@82FootballWaxMemorys said:
According to Jeff Passan, Nothing more exciting in MLB history than watching Trout walk to first base in a regular season blow out game.
A statistician's dream but I find Trouts style of play to be boring. Still I do hope is he able to play on the Angels for many years to come.
What style of play is that? Because he knows how to get on base and walks? Forget for a moment that he has spent half of his career batting first or second in the lineup and that players like Rickey Henderson are lauded for walking from those spots.
Mike Trout has averaged 40 home runs per 162 games. 40. Reggie Jackson through age 30 only averaged 32 home runs per 162. Reggie Jackson is known as one of the most exciting home run hitters in history and Trout did that better.
In fact, hitting home runs is pretty much all Reggie Jackson is known for as a hitter and Trout has hit home runs at a better rate than Reggie has.
Dave Winfield is a member of the 3,000 hit club and he averaged 166 hits per 162 games though age 30. Trout has averaged 177.
Eddie Murray hit 560 doubles in his career and through age 30 he averaged 32 doubles per 162 games. Trout has averaged 34 doubles per 162 games.
Jim Rice was basically put into the HOF because a Fenway aided 341 total bases per 162 games through age 30. Trout has averaged 342 Total bases per 162.
You want to hammer Trout on injuries, he is fair game for that...the guy needs to be on the field more. However, players like George Brett were injury prone and made of glass too.
The clutch stuff is all nonsense, where even if Trout did produce 10% worse in the 'clutch' spots, he is still above everyone else(in his league) while operating at 90% efficiency in his ability. But if you somehow want to cling to that notion of him not clutch, knock yourself out.
And I can go through tons of HOF players and severely knock them for their anti clutch ability....many of them heroes of people who make these idiotic comments...and many of them failing in the biggest spots in their career(like Brett did).
Keep in mind that Mike Trout has hit more go ahead home runs than George Brett did in his entire career. So there is that.
But for someone like Jeff Passon to say that taking a walk encapsulates Trout's style of play makes Passon a complete idiot and knows nothing about baseball.
As for the boring part.... I got news for you, then the entire style of baseball is extremely boring for a large segment of the population, and maybe those clinging to some of these notions need to just stick to commenting on football or basketball, because they simply don't understand baseball.
....Oh, and Rickey Henderson had .400 OB% through age 30 as a table setter....and Trout's is .416. So for that moron Jeff Passan who has probably wet his panties giving Henderson all this credit as a table setter....Trout did that better than Henderson too. What a F*#&g moron.
I so agree with you on Jeff Passan and on the stats, and I stated he was a statistician's dream, however my opinion that Trout is boring to watch has nothing to do with his numbers.
BTW Passan loves Trout more than life itself which is why he thinks him taking a walk in a meaningless blowout is more exciting than anything else in the game.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Absolutely. I am going to delete that comment and if further political notes/thoughts are posted, I will shut down the thread and deal with the member.
Todd Tobias - Grateful Collector - I focus on autographed American Football League sets, Fleer & Topps, 1960-1969, and lacrosse cards.
Swell robinson comments.....
You want to hammer Trout on injuries, he is fair game for that...the guy needs to be on the field more. However, players like George Brett were injury prone and made of glass too. End comment.
So true, Brett's problem is that his injuries all came at the peak of his baseball skills, between about ages
27-33. Then in his old man years he was injury free.
He had an OPS+ of 142 until the last 3 old man years, OPS of almost .900 and slug. percentage over .500
If it had been the opposite, healthy during his prime and injury prone his old man years, his numbers
would have been astronomical. How many RBI's does he get in 1980? 165? Seem about right since
he averaged over 1 RBI per game.
Would be nice to see Trout be able to play in 150 games a year just to watch his numbers decline as
he ages just like everyone else.
@82FootballWaxMemorys said:
According to Jeff Passan, Nothing more exciting in MLB history than watching Trout walk to first base in a regular season blow out game.
A statistician's dream but I find Trouts style of play to be boring. Still I do hope is he able to play on the Angels for many years to come.
What style of play is that? Because he knows how to get on base and walks? Forget for a moment that he has spent half of his career batting first or second in the lineup and that players like Rickey Henderson are lauded for walking from those spots.
Mike Trout has averaged 40 home runs per 162 games. 40. Reggie Jackson through age 30 only averaged 32 home runs per 162. Reggie Jackson is known as one of the most exciting home run hitters in history and Trout did that better.
