Mike Trout is actually the most 'clutch' hitter of the past 10 years, and clearly the BEST overall.
1948_Swell_Robinson
Posts: 1,689 ✭✭✭✭
Mike Trout is the most clutch hitter of the past decade:
Seems some people hold Mike Trout to a standard where his hits or home runs really only matter if they are the walk off variety and claim that he only he hits when the game is out of reach, or chokes at the end of games all the time.
Lets examine that : But first, here is something a little more direct in laymen's terms. Currently Trout has 319 Home runs and it is being presumed by some that Trout only gets his big hits when it doesn't matter and that NONE of Trouts hits even matter unless they win a game at the end. There is no bigger impactful hit than a home run.
Of George Brett's 319 home runs, 6 were walk off, 35 tied the game, and 118 put them ahead.
Of Mike Trout's 317 home runs, 3 were walk off, 38 tied the game, and 123 put them ahead.
Self explanatory, or it should be at least.
That type of spread is going to be similar for every baseball hitter, with a couple outliers based on pure random chance. Every hitter gets most of his hits when the game isn’t on the line in the 9th inning. In fact, many games can be won in the fifth inning where late/close situations are not in play. That is why any good analysis should account for each of the 700 plate appearances in a given season, and not just the 80 or so that may be considered ‘clutch’.
I’m not going to do an era comparison, but the reality is that Trout is hitting his balls against tougher pitching than what previous generations have had to deal with. Nearly every pitcher that Trout faces late in a close game has the stuff of Nolan Ryan(but they are also all three inches taller than Ryan and have better command than Ryan, and with more movement, and the requisite breaking pitches). It should be zero surprise that Trout will not hit as well in late/close situations, especially in this era of baseball where those bullpens are absolutely stacked with ridiculous stuff from very large human beings.
In fact, the players in 2002 didn't face this stuff either and that is 100% backed up fact.... it is not some guess, and certainly not the 'word' of an angry old guy who yearns for yesteryear and glamorizes that things were better in his day.
So instead of cross era comparisons, lets just stay in Trout’s era where he is being compared against other players who are facing the same difficult obstacles that Trout is facing, rather than previous eras where the circumstances lead to an invalid comparison.
Here is what the entire of MLB batters did in late/close situations in 2021:
The league average batting average in late/close situations last year was .228. Yes, only .228.
The league average OB% in late/close situations last year was .315. Yes, only .315.
The league average SLG% in late/close situations last year was. .377. Yes, only .377.:
NOBODY IS HITTING THOSE GUYS!
Trout's career slash line in late/close games of .251/.411/.465 is actually darn impressive considering how weak the league is hitting there against those six foot five flame throwing monsters on the mound, especially knowing that the manager is going to do his very best to put a tough RH pitcher out there for Trout to face, and Trout will only see the absolute most elite LH pitchers in those cases.
TROUT's lifetime OPS in Late/close is .876. He may be more human in comparison to his overall self, but he is STILL the best there!
That array of arms in late/close situations that MLB is now producing from among the 9 BILLION people in the world is something the league has never had when they only got to chose from the 150-200 million (mostly) american citizens of yesteryear.
That is all part of the reason why the league average fastball is NOW over 93 MPH and was only 88 MPH in the early 2000's….and even slower in 1980’s and previous.
As evidenced by the league averages above, the entire league hits worse in late/close situations, but so do all the elite players like Trout: Here are the contemporaries with at least 3,000 plate appearances:
TROUT .876
Cabrera .857
Goldschmidt .797
Freeman .786
Betts .879…..not park adjusted. .925/850 overall home road splits, Fenway adjusts him lower than Trout.
Votto .860
Harper .797
Altuve .737
David Ortiz .870….He is more in the previous era, but here for comparison how clutch Trout has been.
Rizzo .760
Rendon .763
Correa .737
Trout is still the king of late/close hitting and more importantly, the overall King when you look at his entire array of plate appearances and not just focusing on the fifteen percent of them of late/close.
PS None of this even includes base running where Trout has excelled over almost every other elite hitter.
That is why Trout has led the league in Win Probability Added five times in his career. That measurement encompasses every single event the laymen fan claims, but also includes all the events they conveniently ignore.
Comments
Well, yes. I'm sad for people who miss seeing Trout play because they make excuses to believe he's not one of three players who has a legitimate argument to be best of all time.
Too many people stuck in the "everything was better back in the day," mode with very closed minds.
Rickey Henderson is universally lauded as the best leadoff hitter of all time. Henderson would simply not maintain his percentages against these monsters pitching today. It simply would not happen.
But I don't want to argue eras because people get emotional with that.
I do want to use Rickey Henderson as an example like I did Brett above with his spread of home runs.
