in the fifth is? Your feelings give you this insight?
Who else the last ten years has done better in such a key spot when being down by one run??
So you just pick on the times where he strikes out and ignore all the rest?
Why don't you do that same method with every MLB hitter the last ten years? Do a running tally of whenever they make an out and act like it was the biggest situation in the world, and then when they hit a home run, just kind of gloss over it. LOL.
I'm not sure if you realize, and I will save you the suspense for your project, but Mike Trout will have more negative hitting events than positive all year....its the nature of hitting at the MLB level. It isn't Little League.
Highlighting each negative and glossing over the positive isn't going to change the fact that Trout is the best player in MLB for these last ten years. Someone may have a better season this year than him...that is also the nature of MLB hitting.
Game number 6
Mike Trout blasted a 2-run homerun in the first inning off of Zack Greinke that traveled 464 feet and gave the Angels a 2-0 lead. It was the first career homerun that Mike Trout had hit off of Greinke.
It was the only scoring the Angels would do all day. Greinke got a small bit of revenge in the 6th inning by getting Trout to chase a pitch for a swinging strikeout.
The Astros got 2 in the 2nd and 2 in the 9th to win 4-2, and retake the division lead by a game.
Trout's total of called third strikes on the season remains at 3.
I'm sorry everyone is so upset at my thread. Don't read it then.
There has been no moving of the goalposts. My premise has always been that Mike Trout takes an excessive number of called third strikes. They seem to almost always occur when the Angels are tied or trailing, and almost always from the 5th inning on. Whatever his reason for that is, it's very interesting to me to witness. I'm just documenting for everyone in real time the unusual habit, to me anyway, of Mike Trout to take a LOT of called third strikes. In conversation with many other baseball fans, I have found that they are unaware and incredulous that this is true.
I'm not sure what it means. Apparently taking a LOT of called third strikes makes you a fantastic baseball player and everybody will love you. You will win lots of MVPs, lots of games, and lots of championships. It has certainly been working for him.
I don't know what the number of called strikeouts will be that will suddenly cause a person to have their "wow" moment. The "hey, there is something to this." The "this IS odd" moment. Will it be 15? Will it be 30? Will it be 60? I don't know, but all I can do is total it up and present it to you. I know it will end up being a LOT.
If he's sitting there with 47 called strike third strikes at the All-Star break, and 41 of them come when the score is tied or the Angels are losing, with 37 of them coming from the 5th inning on, is that something that will make you say, hmmm?
I didn't keep an exact count last year. I believe he played 55 or so games, and I'm fairly certain he was in the low 20s as a total for called third strikes. Like I have already said many times previously, he ripped off an astounding run of 11 called third strikes in 13 games during a stretch where the Angels went 3-10. I don't believe a single called third strike in that stretch came at a point in the game when they were leading. I don't know what to call that, but there surely is a word for it.
You can ignore for a couple of months, but I invite you to check back in around July, and I bet you'll be stunned at the running total.
I also find it odd that the biggest Mike Trout supporters out there, the ones that continually quote the stats that document the considerable damage he wreaks on opposing pitchers, they are just fine with him not swinging the bat and instead getting called out on strikes. They shrug, meh, a strikeout is a strikeout, they say. He would likely have just popped up to the pitcher instead, they say. He almost certainly would have rolled one over to the shortstop for a double play, they say.
I say, it's Mike freaking Trout! Why wouldn't you want him swinging the bat, and why wouldn't you be expecting astounding success as a result?
I want him swinging.
I can't state this enough, but he had at bats last year where he never once swung the bat at a single offering, not one, and then just turned around and went back to the dugout. Whyyyy? He is Mike freaking Trout, obliterater of baseballs, I want him going up there looking to do damage.
Heeeeeey! Batter, batter, batter! Swiiiiiiiing!
Because you don't hit home runs on pitchers' pitches...and he gets more of those than anyone else, that is why he doesn't swing. It's not Little League.
