Just reviewing the 2025 season and stats..
olb31
Posts: 3,827 ✭✭✭✭✭
Mike Trout had a terrible year and the Angels were the 3rd worst team. Things just keep going south for Mike. Has he played himself out of a Hall of Fame Career? .230 and 25 Hr's is hardly a dominate year.
Work hard and you will succeed!!
0
Comments
Fantastic in-depth reporting from our regional affiliate. Now back to the newsroom.
I'm gonna say in no matter what. 3 MVPs might be a thing where noone has had it and not got in. Think 2 is that number with MVPs and Cys where maybe its not enough. Dale Murphy. Tim Lincecum. Feels like one more maybe is the tiebreaker.
Also popularity, seen as the face of baseball for a while. Even if not appropriate seen as the greatest player ever by some at one point.
Disappointing year but actually better than the previous 2 in terms of HRs. He is 33 with 404 HRs so if he can stay on the field enough to get 96 HRs over the next 7 8 years then its less of a discussion. That feels possible but even without it think he would be in and it would probably be real close to 500. You get 500 HRs and dont have major PED accusations you get in. Stanton may be the exception but even there maybe.
The good thing about Trout playing for the Angels is that when he has a bad year no one notices.
The bad thing about Trout playing for the Angels is that when he has a good year no one notices.
There are 3 players who have a WAR higher than Trout has who are not in the MLB HOF.
Bonds, Clemens (a.k.a. Clemons), and Rodriguez. Trout sits at 87.5 after soaking up another 1.5 WAR in 2025. That 1.5 WAR puts Trout in the top 18% of MLB players in wins-above-replacement.
You may not like WAR, which is fine... it is a coarse measure, but it's highly correlated with the outcome you're discussing so unless Trout gets caught taking steroids I don't see how he doesn't end up in the HOF. In fact, he's so far past the threshold that some people might wonder why the question is being asked.
I do believe Trouty is about to get some negative press once the Tyler Skaggs trial ramps up in a couple of weeks. I doubt it's HOF damaging, though.
The Royals and Angels played 6 games this year. In the 3 games that Trouty played, the Royals were 3-0. In the 3 games that Trouty sat on the bench, the Angels were 3-0. He should have gotten -6.0 WAR just for those results alone. Lol
Trouty would be the greatest ballplayer that ever lived if games only lasted 6 innings. Trouty turns into John Lester at the plate in late and close situations, and has performed that way his entire career. He shrinks in the big moments.
No, he's still making the HOF, no matter what he does or does not do on the field from now on. He doesn't need 500 HRs.
Agreed, he could retire right now and still be a first ballot HOF'er.
Actually the sooner he retires the more likely 1st ballot will be.
If anything another 5-7 years of injury riddled plus low production might and I stress might, cause him to be a 2nd balloter
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Not even a minute do I buy the whole buh buh buh I'm a man-child japery - Me 2025
Short of committing a crime, I don’t think anything Trout does moving forward will affect his fist ballot status.
Here’s a baseball-reference chart showing stats for Trout’s 15 season compared to the first 15 seasons of Griffey, Pujols and Cabrera. All three of whom experienced significant decline in their last 5-7 seasons.
Trout’s counting numbers are lacking compared to the others but he’s not out of place.
Also, Pujols was incredible before his decline.
And here are their stats for their 16th-22nd seasons (21st for Cabrera)
WAR seems to me to be a very deceptive stat. Nearly useless.
That’s like saying temperature is a deceptive stat. Do you have any reason behind your assessment? The argument against WAR is that it’s not perfect but that’s a long ways from being useless. Just because it’s not everything doesn’t mean it’s not anything.
GWRBI was a useless stat. WAR while not perfect is an excellent compliment to other stats and current the only fair way, even if only semi -valid, to compare players of different generations.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Not even a minute do I buy the whole buh buh buh I'm a man-child japery - Me 2025
Well, one problem with it is that it's based on what team the player is playing for. Trout having an 87.5 WAR means that the Angels won 87.5 more games with Trout than they would have with the replacement. So when you compare it to Griffey, who played with the Mariners, Reds, and White Sox, having a 78.7 WAR, you're comparing apples and oranges.