Henderson led the league ONE TIME in on base percentage and had 11 top five finishes.
Trout led his league in on base percentage FOUR TIMES and had 8 top five finishes and should add a ninth this year(and probably another first place to boot).
Think about that, and then think about the fact that Trout has actually spent 66% of his career plate appearances in the one and two hole in the lineup as a 'table setter' in 'back in the day' terms.
Trout is actually a better table setter than Rickey Henderson. He doesn't have the same amount of steal attempts, but his percentage is just as good and 200+ steals is nothing to scoff at. Trout is better. Period.
We all know(or should know) that getting on base efficiently has only half the battle. Efficiently adding bases is the other side(SLG%).
Reggie Jackson has led the league in SLG% THREE times and has EIGHT top five finishes.
Mike Trout has led the league in SLG% THREE TIMES and has NINE top five finishes. Will add another this year.
Trout is superior slugger to Reggie Jackson. Again, Trout may not have the home run totals of Reggie, but that is because of two reasons. 1)Trout has better strike zone command and takes his walks. 2) Reggie faced lesser pitching overall and Reggie would have less home runs if he had to face heavy doses of Andrew Miller's every time he came up in the 7th inning or later. He simply would not do as well under those circumstances.
Batting Average. It isn't meaningless, but it is already incorporated in the above measurements, so counting it a third time is pointless. But what the biggest befuddling thing is is how the 'old timers' kill the modern player over lower batting averages....yet Trout has the THIRD BEST lifetime batting average among active players. Third best.
Don Mattingly had lesser lifetime batting averaged compared to his peers of Wade Boggs and Tony Gwynn....so in batting average, Mattingly was no better than third best among his peers too.
So for 'back in the day' terms, Mike Trout is Rickey Henderson, Reggie Jackson, and Don Mattingly rolled into one...and he is a better defender than all of them(even if he is now subpar in CF (compared to his CURRENT peers).
I made a comment about how people are so stuck on RBI still....and then completely ignore runs scored. That is about as an irrational method as thinking a non runner moving ground out is any better than a striking out. .
I do know that in the other half of the RBI equation that Trout has led the league in Runs Scored five times as well. So if you love RBI, then you love Mike Trout.
People need to get past the glory of yesteryear and understand why players like Trout are going to strike out more than guys from before and why batting averages are sinking too.
When you see a journeyman Clay Holmes standing six foot five and weighing 245 pounds in the Yankees bullpen coming into the game today throwing 99 MPH sinkers to strike out Andrew Vaughn....you HAVE to realize and envision how MLB was filled with pitchers like Scott Sanderson back in the day throwing 85-87 MPH with looping curve balls, and how much less likely it would be for Andrew Vaughn to strike out against that type of weak stuff and it is weak. Heck, that weak stuff was still somewhat common in the year 2002 when the league averaged 88 MPH and every pitch was registered and counted...so these aren't guesses.
This isn't a knock against yesteryear, or a comparison of eras. it is an unveiling of why things happen like they do now.
Even George Brett's strikeout rate doubled against power pitchers back in his day., and his batting average was only .278...its just that now the entire league is filled with power pitchers and they are all taller with a closer release to home plate. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that guys strike out so much now when you watch a game and see every bullpen parade pitcher after pitcher throwing 95+ with command and they are all routinely six foot four to six foot six tall on average.
We'll have to disagree about Trout being a subpar CF at this point. He's perhaps slightly below average, but a slightly below average CF is far more valuable defensively than a slightly above average LF or 1B (Henderson or Mattingly) let alone a significantly below average RF (Jackson).
As far as strikeouts are concerned, there will only ever be one Joe Sewell. Just think, as many strikeouts in his 14 year career as Josh Donaldson had last year, and a whopping 93 players had more!
Point taken. My subpar terminology was meant as your below average....and I agree that slightly below average CF is a better defender than what Mattingly provided(The degree of which has some room for debate though).
To tie a couple of separate points together in this thread (about which I have little to add, and no significant disagreements): Rickey Henderson is almost universally regarded as the best leadoff hitter ever, and half of all CF have to be below average.
But Rickey Henderson is the best leadoff hitter in history because all of the hitters who were better, and there are several of them, didn't hit leadoff. Had Willie Mays hit leadoff, he'd be the best leadoff hitter in history; same for Babe Ruth, Jimmie Foxx, Mickey Mantle, Mike Trout, and so on. The best hitters in history almost all hit third in the order, with an occasional fourth in the mix. As bad as the A's offense was for Henderson's first decade or so in the lineup, I question whether it made any sense to have him in the leadoff spot; he probably should have been hitting third.