LOL, Is he not doing damage? Who else in MLB averages 39 HR per 162 games and hitting over .300 for their career??
What more damage you want? You want him to hit only 19 homers a year like Brett?
Pitchers aren't giving him C$#% shots. If he doesn't swing at C@#$ shot it is because he was most likely looking off speed and got fooled. Not sure if you ever faced a true breaking pitch, but they are pretty nasty. They aren't seen in Little League, so I would save the "Heeey Battter" for the Little League games.
When you swing at 98 on the corners, you either miss or tap out. If you enjoy tap outs to the pitcher, then encourage him to swing. If you want Trout to hit home runs, then don't encourage him to swing at those, because you know what will happen?? Pitchers will throw more of them there if they know he will chase their pitches, and his hits, home runs, and walks will all go down.
What Trout is doing is what you are supposed to do as a MLB hitter and he is doing it better than anyone in MLB. If someone doesn't understand that, then great....continue on.
However, I am not sure if you realize that hitting one home run is more positive than three strikeouts are negative. You seem to believe that by simply listing each strikeout out loud makes each strikeout negate each home run as if the negative value of one strikeout cancels out the positive value of one home run. Yeah, I know...'depends on the situation' blah, I know all of that and still doesn't change that.
Nobody is upset. Its good comic relief.
.
.
Well, just a second there, professor. I don't hate Brett, I've even acknowledged he's the fourth best third baseman in the history of baseball. What I hate are arguments made in blatant violation of facts, common sense, and all of the rules of logic. Recently, such arguments have been made, repeatedly, on behalf of Brett. I'm a big fan of Amos Otis, but if you try to argue that he is the greatest CF of all time I will mock that argument, too.
This thread is "informative" in precisely the same way, and to precisely the same degree, that a thread documenting what happened in each bat by Paul DeJong when he came up in the third through sixth innings on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays would be. Yes, it would provide information, but it would be useless information from which only a fool would draw any conclusions.
Sorry to disagree dallas, but there's simply no useful information here.
I, for one, appreciate this thread. I take the opinions (often varying) of others here and find them them both helpful and enjoyable. I do have a request for @countdouglas or others in the know. Has this observation of Trout been made by others and can anyone post links discussing it.
PS Before posting this comment, I saved the draft, then previewed it, then clicked on my countdouglas link to make sure I had the right one. I didn't, so I changed it to the second one. This could cause confusion for others and stop him from being properly tagged, so I wanted to point it out. The confusion comes from the infamous imposter count douglas who appeared recently for but a moment.
Precisely incorrect.
I posted that Brett hit 19 home runs per year to show how much "damage" that 39 home runs per year is.
So a guy just glosses over Trout hitting a two run home run in the first inning and its impact on winning a game, and then highlights a strikeout in the sixth as "revenge" is informative? I'm more inclined to get Dallas's dog for the recap of each Trout at bat, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
Maybe do a play by play recap of all the tap outs to second base for Brett, and then treat each of them as if they wiped away one of his astroturf doubles he got, or one of his rare home runs.
I guess it is informative in the sense that it seems some people are just realizing that hitters in modern MLB make more outs than they get hits. I'll save the suspense, Trout will make MANY more outs than he hits home runs. If that is news to you...I'm glad it works.
I don't know what is worse in this thread, the fact that that OP doesn't know that MLB is filled with strikeouts that happen all the time, the fact that he believes a strikeout wipes away the value of a home run, or the Little League vernacular and strategy that is used to describe it all. I guess the OPS should be asking Trout to do a Kelly Leake next time he is getting intentionally walked.
PS, I'm objective as they come when it comes to sports and topics such as these. I don't have any stake in Trout. I don't have any stake in Brett, but when 39 home runs is not 'damage' for one guy, and 19 home runs IS damage for another guy...yeah, I'm probably going to comment. in addition tot the stuff dallas pointed out about common sense and logic.