That is actually not what it means.
In fairness it took me a year or so to truly figure out what WAR was all about. Until I did i was not a fan of it.
It's an excellent metric but never should be used as sole data point. As mentioned best yet for comparing players who competed a 2 decades or half a centure or a whole century apart
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Not even a minute do I buy the whole buh buh buh I'm a man-child japery - Me 2025
I believe that is what that means. How am I wrong? Educate me!
When you see Cabrera with a -1.6, that means they would have been better off playing someone else.
Well it doesn’t mean 1.5 wins for the Angels. It’s more abstract than that. If you want to dig into the numbers I’m happy to do that but first.. which WAR calculation do you dislike the most? And before we go there I want to reiterate that I believe WAR to be an imperfect, coarse analysis, which provides the function of training your eye to a player deserving of more careful inspection. Like with temperature. I could tell you it’s 80 degrees Fahrenheit out but that means different things if you’re in the desert or you’re at Epcot.
Yes.
It considers wins. Which for Trout are Angels wins. Trout has a high war because the model considers his scoring to be responsible for Angels wins. When most guys on the Angels aren't contributing so much.
If you are a good baseball player on a bad team you're going to have a higher WAR than a better baseball player on a great team.
Cabrera, the -1.6 means that the replacement, computer model player, would have won 1.6 more games v Cabrera.
This is how I understand it anyway. Feel free to teach me.
Not a hall of fame caliber year in of itself, but a 121 OPS+ with 26 home runs is hardly a terrible season. It is a better than average offensive season by a decent amount.
Right now Trout has 24 more career home runs than Jim Rice and he has done it in 2,258 LESS at bats than Rice.
If Trout had four more seasons exactly like this year(that you say is terrible), his career totals would be 510 home runs with appx a lifetime 159 OPS+. That would be ultra elite especially for a guy who would have played CF for most of his career and also ran the bases well(elite early on).
This year is actually what he needed to do...just play most of the year and hit some home runs to get his raw totals up there to go along with his elite percentages.
The thing about comparing him to those three guys that had an unspectacular finish to their career (which isn't that strange) is you are talking about a 700 HR 3300 hit guy, a 3000 hit 500 HR triple crown guy and a 630 HR guy. If Trout finishes with the #s of any of those 3 its not a debate. I dont think he will have a similar resume but still probably first ballot even if its 470 HRs. But I think he has some more 15 to 20 HR seasons in him and will probably get to 500. No chance on 3,000 hits.
WAR I think ends up placing too much emphasis on defense. It matters but not sure the formula weights it appropriately. Nothing against Bobby Grich. Very good player. 71.1 WAR. Manny Ramirez .312 and 555 HRs 69.3. Eddie Murray 3,000 hits 500 HRs. 68.7. Cabrera 67.2. Ernie Banks 67.8.
WAR is comparing the player to the league level replacement player. It has nothing to do with who your teammates are, or who your potential replacement on your team is in case of injury. In fact, it is trying to eliminate that aspect to make a fair for everyone by giving everyone the same baseline to be compared to, as opposed to some teams having a great replacement while others having a garbage replacement, where comparisons are not valid or fair between players around the league.
The main problem with WAR is that it puts the defensive runs on the same level of validity as the offensive runs and that is where the head scratchers come in. Isolating a player's actual defensive runs saved is nearly impossible and is(or should be)credited to the pitcher more than the fielder). While offensive value is very linear and very easy to see a players contribution.
Teammates can make a big difference on a hitter, especially in terms of having more guys on base in front of you compared to other players who have less. Also, it can matter with better hitters behind you(again, compared to other players who have crap hitters hitting behind them). THAT teammate aspect is an unknown in terms of how much it helps/hurts a player, but that is NOT a factor in the actual WAR stat.