If there are 32 teams, then the 17th best CF is below average. He is also the 17th best outfielder of the 96 in the majors (i.e., top 20%). CF is a skill position, LF and RF are where Greg Luzinski and Jose Canseco stand and hope nobody hits the ball at them. Anyone good enough to play CF regularly is a fine defensive player.
All of these things (who is the best leadoff hitter, the best right fielder, etc.) can be interesting to talk about, but they don't really mean anything in a "who are the best baseball players" discussion.
And like Joe Morgan before Trout, it is both sad and amazing that baseball fans can not realize they are watching one of the greatest players in the history of the game while they are watching him.
dallasactuary baseball fans have a way of getting lost in what truly is valuable. It is common for a player to hit a triple and then the next guy hits a sac fly and the fans give the sac fly(or even a base hit) player all the adulation for getting the RBI.
While it is true that pushing that run across helps, the true commodity in MLB is finding the player that can get to third base in one at bat, not the player who can hit a fly ball out. Players who can hit a fly ball out are a dime a dozen, and you can plug any one of those guys in behind the player who has the elite ability of getting to third bases in one plate appearance.
Really, the ONLY goal of a hitter is to get the most bases in the least amount of outs made.
That statement does NOT mean the guy with the most triples is the best player. The hierarchy always stands in order of importance starting from HR, 3B, 2B, 1B, BB, weighed against the negative of how many outs made(or extreme negative of hitting into double plays).
Going a step further and examining each of those events in every base/out situation; with man on first, bases loaded etc...will get you all the way to the nitty gritty and nail 99% of a baseball players value on offense. Defense is a little harder to nail down.
The common stuff we hear from fans when they evaluate players is mostly hearsay and based on inaccurate assumptions on the value of each of those offensive events(usually obtained because they witnessed ONE event that explains what they mean, while ignoring the other 999 that go against that one event in their explanation)...just like the Trout garbage that is often spewed. Or maybe because they are using lingo or strategy that was taught to them at the Youth level where making contact is of the utmost importance because simple contact at that level usually means you will reach base because the fielding is so poor, and then you can get to third base in the next two pitches rather easily.
Most of those a little common sense goes a long way. Most of the advanced measurements are going to give a base on balls about 2/3 the value of a single(on average. It will fluctuate based on runners on base). Some common sense comes into play right off the bat when you realize that over HALF of your at bats come with nobody on base so AUTOMATICALLY more than half of your base on balls have the exact value of a single, just like over half of your contact outs AUTOMATICALLY have the same value as your strikeouts because they occur with nobody on base.
A fan will often scream, "YEAH, but sometimes a ground out will move a runner. Sometimes a walk doesnt move a runner and a single well." That is obvious, and the fact is, every one of those events and their value are already added into a player's contribution from a better advanced measure. However, Fans often ovreblow how often those events happen, and act like a player moves 100 runners a year on a ground out, but the reality is far different. I'm not going to give all the numbers, but the facts are there.
There really is no mystery in measuring a hitter. The advanced measurements nail it, like it or not, they are accurate...and they completely jive with common sense too.
The only debates left are valuing peak vs career and stuff like that. Then the minute stuff like the Ken Phelps factors.
There is ZERO debate left on the value of a BB compared to a single or a groundout compared to a strikeout.
Fans also forget that players who strikeout more frequently ALSO move runners with their outs. ALL of this is measured and weighed properly.
Things can get more interesting when you look at them from a different perspective.
For instance, did you know that it was easier for MLB pitchers to get George Brett out than it was for them to get Tony Phillips out?? That is right, George Brett was an 'easier out' than Tony Phillips.
Brett stepped up to the plate 11,625 times and pitchers sent him back to the dugout 63.1% of the time.
Phillips stepped up to the plate 9,110 times and pitchers sent him back to the dugout 62.6% of the time.
A typical standard fan response in regard to Phillips would be, "He only hit .266. He struck out 112 times a year! He sucks!" Yes he did that, yet George Brett was easier for pitchers to get out.
Or more likely now, "Who is Tony Phillips??" Tony Phillips was the batter that was harder to get out than George Brett.
To cut to the chase, George Brett slugged at a much better rate and was a better hitter than Phillips, so there is no debate on that.
However, knowing that Phillips was actually harder to get out than Brett(and that Phillips also managed 160 Home Runs and and 360 doubles), why would anyone be surprised that Tony Phillips had a lifetime WAR of 50? Higher than guys like Jim Rice. Yet many would look at Phillips' WAR and completely dismiss it because of preconceived notions and unsupported assertions and then say that "those measurements suck. They are ruining the game!"
As faulty as WAR can be as a measurement, by just looking at the above information it should jive pretty well with some common sense(it also helps knowing that Phillips was a far superior defender than Brett and Rice as Phillips played 2B), that WAR is in the ballpark there.