If popping out in the infield or tapping out to second is applauded, but striking out means your 39 home runs and .300 average mean next to nothing....there is your bias my friend. So no, he isn't posting just facts. He is assigning bias to events and promoting completely improper value to every single thing when it comes to hitting at the MLB level.
Oh, we definitely agree. I said this thread contained plenty of "useless" information. But, to be fair, the thread has some good stuff in it; it's just the OP's posts that are useless (I assume they still are; I put him on Ignore after the first few).
So what are the called third strike on other stars in the same caliber as Trout? Bellinger, Judge Alonso?
No, the count is in fact not the only one to notice. Here is a link that discusses this issue.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/prospects365.com/2020/08/27/is-mike-trout-being-too-patient/amp/
You do realize that article was published last year after his first 28 games where he got off to a slow start .255/.333/.564?
Then his next 25 games he went .315/.452/.652
That article suggested he was being too patient and was struggling. Probably not a good idea to draw conclusions based on a small sample size like that article did, because he turned it around quickly.
Lesson learned, know the sample size.
Much like this thread in the early going, Trout got caught looking a few times, and then bam, hit homers in two games in a row.
If Trout ever gets too patient and he starts batting .250 with 19 homers a year, THEN you will have a point...but it is idiotic to suggest he is being too patient when he has hit better than anyone in MLB for the last ten years. Who else averages a .300 batting average and 39 HR per 162 in MLB in this day and age?
So, no. Mike Trout has not been too patient in his career. If he starts taking strike threes and stops hitting home runs, then make a thread about that as it will then be the end of calling Mike Trout the best hitter in baseball.
Otherwise, enjoy the show. If you like batters grounding out to second base regularly, just watch recaps of a season long full of at bats from George Brett....he will give you a lot of outs made for your viewing pleasure.
....add to the above, the moment Trout does change his approach in an extreme way, or if pitchers adjust and he doesn't....and it results in him going .278/.388/.498....then he is no longer the best hitter.
If he chooses to ONLY swing at 188 pitches the entire year, and he still goes .308/.420/.600 with 39 home runs.....then he is still the best hitter in baseball even if he swings at the least amount of pitches than anyone ever has.
I put him on Ignore after the first few).
LOL........me too!
.
)> @Darin said:
Brett didn't play in Comiskey
You do realize that article was published last year after his first 28 games where he got off to a slow start .255/.333/.564?
Then his next 25 games he went .315/.452/.652
That article suggested he was being too patient and was struggling. Probably not a good idea to draw conclusions based on a small sample size like that article did, because he turned it around quickly.
Lesson learned, know the sample size.
Much like this thread in the early going, Trout got caught looking a few times, and then bam, hit homers in two games in a row.
If Trout ever gets too patient and he starts batting .250 with 19 homers a year, THEN you will have a point...but it is idiotic to suggest he is being too patient when he has hit better than anyone in MLB for the last ten years. Who else averages a .300 batting average and 39 HR per 162 in MLB in this day and age?
So, no. Mike Trout has not been too patient in his career. If he starts taking strike threes and stops hitting home runs, then make a thread about that as it will then be the end of calling Mike Trout the best hitter in baseball.
Otherwise, enjoy the show. If you like batters grounding out to second base regularly, just watch recaps of a season long full of at bats from George Brett....he will give you a lot of outs made for your viewing pleasure.
Darin it pains me to rag on Brett....its just some sports talk smack. He was great. I'm only bringing those ground ball outs up to show that even the best makes tons of outs and strike out. It doesn't negate the great stuff they do to the degree that the OP is showing as if the negative of a strikeout erases the positive of a home run. Outs do hurt, and it is good to see people recognizing strrikeouts hurt, but they seem to forget that ground outs hurt just as much 98-99% of the time.
If Trout hit .310/.425/.600 and struck out looking on every single one of his outs, he would still be the best hitter in MLB today.
But Tabe is right above about Comiskey Park.