Trout's WAR would not go down if he was on a better team. In that aspect, Trout has had absolute garbage around him for over five years, so his numbers are actually suppressed. His WAR would remain the same(assuming the same percentages of hitting). Trout's WAR would most likely be better in a stacked lineup.
League level replacement player is not an exactness. It really isn't possible to know exactly what a replacement level is, however, it doesn't really matter when players who are better than average are being compared to that replacement level because they both get affected the same way if that went up or down a little.
I will also add that it is much harder finding a league average hitter as opposed to a league average defender. Teams do not really have many league average hitters on their bench(that could sustain league average numbers over 150 games). So that is another aspect of WAR.
When you see a players WAR that is obtained mostly through offense , then that is far more reliable than one that is mostly obtained through Defense. Teams will learn the hard way that defense numbers are often simply a product of more balls hit your way, and obtaining that player does not mean that will carry over to your team the same way offense will.
It can't eliminate his teammates because it counts his wins. Wins made by his team.
he's averaging 123 hits per season.
he's 1 for 15 in the postseason and lost all 3 games he played in.
I am a Jim rice fan but he doesn't belong in the hall of fame. very good player, overall grade B+, but not A+ HOF.
Essentially after age 27, trout has done nothing. modern day Mattingly?
You can also look at it like this. Mookie hits 1st or 2nd. Pages hits about 6th. Mookie has more productive teammates hitting after him to give him runs. Pages has 7-9 hitting after him. Mookie has 95 runs in 2025. Pages only has 74. Even though Pages was the more productive hitter. They are on the same team. But where you hit in the lineup and how your teammates hit matters.
Defensively Mookie played shortstop this year. Pages played center field. Pages is a solid center fielder with a great arm. I don't know how Mookie would grade as a shortstop. This was Mookies first full year playing shortstop after leaving right field.
The difference is that while Mattingly’s back didn’t cause him to miss as many games, it greatly affected his performance. His OPS+ after he turned 28 was around 105 (meaning he was approx. 5% better than a league average hitter).
By comparison, Trout has missed a ton of time since 2020 but has an OPS+ of around 150.
I’m no big fan of Trout and actually grew up idolizing Mattingly. But I don’t understand how much some people seem to dislike Trout. I get that he has one brief post season appearances and zero October accolades. And his peak seemed to coincide with the popularity of WAR, which as Ulysses mentioned above and I agree with, places too much of an emphasis on defense and positional adjustments. And yes he’s missed a ton of time, but since 2020, when he’s played he’s been close to the same hitter as Bryce Harper.
Not really. It calculates how many runs he creates, or saves when referring to dWAR, and then it uses a ratio to transform those into a win estimation. It’s coarse and simple. It has nothing to do with his team other than it would consider his home park as a prominent factor. You’re right not to use it to decide for you. But it’s a good discussion. Trout has 87.5 WAR. So he should be a lock. But the guy was like a hero for 6 years and now he’s human again. I would put my money on him getting into the HOF and I wouldn’t give it much thought. In my reality I think it’s a done deal.
Huh?
His runs. Which are how many times he crosses the plate. His runs are made up of him being on base and being hit in by another player as well as him hitting home runs and crossing the plate on his own.
Kind of. But the runs, like the wins, themselves are approximations. So things like base stealing and going first to third etc. have value. It’s offensive production and what that production might accomplish in general.
Again. It’s not like it’s giving you a definitive answer. It’s really helps to narrow the focus though. If you think it has no value I suggest you sample-test it a bit. Look at a few seasons and check out the players who had WAR over 7 or so. Look at players who had over 40 WAR in a decade. It holds more than it doesn’t. When you look at a whole career then it can get pretty murky around 50. It’s a coarse indicator and it’s pretty good at that. If someone is telling you that one guy is better than another because of his career WAR then smile and nod.
don't hate Trout, he's a great player. but the price of his cards are way out of line. kind of like mattingly. i think they have a lot in common. great for 8 years and then hurt and average.