WAR certainly has its faults and one can probably peck away at the difference between Phillips and RIce and put Rice out on top, but it isn't the slam dunk as many would automatically believe.
Just in laymen's terms, Phillips managed to score 1,300 runs in his career in some putrid lineups. He also drove in 819 while batting leadoff most of the time. So with some baseball common sense, that says a lot too, because remember if you love RBI then you have to love RUNS SCORED.
i've been enjoying this, as well as all other detailed baseball discussions on the forums. One question, @1948_Swell_Robinson , is it your position then that Phillips was a better player than Rice?
I would say no because Rice gets knocked a lot for the ballpark effect and I don't think the ballpark effect adjustments are 100% accurate. They certainly matter, but there is a debate on the percentages.
Also, Rice played every day and that counts for something as he didn't save any of his percentages by sitting against tough RH pitchers like a lot of hitters in the league(even back then) did.
Reimagining Joe Morgan
As Dallasactuary points out above, very few put Joe Morgan anywhere near the top of all time greats. Many fans ignore that extra value he added by playing 2B and they ignore his extreme ability to draw walks.
The traditional fan sees Joe Morgan and sees a lifetime .271 BA and 'only' 2,500 hits for a table setter. Still a big hit total, but not the magic 3,000 that should put him in the eyes of the elite according to many fans, especially since he 'only' hit 268 home runs.
We can ignore the 2B value for now.
It is the .271 average that really sticks with them. .271 is not a HOFer in their eyes, not unless you have 500 home runs or something. It certainly is NOT an all time great to them.
The base on balls. It is the polarizing figure that makes old fashioned fans hate Sabermetrics. They hate OB% with a passion because it turns their world upside down on what they always 'knew' when they first cut their teeth on MLB.
In Little League we often heard the phrase, "A walk is as good as a hit." Surprisingly, many things we learned as a youth tend to stick with us, but this one didn't. I would like to think it didn't stick because it really is not true. A walk is NOT as good as a hit....well sometimes it isn't. Actually many times it isn't. I think it really didn't stick because we all wanted to hit the snot out of the ball and watch it sail, not draw a walk and be deprived of the chance to hit something without getting into trouble or breaking something. It felt good to hit the ball, period.
Joe Morgan and his walks. He walked 1,865 times to be exact. That isn't a magic number and there isn't any known magic number for walks. It is indeed the least valuable event out of the hierarchy of offensive events where HR is the King, followed by 3B, 2B, 1B...and then BB.
Here is a little secret. Sabermetics knows this! They aren't trying to make a BB as valuable as a hit. In fact, the reason why OPS is used instead of just OB% or just SLG% is because OB% treats walks and singles as the same. You can't do that, it makes no sense. Slugging Percentage gives a walk ZERO credit. That doesn't make sense either. We know walks have value and that is why we tell our pitchers to throw strikes. So OPS is born to give proper credit to all events.
The real value of a BB is nailed down in the run expectancy charts based on the play by play events of MLB. It is the most precise value of each offensive event, but I want to focus on the most extreme time when a single is more valuable than a BB and the most COMMON time when both singles and walks occur.
Run expectancy shows that when there are two outs and runners on second and third, that a single is approximately 6.5 times MORE valuable than a base on balls in that situation. Clearly seeing these, you can rest assured that sabermetrics are NOT overvaluing a walk. In fact, each and every base/out state has a different value for a single and BB and those are in fact assigned fairly to everyone. I'm not going to list all of them, but just the most extreme to show that this is indeed known and accounted for.
The thing is, coming up to bat with runners and second and third and two outs is not really that common of an occurrence. In fact, Joe Morgan only came up in that situation 81 times in his entire career. So while the difference between a BB and single is vast in that situation, the amount of times it occurs limits its overall impact.
**ENOUGH OF ALL THAT THOUGH. Let's just reimagine Joe Morgan and put it into laymen's terms.
**
We all know for a fact that a walk and single with no runners on base are the same thing. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE in the value they provide. This is shown both with common sense and through the data. It is about as no brainer as there is in the world.
So lets just reimagine Joe Morgan and continue to ignore all of his walks with men on base. Those have always been ignored anyway, so lets just keep with that trend.
Instead lets focus on the 1,042 walks that he had with nobody on base and view him through the lens of treating those walks as singles since they are the exact same thing.
That puts Joe Morgan as a lifetime .349 hitter with 3,559 hits.
So if you love Tony Gwynn as an elite all time hitter, then you love Joe Morgan just the same....and Morgan could play 2B too.