As for the OP and his 'insight' because he is watching the game and getting mad when Trout doesn't swing at a pitchers' pitch. Watching the Mariners/Sox now, and the Sox have the bases loaded and nobody out and the pitcher Graveman is reallllly struggling with his command. He already loaded the bases with nobody out. He is all over the place.
Zach Collins, first pitch, ball one wild. Second pitch touches the very bottom of the strike zone and he pops up to short. Waste. Should have worked the count for a C#$* shot.
Luis Robert on the first pitch swung at a pitch eight inches inside and fouls it off! Why are you swinging at pitch eight inches inside when the pitcher is wild and the bases are loaded with one out?? Why are you swinging at a pitch eight inches inside in any event?
Next pitch eight inches inside for a ball. Should be 2-0. Next pitch, breaking pitch low and away. A pitchers' pitch, but Roberts pulls a decently hit line drive to shortstop. Double play(got baserunner at second nothing he could do). Not much else he could have done with that pitch unless he had the ability to drive it up the middle...but if he had that ability, he would most likely sacrifice his light tower power to do that.
Roberts doomed that at bat by swinging at that first wild pitch. Should have been sitting 2-0 and looking for aC*#& shot.
Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah. You can do that all day, opposite of what the OP is doing to Trout.
Sox waste a bases loaded opportunity with bad pitch selection for hitters. That's what happens when you swing at balls instead of letting them be called 'balls'.
That type of approach by those guys are why they are not Mike Trout and never will be. How good do you think Robert would be if he stopped chasing pitches out of the zone???? He actually hits the ball further than Trout does.
Thing is, Robert may simply not have the ability to do that, and the only way he is going to do any damage is to be a high frequency swinger who makes a lot of outs and doesn't get on base often...and hits some long home runs. Maybe that will change. But as of now that is why pitchers like throwing pitches out of the zone to him.
Or Javy Baez, same thing different side of town.
I'm not going to fault Robert or Baez by not being able to lay off 97 MPH or ungodly sliders and splits. It is damn hard. No other hitters in the history of baseball have seen that as much as these hitters have had to. That is what happens to the majority of MLB hitters right now. The very few hitters who do that better than everyone else in the nation are known as Hall of Famers.
The few in the Hall of Fame who do it better than most other Hall of Famers....is where Mike Trout is at. They do not swing at balls, they swing only(mostly) at the pitches they can hit hard, and have the ability to do damage as well.
The expense of Trout's extra called strikes/strikeouts nets him a .300/.410/.600 slash line in an era where that is unattainable on a consistent basis by anyone else, and that puts Trout as the best hitter of his era and in(early) contention for GOAT talk.
PS, even the Gods of the game still chase that stuff....so don't bother replying by showing Mike Trout swinging at a ball.
You can do that above exercise every at bat for every player and do the same thing that OP is doing.....and in the end, the guy with the slash line of .300//410/.600, which is much better than any other hitter in the league, is STILL going to be the best hitter in the league no matter how many times he strikes out. Sox fans sure wished Robert had struck out instead of hitting into a double play.
What is the gap between a GOAT hitter like Trout and a merely great hitter like Brett? Here's one way to visualize it:
Brett
Trout
Now Ken Keltner and Oyster Burns were fine hitters, but they were not Frank Robinson and Mickey Mantle.
I don't know; I hope I'm not talking to anyone here. It pains me, though, to think that anyone who considers himself a baseball fan could watch one of the greatest hitters to ever play the game and not realize that they were doing so. Babe Ruth made 8 times as many outs as he hit home runs; it is just sad to think that someone could watch him play and only talk about the outs. Talk about missing the point.
Gosh yes. Its baffling. Not only that, but to get so mad a called strike three and not so mad at a swinging strike three??
When you are little your coach tells you to 'go down swinging'. That actually has some merit in a youth league because when making contact at that level there is a much higher probability you will get a hit because most fielders don't have range, and their error rate is extremely high...and the strike zones tend to be huge and erratic. Some leagues better than others of course.