What do you mean they're approximations? Either a team gets a win or it doesn't. And either a guy gets a run or he doesn't.
The whole top of the equation that, I can see is, multiplied by wins.
Mike Trout
WAR 1.5
Runs 73
Angels 72 Wins
1.5=(72(x)+72(y))/73
109.5=72((x)+(y))
1.5208=((x)+(y))
The x and y formulas seem to be proprietary. I only looked up the baseball-reference calc. They don't really say how those numbers are calculated. They do kinda describe it. But they don't really say.
I'm just saying, in this calc the guys team and teammates matter.
They also adjust for park. But, it doesn't say if it's an adjustment based on the guys home field or if the adjustment is based on where the win was made. And they don't say how they adjust.
When you say it holds more than it doesn't. There is indeed a list. Listed by WAR. Which is a number only they know how they calculate.
I'm done now.
Yankees fans have a habit of pouring out the love for just about anyone who ever wore the pinstripes. Mattingly will remain popular and valuable in the collector market for many more years to come. Trout may get elected to the HOF someday and Donnie Baseball will still be a safer play for investment. As mentioned, Trout cards are priced rather egregiously. He has a batbag full of numbers but no major accomplishment. Too bad always playing in the shadow of the Dodgers, and currently a treasured former teammate being wildly successful. It must really be a bummer to be stuck in Anaheim. Yet, he still maintains a great attitude about all he’s been through. Good enough to hang a plaque on the wall.
I guess that it’s really clear to me how it’s calculated.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/about/war_explained_position.shtml
https://library.fangraphs.com/war/war-position-players/
https://www.samford.edu/sports-analytics/fans/2023/Sabermetrics-101-Understanding-the-Calculation-of-WAR
It’s an approximation which is determined relative to the mean to try to normalize for things like team and park. To minimize those variables to present an estimate of value. Runs created isn’t the same as runs because runs created includes negative runs created. Like hitting into double plays or not moving a runner over with less than 2 outs. Or not going 1st to 3rd. Batting runs and base running runs. And runs created equates to wins in some general sense.
Honestly you either understand the law of large numbers or you don’t. Most people don’t.
All you really need to look at are his SLG which is a very good .570, better than Mantle and Mays, and his OBP .406, not as good as Mantle, but better than Mays.
Then look at PA, that's where he's low at 7,200. He actually had over 500 PA this year, but his SLG & OBP were well below his lifetime numbers.
I think he needs at least 2 more years or 1,000 PA to be judged as a full career. Not many recent HOFers with less than 8,000 PA.
At that point, unless he's absolutely terrible for the next 1,000 PA, his numbers will probably be good enough to get in.
Really too bad he's been hurt so much, he was an absolute STUD for his first 8 full seasons. He slugged .587 and his OBP was .422.
Since then, he's averaged 75 games played per season.
Edited to add; I couldn't care less about WAR. I look at how often a guy gets on base and how WELL he hits the ball.
How deceptive is WAR, you ask?
War 8.3 1973 Bobby Grich .251 BA/.373 OBA/.387 SLG / .760 OPS 12 HR 51 rbis
WAR 7.1 2012 Miguel Cabrera .330 BA/ .393 OBA / .606 SLG / .999 OPS 44 HR 139 RBI's Triple Crown, MVP, Silver Slugger, All Star
Yet, people look at that career WAR number as if it tells the whole story of a career. WAR is severely flawed and, at this point, should be disregarded.
it actually does the opposite of that. It takes the teammates out of the equation. If he hit 10 home runs on the angels and 10 home runs on the Yankees(and everything else was also the same), his WAR would be the same on either team.
Now the lineup protection could have him hit MORE home runs for the Yankees, but that is different aspect and WAR doesn't touch that.