.345
He has 9277 ABs. Add another 1042 if the walks were singles and you get 10319. 3559/10319 = .34489 = .345
That's an excellent point regarding his bases-empty walks. They're absolutely no different than getting a single. Maybe even a touch more valuable since they probably involve more pitches than singles would.
I don't know if the ballpark factor for Rice is 100% accurate or not, but I do know that he was an entirely different player at Fenway than he was elsewhere, and that his numbers improved about the same as his teammates' did when they all played in Fenway. I also know that if you take Rice's road numbers and double them you get Chili Davis' numbers, and Davis played most of his career in a pitcher's park. I think Rice and Davis were essentially the same player, and if I were starting a team from scratch I'd draft Tony Phillips before either of them.
And the folks who hate OB%, and OPS because it includes OB%, will really hate this. As pointed out, OB% treats a walk the same as a single, and SLG ignores the walk entirely. Add them up and OPS is treating a walk as exactly half as valuable as a single. But, a walk is worth more than half as much as a single. It may have changed some over time, but last I knew, a walk was worth about 70% of a single. So OPS - and OPS+ - UNDERvalues a walk, and fairly significantly. For an average player (in terms of taking walks), it doesn't make that much difference, since all the average players are getting undervalued about the same. But players who walk a lot? Joe Morgan and Gene Tenace and those like them? OPS and OPS+ are significantly undervaluing how good they really were. Swell looked at it in a somewhat different way that makes it easier to see, by "adjusting" Morgan to a .349 hitter with 3,500 hits, but however you look at it, as long as you look at it correctly Joe Morgan was an all-time great hitter. That he did it while playing Gold Glove quality second base and stealing 50 bases a season at an 80% clip makes him one of the most valuable baseball players ever. My apologies to those who were around while he was playing and somehow managed to miss it, because he was awesome.
Through the year 2001, Bill James ranked Morgan as the 12th best MLB position player in history, right behind Lou Gehrig, and ahead of Schmidt, Frank Robinson, Hornsby, and Henderson. My guess is that Trout would be in the same vicinity if James redid his list today. If he plays ten more years as well as his first ten (unlikely) then he'll be the undisputed #1. If he plays that well for only five more years, he's at the very least in the Aaron/Musial class, and probably in the Mays/Mantle/Williams class. For those who missed Morgan, it would be a damn shame if you did it again with what could be the greatest player ever.
Repeat.
Thanks for the correction Tabe...not sure how I made that error lol.
You are correct with the walk value being an absolute smidge better too.
Yes, correct on the analysis of the walk value still being under represented in OPS and OPS+.
The Morgan scorn I just don't get. Aside from what was said here, Morgan was the two time MVP on one of the teams considered the best ever so it isn't like he should have been flying under the radar back then or historically. I do remember people saying Foster should have won MVP in 1976 because of his RBI totals, so there was definitely some underrating back then though.
My thought process on Rice/Phillips is this:
Rice's value is almost entirely derived from his hitting totals. We know that the validity of the hitting measurements are 95-99% accurate and he is quite far ahead of Phillips hitting wise before any adjustments are being made.
Phillips closes that gap and takes a slight lead based on park adjustments, defensive value, and positional adjustment. Each of those three areas don't have quite as high a validity as the hitting does, so it is in that realm I am more comfortable taking Rice.
It is possible each of those three adjustments hit it on the nose, but it is also equally possibly they miss the mark by 25-50% and that would leave Rice as the winner in my eyes.
I hear people say that Trout is THE BEST......Whatever, I don't know....... That's just what I hear people say.......
I think you're right in the way you're approaching it - Rice was better than Phillips. But DH/outfielders who hit as well as Rice grow on trees - they're always available. But second basemen who hit as well as Phillips are rare. And that's why I phrased it the way I did. Rice (or Davis, flip a coin) may be better than Phillips, but if I'm drafting a team I'd grab Phillips, confident that I could find a DH/OF close enough to Rice/Davis in the next round, when others were picking much worse second basemen.
WAR approaches it from the same POV. It's convenient for my position here that Phillips beats Rice in WAR, but I concede that's just random since WAR gets so much wrong. But in a general sense, I think what WAR tries to do is a valid perspective; even if it was perfect it wouldn't be the only valid perspective, but it is valid. Even without knowing what the precise "positional adjustment" might be, I'd still grab a second baseman like Phillips before a defensive zero like Rice.