A lot of fans seem to carry those youth league philosophies and apply them to MLB. The older you get, the less important 'making contact' becomes and the more important making 'hard contact' is.
You only make hard contact by swinging at the pitches that allow that to be. That is why Trout is so good.
If Mike Trout struck out on every one of his outs and still hit .310.410/.600 he would be 98% as good as someone who NEVER struck out and hit .310/.410/.600.
It is true that a hitter 'can' become too patient and pass up their c&#^ shots or find themselves behind in the count too much, and I'm sure Trout goes through that from time to time(slumps), but he obviously adjusts pretty quickly because he turns that around quickly. What matters in the end is he ends up hitting better than anyone else in the league on a yearly consistent basis.
For the love of God, of all the old school fans on here....Mike Trout is a .300 hitter. One of only nine active .300 hitters(3,000 PA)...and he has ridiculous power. Then add the OB% on top of that. Ridiculously great.
So no live updates?? Trout line drive double in the first and scored a run. Trout go ahead home run in the fifth.
Soft single in the 7th....maybe find a way to discredit that. 3 for 4 with a 2B and a HR so far. I guess that is what it takes to avoid getting lambasted....Trout has to get more hits than outs.
Or maybe he will make an out in the ninth and will be retroactively viewed as 'unclutch' like the people do to the player who hits two grand slams in the game and then strikes out with the bases loaded in the 9th inning down 9-8. Some guys just can't do enough.
Trout getting lambasted by the OP in the early going, taking too many pitches.... and he is hitting .435. Still not enough. Needs more hits than outs.
It's a shame their pitching staff stinks again.
Just a public service announcement. In 1985 George Brett had one of the best seasons in the 1980s, and yet there were 43 games where he failed to get a hit, and 93 games where he failed to drive in a run. It would be easy to go play by play and highlight all his negatives and downplay his positives like the OP has done to Trout in this thread, and 'attempt' to make Brett's tremendous season look bad. That's baseball hitting folks. Not picking on Brett...actually complimenting him by using him as an example.
Trout made an out in the 9th inning off a guy that I am sure that 98% of the people on here have never heard of....yet these are the velocity and types of pitches that he offered Trout in the 9th:
79 MPH curve ....for a ball
97.9 MPH FB...foul ball
87.8 MPH slider...foul ball
98.3 MPH FB....ball
98.6 MPH FB.....line out to CF
Trout sucks. He didn't get a hit in the ninth inning with two guys on and game tied off of the third different pitcher he saw in the game......a pitcher throwing filthy stuff.
3 for 5, two runs scored, double, home run, RBI. The home run was a bomb too. Hit some school across the street. Maybe the kid will find the ball at recess.
Still has more hits than outs so he may be safe from the ire of the OP....
Remember when 98 MPH was a spectacle??
Wow! I don't check in because of the off day and I see there is some lively discussion!
I do think there is some misunderstanding. I'm sorry everyone is so angry that it is hard to flesh out the nuance. I do think Mike Trout is a great player. I just think he gets a pass on a lot of things where he's not good. I won't even start on his defense, as the forum would melt down.
There is a reason that the DH was instituted. There is a reason for pinch hitters. There is a reason for platoon players. Teams are trying to win games by replacing a batter that is less likely to do significant damage at the plate with a batter that is more likely to do significant damage at the plate.
I'm just saying that I want the Mike Trout that sometimes stands there like he's a one inning reliever who's been instructed to just watch 3 fast ones go by so he doesn't get hurt to be replaced by Mike Freaking Trout, destroyer of pitcher's confidence! I just want him to try to do damage. Nothing good comes from Mike Trout watching balls go by. He had the speed to beat out hits, or force the defense to make plays and perhaps an error. The Mike Trout that just stands there seems to take an at bat at the most inopportune times. Let's just watch 162, and see what happens.
Game number 7.
The 4-2 Angels visiting the 3-3 Blue Jays in Dunedin, Florida.
First inning - first pitch that he sees, Trout doubles to left field. He comes around to score the first run of the game.