That is correct and that is why runs scored and RBI are not a part of WAR of any advanced measurements. I explained that above about the lineup. I would say you are on your own at this point and free to express whichever idea you want, lol. Have fun.
What you're observing is the absolute mean being different between those seasons. This would indicate that there was a lot more offensive production in the league in 2012 than there was in 1973.
2012 Runs Scored = 10,831
1973 Runs Scored = 8,263
I knew that before looking it up based on their individual statistics and their WAR. Useless? Flawed? Stop brushing your teeth with a hammer.
It describes relative excellence.
Olb, that analysis is filled with huge chunks of important missing information. It's not even worth the time correcting.
It looks like something they would do on The View to paint some sort of biased narrative. I know you are better than that.
Per your analysis, George Brett averaged 150 hits, 15 HR, and 75 RBI per season. That looks even less impressive considering he was a 1B/3B and hit third most of his career.
The card market is the card market, and it is obvious most people disagree with you about Trout since they pay for his cards. He is looking like a 500 HR club member with three MVP's. That is very elite.
>
>
>
WAR probably works great for a guy like Willie Mays or Hank Aaron.
It certainly shouldn't be when looking at Harmon Killebrew's career!
Harmon was a 3rd baseman who was talented enough to play 3 straight years of his prime in Left field (led the AL in HR each year). WAR "punishes" him defensively. It awards a +2 runs for 3rd base and deducts -7 for left field.
Killebrew WAS, by all accounts a below average (poor?) left fielder, but I think a player who can move from the infield to the outfield would be MORE valuable than a "replacement" player, who cannot.
Secondly, Harmon's appearances shows that he played about 6 years at 1st base, which WAR really punishes you at -9.5 runs. DH came along at the end of his career, so that's a year WAR deducts -15 runs.
Killebrew would probably have moved to 1st at some point in his career, probably his last 4 years, but again, he volunteered to play first base before his "old man" years to HELP the team get a better lineup on the field and WAR reduces his value as compared to a "replacement" player. Doesn't make sense in this instance.
Lastly, Killebrew really played only about 16 years instead of the 22 he's credited because the Senators sat him on the bench from 1954-1958 and he ends up with a 60.4 lifetime WAR. Seems really LOW.
I would love it if one of you math wizards would recalculate Killebrews WAR if he played 16 years with 12 at 3rd base and 4 at 1st base.
Instead of being one of the best 3rd baseman of all time, he's not. He played more games at 1st base.
End of the anti WAR rant.
Art,
This is kinda the head scratcher I talked about above, but when you break it down to how he is getting it, it starts to make a little more sense even if it is not nearly an absolute.
Grich had a .763 OPS that year. WAR compares his offense to the offensive production of the other 2B in the league. So he is getting a position adjustment. The league average second baseman had a .687 OPS. That would put Grich 11 percent better than the league average second baseman. It would be around 20% better than the league replacement value(approximation here).
Keep in mind that Grich had 702 plate appearances, so he is 20% above replacement value with over 700 plate appearances so he is racking up 'replacement' runs at a high clip there due to his rate above replacement and his sheer amount of plate appearances.
He is being credited with 5.1 wins above his offensive replacement at his position, or about 50 runs.
Defensively Grich led the league in Putouts, Assists, and double plays turned, and games played. Again, he is racking up the runs saved by both rate and volume. 4. wins above replacement defensively
Cabrera is being credited with 7.7 wins above his position offensively....Grich 5.1 wins.
Cabrera is being credited with -.2 runs defensively above his replacement level defensively....Grich 4.0 wins.
So you can see the difference. WAR is saying Cabreras offense(baserunning too don't forget) was 2.6 wins better vs his positional peers as Grich's was vs his. It is vs the positional peers that make the difference. Without that, the gap is much more vast between the two.
The difference really comes in the defense. It is giving Grich a historic defensive season.