Again, without a ton of substantive disagreement, nevertheless I think this fizzles out at the margins. I think that the 17th best CF is almost certainly among the top 30 OFs, but almost certainly not the #17 OF at any give time. For example, take Mookie Betts in his Boston years. Playing along side Bradley, he wasn't the top outfielder on his team, but surely better than some of the other CFs, likely a lot of them. There is also something to say for comfort. Betts was likely a far better fielder than Bradley from 2016-19. But when you have a player as offensively gifted as Betts you don't want to hurt that by forcing him to learn a new position. This is seen most often in the infield where some bad to horrible players have become entrenched at their (key) positions rather than moved to positions they can actually field because of a desire not to hurt their bats. Little question that Clemente wasn't a better fielder than Virdon in 1856-7, and certainly was better than, say, Duke Snider, but there were valid reasons to leave him in right and no one would say he was better than Ashburn or Mays.
Finally, the biggest reason why the top outfielders are not all in center is simply that it is hard for people to evaluate defense as they see it, even baseball officials. Look how poorly the gold gloves have represented defensive excellence over the years. Take Joe DiMaggio or Puckett, both of whom were very good at the start of their careers but were still allowed to play center long after they couldn't field it anymore (Puckett after 1985) or Griffey or Bernie Williams who were never any better than Trout is now and usually far worse, even in their Gold Glove seasons.
Again, a nit. A league average CF is likely to be a very good fielder.
Well stated and that makes sense.
When discussing Phillips, it's important to note that he was not a regular 2B. He was a utility player who played more games in the OF than he did at 2B and more games at 3B/SS/DH combined than he did at 2B. He played 2291 games his career, with just 778 (34%) of those at 2B.
It's actually a really good comparison to compare Phillips and Ben Zobrist.
I feel as though I'm obligated to say that Phillips isn't a HoFer, and shouldn't be one, but he was better than most of the people on the various Committee ballots, and it is a sad joke that Rice got over 75% of the vote while Phillips got a grand total of one vote in 2005, fewer than Jeff Montgomery.
Incidentally, does the election of David Ortiz move Rice to second place in that very precise category of worst position players elected to the HoF by the BBWAA?
Even though Ortiz couldn't play any position (competently, anyway), he was still better than Rice. Ortiz is tied with Reggie Jackson in career WPA, Rice is tied with Roy Sievers. Whatever value Rice added by playing LF adequately does not close that gap. It narrows it, and I never thought of Ortiz as a HOFer, but being better than Rice is a mighty low bar, and I think Ortiz clears it.
And while I don't consider him "least deserving" HOFer, in fact I consider him quite deserving, I do think the "worst" position player elected by the BBWAA is probably Rabbit Maranville. By all contemporary accounts and modern sabermetric analysis he was an Ozzie-esque shortstop, but Maranville couldn't hit a lick.
Roy Sievers was a very good player.
Yes, he was. And, like Rice, he was not as good as Fred Lynn, Toby Harrah, Gene Tenace, Roy White, Jose Cruz, Ken Singleton, Bob Watson, Kent Hrbek, Cesar Cedeno, Reggie Smith, Jim Wynn, Eric Davis, Bobby Murcer, Frank Howard, Dwight Evans, Darrell Evans, Dave Parker, Norm Cash, Bobby Bonds, Boog Powell, Rusty Staub, Will Clark, Dick Allen, Keith Hernandez, Bob Johnson, Bill Dahlen, John Olerud, Sherry Magee, Dale Murphy, Bobby Grich, Bill Freehan, Lou Whitaker, Rocky Colavito, Don Mattingly, Vada Pinson, Ken Boyer, Jim Fregosi, Sal Bando, Jack Clark, Al Oliver, Graig Nettles, George Foster, Jim Edmonds, Bernie Williams, Lance Berkman, Fred McGriff, Gary Sheffield, Kenny Lofton, or any of the other very good and great players the HOF kicked in the nuts when they let in Jim Rice.
And being a "very good" player shouldn't get one into the HoF.
So you're saying Maranville was Mark Belanger?
I just don't see it. I think Maranville was more of an Omar Vizquel type. A decent defensive shortstop not nearly as good as his reputation who hung around forever and was a bad, but not terrible, hitter. Actually, I looked at the numbers after I made the comparison, but not only are Maranville and Vizquel adjacent on the list of WAR Fielding Runs (for people who played over 1000 games at short) but they both have an OPS+ of 82.
Surprisingly, there are 42 players with 3000 PA and a lower OPS+ than Belanger. I can conceive of Bill Bergen being a good enough defensive catcher to get 3200 PA over 11 years with a 21 OPS, but how the heck did he pinch hit six times?
Yes, I think of Maranville as similar to Belanger, although he clearly hit better than Belanger.
And I don't want to get into a debate that hinges on defensive WAR, since I think the stat is useless. Maranville's career defensive Win Shares at SS are second only to Ozzie, and his WS rate rate of 6.42 per 1,000 innings is tied with Ozzie, and not far behind Belanger (6.72). Vizquel's rate is 5.10.