Third inning - with the score tied 3-3, on a 1-2 pitch, Stripling goes upstairs and Trout watches it go by for strike 3 called.
.
.
Fifth inning - Mike Trout decides he's going to be Mike Freaking Trout, and blasts the first pitch 444 feet for a solo homerun and a 4-3 lead.
Seventh inning - tied 5-5, Trout taps a ball out towards third and easily beats out an infield single without a throw.
Ninth inning - still tied 5-5, Trout lines out to centerfield.
The game goes into extra innings, with the Angels winning 7-5. The Angels moved to 5-2, staying one game behind the Houston Astros. Trout did not bat in the extra frames. He went 3-5 with a RBI, 2 runs scored, and a called strike 3.
That's a total of 4 called 3rd strikes through 7 games now.
You keep saying you just want him "to do damage," lol. If he is hititng .300 with 39 HR per 162 and it is better than everyone else in MLB in the last 8 years...what more damage can you expect? It's not Little League.
There is no nuance in it.
You may as well be keeping a tally of how many bags of peanuts the vendor sells in the game. It has the same value as focusing on posting the pitch locations of each called strike.
He's doing more than anyone else in MLB and you simply want him to do more. I get it. You want him to swing at every pitch and tap out to SS more. Once he becomes a high volume swinger like that, he is no longer going to be the best player in the game.
If it were so easy to do what you are asking, then how come nobody else in MLB is doing it at the level he is?
Nobody is angry....just laughing at the silliness of keeping so much of the focus on taking strikes and brushing away the fact that he is still hitting better than anyone in the game regardless of how many strikes he takes.
I'm sure you scream at the TV and yell when he lets a 98 MPH fastball let go for a strike. Or scream at the TV when a guy gets hit in the head by a 98 MPH fastball as you watch the replay in slow motion and say, "Why couldn't he get out of the way of that!!??. Look how long he had to get out of the way!"
Countdouglas you simply don't understand baseball if you are complaining about Mike Trout watching a 3rd strike but cheering on hitters swinging and missing for strike 3. Despite watching countless Angels games, for some reason you don't seem to understand Trout's plate discipline (which does result in the occasional called 3rd strike) is a big reason why he is and has been the best player in baseball for a decade. Trout swings at pitches he thinks he can hit, it is really a simple concept. You seem to believe he should be able to do damage on any pitch in the strike zone but that is just not how hitting works even for the GOATs of the game.
If you wanted to make an actual argument or inject any value in this conversation, you would highlight players that you think are better than Trout at the plate and compare the number of called 3rd strikes they have in a season to how many Trout averages. I have yet to see any mention of even one hitter that you think is doing it "right".
Your take from the game last night appears to be, Trout struck out looking for the 4th time in 7 games. You seem to be missing the forest for the trees with your hot take on Mike Trout taking too many called 3rd strikes.
Robb
Bingo. Nailed it.
Abreu, Goldschmidt and Freeman are probably the closest hitters to trout from 2010-present, in terms of hitting for average and power like the OP seems to like. They are all high strikeout batters. Difference is that Trout does "more damage" than all of them:
Trout has a higher lifetime batting average than all of them. That should please all the old school fans.
Trout has a higher lifetime slugging percentage than all of them.
Trout has a higher lifetime OPS+
Trout 176
Goldschmidt 142
Freeman 138
Harper 138....even though old school guys don't like him because his average is lower and he walks a lot.
Abreu 136
Arenado, even with Coors has a lower average than Trout. 121 OPS+
Jose Ramirez strikes out only about 80 times a year. I guess that is the OP's poster hitter. .281 AVG and .496 SLG. 123 OPS+.
Or Altuve, .311AVG, .458 SLG. 138 OPS+....but he even strikes out 83 times per 162.
The kicker is that the OP keeps calling on Trout to "do more damage" yet Trout is averaging more HR per 162 games than all of those guys. What more damage is he expected to do? He already dwarfs every single hitter.