In fact, hitting home runs is pretty much all Reggie Jackson is known for as a hitter and Trout has hit home runs at a better rate than Reggie has.
Dave Winfield is a member of the 3,000 hit club and he averaged 166 hits per 162 games though age 30. Trout has averaged 177.
Eddie Murray hit 560 doubles in his career and through age 30 he averaged 32 doubles per 162 games. Trout has averaged 34 doubles per 162 games.
Jim Rice was basically put into the HOF because a Fenway aided 341 total bases per 162 games through age 30. Trout has averaged 342 Total bases per 162.
You want to hammer Trout on injuries, he is fair game for that...the guy needs to be on the field more. However, players like George Brett were injury prone and made of glass too.
The clutch stuff is all nonsense, where even if Trout did produce 10% worse in the 'clutch' spots, he is still above everyone else(in his league) while operating at 90% efficiency in his ability. But if you somehow want to cling to that notion of him not clutch, knock yourself out.
And I can go through tons of HOF players and severely knock them for their anti clutch ability....many of them heroes of people who make these idiotic comments...and many of them failing in the biggest spots in their career(like Brett did).
Keep in mind that Mike Trout has hit more go ahead home runs than George Brett did in his entire career. So there is that.
But for someone like Jeff Passon to say that taking a walk encapsulates Trout's style of play makes Passon a complete idiot and knows nothing about baseball.
As for the boring part.... I got news for you, then the entire style of baseball is extremely boring for a large segment of the population, and maybe those clinging to some of these notions need to just stick to commenting on football or basketball, because they simply don't understand baseball.
....Oh, and Rickey Henderson had .400 OB% through age 30 as a table setter....and Trout's is .416. So for that moron Jeff Passan who has probably wet his panties giving Henderson all this credit as a table setter....Trout did that better than Henderson too. What a F*#&g moron.
I so agree with you on Jeff Passan and on the stats, and I stated he was a statistician's dream, however my opinion that Trout is boring to watch has nothing to do with his numbers.
BTW Passan loves Trout more than life itself which is why he thinks him taking a walk in a meaningless blowout is more exciting than anything else in the game.
I understand.
The Angels are basically a AAA team after today with one healthy star and another injured.
@Darin said:
Swell robinson comments.....
You want to hammer Trout on injuries, he is fair game for that...the guy needs to be on the field more. However, players like George Brett were injury prone and made of glass too. End comment.
So true, Brett's problem is that his injuries all came at the peak of his baseball skills, between about ages
27-33. Then in his old man years he was injury free.
He had an OPS+ of 142 until the last 3 old man years, OPS of almost .900 and slug. percentage over .500
If it had been the opposite, healthy during his prime and injury prone his old man years, his numbers
would have been astronomical. How many RBI's does he get in 1980? 165? Seem about right since
he averaged over 1 RBI per game.
Would be nice to see Trout be able to play in 150 games a year just to watch his numbers decline as
he ages just like everyone else.
No doubt, Brett playing full time in his old man years does not go unnoticed by me. It definitely brings down his lifetime percentages and yet he is still of value in those old man years. It is a factor in player evaluation that most people do not understand. It is a central theme in the Jim Rice debates because Rice was not good enough to play after age 35, so his percentages got saved big time, and people get fooled with Rice's career percentages thinking they are more impressive than they are, because as you pointed out, Brett could have retired with a 142 OPS+ at one point, but he was still good enough to be employed and keep playing so that percentage went down.
Just so I am clear again, I am only railing on Brett because of the selective hogwash said about Trout. In a real baseball discussion, I would not be discounting Brett other than the factoring in the10% factor of sitting against lefties. He sat 10% more vs lefties compared to someone who would play 160 games against every type of pitching. It isn't a huge factor, but in close comparisons it does come into player.
Brett is not at Schmidt's level and we've had those discussions before, and it is only the Trout-like hogwash people use against Schmidt, so when that arises, then Brett's vulnerabilities become fair game .
Yesterday Jacob Degrom faced off against Cory Abbot and the AAA Washington Nationals. You may have to look up Cory Abbot because nobody has probably ever heard of him. He is 26 years old with 26 lifetime innings in MLB with a 4.78 ERA if you don't want to bother looking. The Nationals already have nothing left and just traded their two absolute best players, and they were only 35-69 WITH those two best players! Yes 35-69 with World Champion Juan Soto....but I digress .
Degrom came in throwing 101 MPH bullets and nasty breaking pitches, so he was on top of his game. The Mets are one of the absolute best teams in baseball.
Slam dunk, right?