I'm not saying defensive Win Shares are all you need, but I am saying they are far more useful than defensive WAR. Obviously, Maranville did not get into the HOF for his hitting. As bad as his hitting was, I assume that he got in solely for his defense. So the people who saw him play thought he was so good defensively that he belonged in the HOF, and then Bill James came along a half century later and came up with formulas that showed that Maranville was similar to Ozzie defensively and almost as good as Belanger (and a whole lot better than Vizquel). That's enough for me, and the alternative explanation that Maravnille being voted into the HOF and Win Shares showing he was an historically great shortstop is a coincidence doesn't sway me.
But, either way, I think we're in agreement that Maranville is the worst player voted by the BBWAA into the HOF.
Joe, are you making a comparison between Trout and Sievers?...If so you might be onto something?? You are right about one thing...... Sievers was a very good player. Overlooked and underrated by the casual observer, but the people in the know knew the real deal. Just like someone else I'm thinking of. Interesting........I like it.....Thanks, Joe!
I hear people who are just casual fans, etc.,.....and their opinion of Trout is not so good. Actually, I think their expectations are too high. If he isn't a superstar in every category then he is just no good. Period. But,.... the judgment of people who I know and respect is that he is a great player.
Not making a comparison between Trout and Sievers. I would say Trout is much better!
I noticed Sievers' statistics because he was the Senators/Nationals "Marquee" player before Killebrew arrived. He had a very nice 7 out of 8 years from 1954 through 1961.
Rookie of the Year, 5 time All Star and 3 times in the top 10 in MVP voting, as high as #3 in 1957 behind Mantle and Williams. He hit quite a few HR in Griffith Stadium, a very large park.
He did something Killebrew never accomplished; hit over .300 with at least 40 home runs and 100 RBI in a single season.
Odd that he had a pretty bad year in 1959 when Killebrew erupted with 42 HR. Looks like he was hurt early in the season.
A very good player!
😆
I gave everyone an assignment last Friday.
It was too actually watch Mike Trout play.
8 games have passed, 5 percent of a season. Whatever your feelings are on sample size, just understand this is what he's been doing for 10 years, you've just ignored the data.
May 13. Angels win 2-0. Trouty goes 0-4 with strikeouts in the 5th and 8th inning.
May 14. The first game of the double header probably deserves its own thread. Angels winning 3-1, 2 on and 2 out on the 9th inning. Trouty strikes out. Bottom of the 9th, A's replacement level outfielder Luis Barrera at the plate, 2 on and 2 out, crushes a game winning 3-run homerun. Literally the 2 most diametrically opposed players by reputation, in the same situation, have the 2 most diametrically opposed outcomes. One player is the hero, and one player is "the goat". 😆
May 14. Game 2. Trouty has an RBI that gives the Angels a 6-1 lead in a game they eventually win 9-1. He goes down looking at a called 3rd strike in the 8th.
May 15th. Angels win 4-1. Trouty is 1-4 with a run scored and a strikeout.
May 16. 7th inning, down 6-4. A runner on and no outs. Grounded into a double play. I see now why you Trouty fans would rather he not swing. Angels lose 7-4.
May 17. Trouty's best game this week. Game tied 3-3 in the 7th, and Trouty blasts a solo homerun leading off the inning to give the Angels a 5-4 lead. But let's examine...the Rangers brought in a lefthander to start the inning. They literally feared Ohtani, who was due up next, than they feared Mike Trout doing late game damage. Anyone that watches closely knows that Trouty is at best the 5th or 6th bests option on the Angels in the clutch, and that's likely being generous. Trouty made the Rangers pay, though, and was likely feeling his oats as he rounded the bases. Unfortunately for Trouty, the game wasn't over. The Rangers scored 7 to take a 10-4 lead. Trouty leads off the 9th inning, 3 for 3 in the game with a walk, as well. He was on every single time prior to that. He can't hit a 6-run homerun, so his only job is to get on base. Of course, he strikes out. His best game of the week, wasted in a blowout. Where have I heard that before?..............🤷
May 18. Angels down 4-2 in the 8th inning. Trouty goes down looking at a called 3rd strike. Luckily for him, the Angels rally and it goes extras. Top of 10th, no outs, runners on first and third, and Trouty does what I've been screaming from the rooftops...He actually tries...and hits a fielder's choice that scores the run without any outs being made. Much better than looking at a called third strike, isn't it? Too bad for Trouty, but the Rangers rally and win the game 6-5.
May 20. Angels down 3-2 in the 5th. Trouty goes down looking at a called 3rd strike. Angels down 4-2 in the 7th. Trouty once again goes down looking at a called 3rd strike. Game over, without another Trouty at bat.