The young guns are all prolific strikeout hitters too in MLB, and Trout dwarfs them too. Trout has a higher average than all of them, and higher OPS+:
Soto 153
Tatis 153
Bellinger 140
Acuna 133
Seager 130
There is not one hitter playing now that is close to Trout's lifetime OPS+. Not even the young guys with less plate appearances. The older guys still playing have hit a wall in the past 8 years to drop their OPS+ way below.
Will see how Trout does going forward. Nobody should be talking GOAT until you see what he does for the next eight years.
.629, .628, .645, .603 Last 4 years Trout SLG
That's_ DAMAGE_!
Agreed, and I don't think Trout could reasonably be considered the GOAT yet. But he is, alone among anyone in MLB for the past 20 years at least, "in the conversation" for the title. Well, I suppose there may be a couple of rookies or real short timers who
haven't shown us their best stuff yet, but of the players who've been around at least a few years, Trout is the only one who could turn out to be the GOAT. And whether or not he claims the title will be unrelated to how many called third strikes he took, or how many bags of peanuts the stadium vendors sold.
https://www.mlb.com/video/mike-trout-homers-3-on-a-fly-ball-to-left-center-field?t=angels-carry-the-freight
Does this 39 times per 162 games. Damage.
OP doesn't understand why Trout can't do that on every pitch in the strike zone. Still hasn't answered who exactly in MLB is doing that on a regular basis more than Trout, while also hitting .300????
Not even counting the walks(which put him into the stratosphere compared to his peers).
For first 10 seasons, Albert Pujols is right there with Trout.
in the last 20 seasons, Bonds dwarfs what Trout has done.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Trout 176 OPS+ currently at 5,551 plate appearances. 201 SB. 37 CS......58 GIDP.
Pujols 172 OPS+ after his first 6,782 plate appearances. 74 SB. 34 CS....203 GIDP
Just looking at hitting, yes Pujols right there, but still a hair behind. But offensively, when you look at the base running and the Grounded into Double Plays....it really isn't that close offensively.
Defensively, no matter how anyone views Trout's CF ability, doesn't matter, it still brings more defensive value to the team just being able to play CF, than what Pujols brings defensively.
Pujols had a couple more good seasons after that prime, with a 148 OPS+ and 138 OPS+, then he started falling off the cliff hitting wise and was.
I may amend my earlier statement about saying it is too early to put Trout into the GOAT equation. When you add his baserunning and being a centerfielder....he is a special player.
Mantle held a 176 OPS+ up until 7,202 plate appearances and finished at 172 with 9,910 career plate Appearances. There is your benchmark for a hitter who also mans a premiere defensive position and has speed, for post WWII. Lets see how it goes. Will be an interesting run.
My gut is telling me that Trout has several prime years left and we may not have seen his best hitting year yet. His running days most likely over.
I think it is ultimately futile comparing Trout to any Pre-War player for many reasons. To be upfront, the evidence and logic points to me leaning heavily toward a modern player in that comparison, but that is another 'huge' discussion.
Bonds has a lifetime 182 OPS+ through 12,606 plate appearances.
Trout has a lifetime 176 OPS+ through 5,551 plate appearances.
Base running between them is basically a wash.
Trout holds the defensive edge by playing CF and Bonds LF.
During Bonds's unreal years in SF, his home park was rated as a pitchers park and he gets a boost in his OPS+ as a result. However, that park was not hurtful to LH pull hitters due to its configuration, of which Bonds was, so his OPS+ should not be getting a boost. It should be getting a negative toward his OPS+.
From 2000-2007 Bonds had a 1.289 OPS at home. Bonds was not hurt by his park.
From 2000-2007 Bonds had a 1.193 OPS on the road.
I'm not good enough at math to figure out how much that should take off his OPS+, but I'm comfortable in saying his 182 OPS+ is a little higher than his true value.