Washington wins the game 5-1.
That is baseball. Keep that s&#t in mind next time one makes some judgement on a handful of post season at bats, or tries to extrapolate the Angels not winning with two of the best players in MLB and somehow coming to the conclusion it is Trout's fault(despite Trout performing at an amazing level).
It takes hundreds or thousand of games in MLB to see the true value/ability of players...and the impact of one or two players only means so much in that sport. In basketball and football you can give the best player the ball as much as you want. In baseball, they have to take their turn like everyone else....there is only so much an impact that can have. It can be maximized by batting them higher in the lineup, but that is only a tiny maximization.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Yesterday Jacob Degrom faced off against Cory Abbot and the AAA Washington Nationals. You may have to look up Cory Abbot because nobody has probably ever heard of him. He is 26 years old with 26 lifetime innings in MLB with a 4.78 ERA if you don't want to bother looking. The Nationals already have nothing left and just traded their two absolute best players, and they were only 35-69 WITH those two best players! Yes 35-69 with World Champion Juan Soto....but I digress .
Degrom came in throwing 101 MPH bullets and nasty breaking pitches, so he was on top of his game. The Mets are one of the absolute best teams in baseball.
Slam dunk, right?
Washington wins the game 5-1.
That is baseball. Keep that s&#t in mind next time one makes some judgement on a handful of post season at bats, or tries to extrapolate the Angels not winning with two of the best players in MLB and somehow coming to the conclusion it is Trout's fault(despite Trout performing at an amazing level).
It takes hundreds or thousand of games in MLB to see the true value/ability of players...and the impact of one or two players only means so much in that sport. In basketball and football you can give the best player the ball as much as you want. In baseball, they have to take their turn like everyone else....there is only so much an impact that can have. It can be maximized by batting them higher in the lineup, but that is only a tiny maximization.
Unlike NFL, MHL, NBA "upsets" occur multiple times in baseball daily. You can't win'em all applies.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
In all this exercise of explaining logic, common baseball sense, using ALL valid data(not selective sampling like the fools), to @Countdouglas(and his few followers) it is very similar to when A&W released their 1/3 pound burger at the same price as McDonald's 1/4 pound burger and the reason why the A&W 1/3 burger did not get the sales was because the majority of American consumers thought that 1/4 was more meat than 1/3 and felt they weren't getting their moneys worth when offered to explain why they didn't want the 1/3 pound burger. That would be countdouglas in that survey.
Afterall, countdouglas and his camp still believe a strikeout is a worse outcome than hitting into a double play. He also STILL does not understand that MLB hitters make more outs than they get hits and acts like he discovered something because Trout has made more outs than hits.
Very similar indeed.
That is why thecount still goes on...while chomping down on his 1/4 pound burger thinking he got a deal .
In all this exercise of explaining logic, common baseball sense, using ALL valid data(not selective sampling like the fools), to @Countdouglas(and his few followers) it is very similar to when A&W released their 1/3 pound burger at the same price as McDonald's 1/4 pound burger and the reason why the A&W 1/3 burger did not get the sales was because the majority of American consumers thought that 1/4 was more meat than 1/3 and felt they weren't getting their moneys worth when offered to explain why they didn't want the 1/3 pound burger. That would be countdouglas in that survey.
Afterall, countdouglas and his camp still believe a strikeout is a worse outcome than hitting into a double play. He also STILL does not understand that MLB hitters make more outs than they get hits and acts like he discovered something because Trout has made more outs than hits.
Very similar indeed.
That is why thecount still goes on...while chomping down on his 1/4 pound burger thinking he got a deal .
...
Ahhh, fractions. Lol. I do remember hearing of this story, and I enjoyed the read. A though popped into my head, and this may prove why I am not a marketing executive, but they perhaps should have found a way to say something like "they give you a quarter, we give you a quarter plus a nickel plus three pennies (or cents). Lol. Actually , typing that it sounds terrible, but you get my point. Or maybe the 3/9ths burger 🙃
Comments
can we please keep the gas prices, covid and anything that could be construed as political out of the discussion?
nothing will get a thread shut down faster than political or religious talk.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I so agree with you on Jeff Passan and on the stats, and I stated he was a statistician's dream, however my opinion that Trout is boring to watch has nothing to do with his numbers.
BTW Passan loves Trout more than life itself which is why he thinks him taking a walk in a meaningless blowout is more exciting than anything else in the game.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Will do.
Absolutely. I am going to delete that comment and if further political notes/thoughts are posted, I will shut down the thread and deal with the member.