Like I said above, the biggest problem WAR has is isolating that defensive number for an individual(from the pitcher and luck on number of easy chances)...which is nearly impossible and a lot of guessing. The positional adjustment can be problematic too, though not as much.
Do you agree that some credit has to be given for defensive ability and some credit also given to being able to play the middle infield position and hit better than a MLB average level?
Your position, in this era of HOF voting, is offbase. I am neither an Angels or Trout fan.
Postseason does not impact his Hall worthiness.
3x MVP
9x Silver Slugger
ROY
Forget WAR - even with crappy last three seasons, his career OPS is .976. Out of current active players who we would consider are on a HOF track, only Judge exceeds him. He's ahead of Shohei, Soto, Harper, Freeman, Machado. Top 20 All-time in OPS and OPS+
I think the entirety of his WAR is based on offense, meaning he has a zero or minus defensive WAR. I have to think there are plenty of guys who are in Hall with sub-WAR defensively (Mike Piazza immediately comes to mind), just like there are guys in the Hall based on their defensive prowess and lacking on the offensive side.
Trout is very much like Kershaw. Several years of pure dominance at your position, which was dismantled by injuries. Kershaw's prime was a 7 year stretch. Trout's is 8 years. We don't contest that Kershaw is a HOF. Same logic should/would apply to Trout. Both of these guys have the individual accolades to support HOF worthiness and are not overrated.
This debate is preposterous.
If you really think WAR is a bad tool, I would ask you why all the players we argue about here are the ones who are right around the band gap of He's surely in the HOF and He's surely not in the HOF. That tells me the algorithm is doing its job. Personally I think Trout is head above it, if not shoulders, but he's close enough that there's room for discussion.
I'm really trying to understand WAR.
Is what your saying that Grich at 8.3 WAR is not necessarily better than Cabrera at 7.1, because they are not being compared against each other, but guys at their respective positions?
a 2009 bowman chrome orange numbered to 25 bgs 9.5 auto 10 trout sold for $54,000. there are 3 mickey mantle cards that have sold for more the last 3 months on ebay all 1952 Topps. Both have won 3 mvp's. Mickey won 7 WS Championships, trout is 0-3 in the playoffs. Mickey hit 18 WS HR's. Most ever.
In no circumstance should any Mike Trout card sell for anywhere near a 1952 Topps Mantle decent 1 and above.. No way...Trout isn't 25% the player Randy Johnson was, yet his cards sell for Mickey mantle prices. That's just freaking stupid.
Maybe. Won't keep him out of the HOF though.
No disagreement there on the card price approximating Mantle prices. But, card price does has nothing to do with HOF worthiness.
Disagree on Trout being less than 25% the player Randy Johnson was. Randy > Trout, but you're drastically discounting Trout.
I think WAR, in the sense you are describing it, is similar to SP wins. I personally am a huge defender of wins as a stat. I get the run support is something the SP cant control. But still, over time all the best win a lot of games. I know its a different sport but Tom Brady was not going to say yeah, we didn't win the game but not my fault, check out my completion percentage and TD/INT ratio and yards per attempt. No, win the game. Win the big ones. Win them all. Curt Schilling and his bloody sock won the game. The bloody sock is less appreciated if he loses 2-1. The best pitchers win over time.
So in that sense wins can be discounted by some but its funny how all the names at the top of the Wins leaders were pretty awesome (factoring in the difference between eras) Clemens and Maddux at the top of the Wins list for the modern guys. Randy Johnson got his 300.
Similarly, think we can look at WAR and debate 76 and 97 and if they are better than the guys below them. But 1-30 for career WAR hard to debate those guys were not the best.
I'm only looking at baseball-reference.
It's not really clear how WAR is calculated. There is a lot written about how WAR is calculated.
I'm not sure how you think any law of large numbers applies here. The numbers generated by baseball aren't very large. Even if you take every game in a season and every at bat. It's not a very large amount of data. In the not so distant past all of this data was crunched by a dude with a hand calculator or adding machine akin to a 1930s cash register.