Prior to the obvious juicing years for Bonds, he had a lifetime 163 OPS+ through 1999. Nobody knows exact year he started juicing, but up through 1995 it was an OPS+ of 159. Whichever point you pick as the juice/non juice, it is going to be below Trout's level of play.
Through 1995 is when Bonds had similar amount of plate appearances as Trout will have at the end of this season. Trout sitting at 176(with the year to be determined still), and Bonds was 159.
How great would it be if Trout keeps it up and is still close to even to a juiced Bonds?
Time will tell how the next eight years go...but I wouldn't use the word "dwarfed" by any stretch, and that isn't even touching the steroids factor.
Trout lost out on some of the wow factor in 2019 when he got hurt. He had 45 home runs in 134 games. He was looking at an easy 50+ HR year. Same for 2017 when he had 33 in 114 games. I think an eye catching 57 Home Run season would have done well to create a higher perception of Trout with an eye popping raw season.
And at the time Pujols was in the conversation for GOAT. But his hitting dropped off quickly after that and he played himself out of the conversation. Trout may very well do the same thing, but as long as he keeps hitting the way he always has he'll stay in the conversation. If he does it for long enough, then he'll remain in the conversation forever.
Barry Bonds last season was 1999, more than 20 years ago. Tater Head, King of the Mutants, took Bonds' place in 2000 and, not surprisingly, outplayed all of the mere humans he played against. If you would like to discuss Tater Head, King of the Mutants, as a GOAT candidate then you're free to do so, but I think it's silly.
Sorry, was hosting guests at my house all weekend, so didn't get to watch any baseball. I don't have much to say about the Friday and Saturday games except that Trout padded his slash lines, but didn't do anything of consequence that affected the outcomes of either game. Neither game was close, so I would not have expected him to take any called third strikes, and he did not. That is still 4 called third strikes through 9 games played.
The nuance will be apparent once you realize the game situations WHEN he takes his called third strikes. Let's just watch 162.
Speaking of hosting guests, the Kansas City Royals will be hosting Mike Trout and the Angels for a 3 game series starting Monday. Kauffman Stadium is the site of Mike Trout's biggest playoff moments. It's where he got the "1" in his 1 for 12 career playoff line, a solo homerun in the first inning of game number 3 of the 2014 ALDS. In that series, he also had 2 walks and a caught stealing.
Speaking of stealing bases, game 3 of the 2014 ALDS was the setting for probably the third most famous postseason stolen base in history. You have Jackie Robinson stealing home in the World Series. You have Dave Roberts stealing second in the ALCS. And then you have this:
.
.
And here it is from the centerfielder's point of view.
.
.
.
That stolen base was the flapping of a butterfly's wings...
Then, the very next inning, this occurred on back to back hitters.
.
.
.
That ripped the heart out of the Angels. They never seriously gave any resistance from that point to the last hitter of the game.
.
.
.
Singer, Duffy, and Keller are the projected starters this series, and of course I can't wait to see the results when Wade Davis and Greg Holland are on the mound, even after all this time and their dominance having receded. Should be good.
if it is your assertion that Bonds cheated and therefore does not deserve mention as a GOAT candidate, that is fine. But in order to be intellectually honest, you better do the same with all players who "cheated" you know who I am going to bring up. to name just a very few: Ruth, Mantle, Williams, Aaron, Mays, Schmidt, Rose, Ford, Drysdale, Perry and so many others.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I know I am going to regret asking this, but please tell me how Babe Ruth cheated.
And I know, or think I know, what you would say if I asked you about most of the others, and if you were intellectually honest you would recognize the vast difference between what they did and what Tater Head, King of the Mutants did.
You bring this flawed argument up all the time.
The guys you listed may have cheated, but it didn't make them great ballplayers. In fact the (possible) steroid shot Mantle got actually ended his season and he went 1 for 6 in the World Series, playing in only 2 of the 5 games.
Bonds without steroids was certainly a top 20 player, but never in the GOAT conversation.
A firecracker and a nuclear bomb are both explosives, so I guess they are the same too.