Swell robinson comments.....
You want to hammer Trout on injuries, he is fair game for that...the guy needs to be on the field more. However, players like George Brett were injury prone and made of glass too. End comment.
So true, Brett's problem is that his injuries all came at the peak of his baseball skills, between about ages
27-33. Then in his old man years he was injury free.
He had an OPS+ of 142 until the last 3 old man years, OPS of almost .900 and slug. percentage over .500
If it had been the opposite, healthy during his prime and injury prone his old man years, his numbers
would have been astronomical. How many RBI's does he get in 1980? 165? Seem about right since
he averaged over 1 RBI per game.
Would be nice to see Trout be able to play in 150 games a year just to watch his numbers decline as
he ages just like everyone else.
I understand.
The Angels are basically a AAA team after today with one healthy star and another injured.
No doubt, Brett playing full time in his old man years does not go unnoticed by me. It definitely brings down his lifetime percentages and yet he is still of value in those old man years. It is a factor in player evaluation that most people do not understand. It is a central theme in the Jim Rice debates because Rice was not good enough to play after age 35, so his percentages got saved big time, and people get fooled with Rice's career percentages thinking they are more impressive than they are, because as you pointed out, Brett could have retired with a 142 OPS+ at one point, but he was still good enough to be employed and keep playing so that percentage went down.
Just so I am clear again, I am only railing on Brett because of the selective hogwash said about Trout. In a real baseball discussion, I would not be discounting Brett other than the factoring in the10% factor of sitting against lefties. He sat 10% more vs lefties compared to someone who would play 160 games against every type of pitching. It isn't a huge factor, but in close comparisons it does come into player.
Brett is not at Schmidt's level and we've had those discussions before, and it is only the Trout-like hogwash people use against Schmidt, so when that arises, then Brett's vulnerabilities become fair game
.
Yesterday Jacob Degrom faced off against Cory Abbot and the AAA Washington Nationals. You may have to look up Cory Abbot because nobody has probably ever heard of him. He is 26 years old with 26 lifetime innings in MLB with a 4.78 ERA if you don't want to bother looking. The Nationals already have nothing left and just traded their two absolute best players, and they were only 35-69 WITH those two best players! Yes 35-69 with World Champion Juan Soto....but I digress
.
Degrom came in throwing 101 MPH bullets and nasty breaking pitches, so he was on top of his game. The Mets are one of the absolute best teams in baseball.
Slam dunk, right?
Washington wins the game 5-1.
That is baseball. Keep that s&#t in mind next time one makes some judgement on a handful of post season at bats, or tries to extrapolate the Angels not winning with two of the best players in MLB and somehow coming to the conclusion it is Trout's fault(despite Trout performing at an amazing level).
It takes hundreds or thousand of games in MLB to see the true value/ability of players...and the impact of one or two players only means so much in that sport. In basketball and football you can give the best player the ball as much as you want. In baseball, they have to take their turn like everyone else....there is only so much an impact that can have. It can be maximized by batting them higher in the lineup, but that is only a tiny maximization.
Unlike NFL, MHL, NBA "upsets" occur multiple times in baseball daily. You can't win'em all applies.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Lol
.
https://awrestaurants.com/blog/aw-third-pound-burger-fractions
In all this exercise of explaining logic, common baseball sense, using ALL valid data(not selective sampling like the fools), to @Countdouglas(and his few followers) it is very similar to when A&W released their 1/3 pound burger at the same price as McDonald's 1/4 pound burger and the reason why the A&W 1/3 burger did not get the sales was because the majority of American consumers thought that 1/4 was more meat than 1/3 and felt they weren't getting their moneys worth when offered to explain why they didn't want the 1/3 pound burger. That would be countdouglas in that survey.
Afterall, countdouglas and his camp still believe a strikeout is a worse outcome than hitting into a double play. He also STILL does not understand that MLB hitters make more outs than they get hits and acts like he discovered something because Trout has made more outs than hits.
Very similar indeed.
That is why thecount still goes on...while chomping down on his 1/4 pound burger thinking he got a deal
.
...
Ahhh, fractions. Lol. I do remember hearing of this story, and I enjoyed the read. A though popped into my head, and this may prove why I am not a marketing executive, but they perhaps should have found a way to say something like "they give you a quarter, we give you a quarter plus a nickel plus three pennies (or cents). Lol. Actually , typing that it sounds terrible, but you get my point. Or maybe the 3/9ths burger 🙃