Look that over and tell me that you see any sort of clutch ability. George Brett just turned 69 years old, and could probably come off the bench right now and have better results. This is not an anomaly.
This. Is. Who. Trouty. Is.
The Angels should consider playing Trouty about 5 or 6 innings, and then pinch hitting for him late in games if they're actually serious about winning. Pitchers probably have a better chance of getting a hit...and they just did away with pitchers hitting. Y'all are smokin' crack if you think Trouty is clutch.
😆 😆 😆 😆 😆
Trouty 101 at the University of Countdouglas is dismissed...
@thisistheshow and anyone else interested in reading my observations and contributions from 2 years ago regarding Trouty and his habit of getting rung up looking.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1042013/fun-random-sports-facts
.
.
.
Lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
C'mon now, everybody. Give me some love!
...
I remember this thread and followed along.
The knock on Trout has been that he is a paper tiger. Threatening but not when it really counts. I am in the camp that lends more credence to performance in big moments, whether that be in-game or seasonal.
@thisistheshow I was reminding you of this thread because it also discusses Trouty and his lack of a 3 homer game in his career, and why I'll believe he'll never do it, and why I was not at all shocked on April 23rd when he had 2 homeruns already, and then went down looking at a strike 3 in his next at bat. He did have one more at bat later, and surprisingly actually swung, rapping out a single.
I've made this analogy before, but Mike Trout is the best $5 blackjack player I've ever seen, consistently stacking chips like nobody's business. Let him walk over to high limit, though, where nothing has changed but the color of the chips and the consequences of losing, and it's like he's never played the game before in his life.
Absolutely, and as the OP demonstrated the knock on Trout is completely wrong. Ultimately, people knock Trout for having bad teammates, resulting in very few "big moments" in the postseason. Don't be one of those people. Enjoy watching the best hitter, and best clutch hitter, of our time.
As Dallas, and the obvious information has pointed out, Trout is the best clutch hitter of this generation. Period.
Heck, Trout has already hit more go-ahead home runs in his career than George Brett...and Brett has 5,564 MORE at bats.
Lets also not forget that George Brett was allergic to the ball in the field in the playoffs, directly costing his team a bunch of unearned runs and trips to the World Series.
However, I am curious if you apply the same standards across the board to everyone, for instance, to Jim Rice?
Rice has a .225/.316/.366 slash line in the post season and hasn't won anything.
As a low end HOFer already, applying those stringent and unfounded "clutch' standards to Rice clearly puts him outside of the Hall of Fame without question.
Countdouglas, weren't you just waxing poetically about Bobby Witt Jr earlier this season compared to Trout? How did that top notch analysis end up?
It is hilarious that you can't even give him props for hitting a home run in a "clutch" situation to give the Angels the lead. Instead, you whine about him striking out with his team down 6 in the 9th inning.
No one ignores the data when it comes to Trout, they just understand baseball better than you do.
Robb
There are members of the mollusk family who understand baseball better than countdouglas.
i must be intoxicated, as i honestly thought this was the daisy dukes thread. i guess as long as i'm here i might as well share my dos centavos.
i gave this puppy a cursory perusal and could have sworn that i saw someone say there's no difference between a bases-empty single and a walk.
not so sure about that one.
let's say it's a hotly-contested pitchers' dual with teams trying to manufacture the crap out of a single run. methinks an 8-pitch walk >>>>> a first-pitch single, as you're 7 pitches closer to getting away from this dude who has been completely locking you up and getting to the pen in hopes of breaking the stalemate.
🤷🏼♂️
And I thought I was the MacGyver of manufacturing arguments. You put this one together out of nothing, not even a paper clip. Well done.
How about a 14 pitch single where the batter fouled off numerous pitches compared to a 4 pitch walk?
Its actually hard to tell from what 1948 swell robinson wrote whether this thread is about
Mike Trout or George Brett.
He's just as obsessed with trashing Brett as he is with praising Trout.
Whatever.... Trout sure gets a lot of notice! Good or bad. Something about the guy draws attention. Lots of it......I think I know why..........In fact, I DO know why......subject for another day.
Yea, Trout and Brett. They both fall in the same category with a lot of fans......they love to hate them.
You are correct in that a walk is the tiniest smidge better overall for that reason as it tends to draw more pitches. I didn't go there because for some reason people have a hard enough time seeing the value of a walk as it is. Had I used your example, the universe may have collapsed.
I'm obsessed with accurate appraisals, common sense, and objectivity, all of which are the theme of these posts in this topic.
Unfortunately, bias gets in the way of most viewpoints, so I use George Brett examples to show that when you apply that bias to your heroes, that they can be torn down(unfairly as well) too
.