.288

[Docwaukee]

he's pull/hr happy this year.  some of it could be that he's trying to pull the ball more and some of it could be that he's having trouble with that pitch up in the zone.  

 

he's hitting .228 to the opposite field this year with a high popup rate and a major drop in his LD and GB rate to that side of the field.  It's amounted to about 15-20 fewer hits overall.  those 15 hits are almost the exact difference between this year and last.  

 

personally, I'd like to see him go back to hitting the ball the other way more.  He'd sacrifice a few hrs, but he'd end up with a higher average, more doubles and triples, and probably a few more steals.  

[SC81]

I agree with the OP.  If Mike Trout just put the ball in play 30 more times this year, he would have hit  .308.

 

Here is the calculation:

He has 703 Plate Appearances.

Of those he has K'd 183 times.

Meaning he has either walked or put the ball in play 520 times

Of that 520, he has walked 83 times or 15.9% of the time

Of that 520, he has gotten 173 hits or 33.3% of the time.

 

Assuming that this same ratio holds up for every thirty additional balls he puts into play, he gets 10 hits, and around 5 walks. 

 

Meaning his ABs would go down to 595 (+5 walks) and he would have 183 hits - a .308 BA. 

 

Since Trout scores 45% of the time he is on base (the rest of the time Albert hits into a double play), these additional 15 times on base means 7 additional runs for the Angels. 

 

Similarly since he drives in a run with 64% of his hits, this would mean about 10 additional runs driven in.

 

Bottom line:  Trout putting the ball in play is a very good thing.

Edited September 28, 2014 by SC81

[Inside Pitch]

I agree with the OP.  If Mike Trout just put the ball in play 30 more times this year, he would have hit  .308.

 

Here is the calculation:

He has 703 Plate Appearances.

Of those he has K'd 183 times.

Meaning he has either walked or put the ball in play 520 times

Of that 520, he has walked 83 times or 15.9% of the time

Of that 520, he has gotten 173 hits or 33.3% of the time.

 

Assuming that this same ratio holds up for every thirty additional balls he puts into play, he gets 10 hits, and around 5 walks. 

 

Meaning his ABs would go down to 595 (+5 walks) and he would have 183 hits - a .308 BA. 

 

Since Trout scores 45% of the time he is on base (the rest of the time Albert hits into a double play), these additional 15 times on base means 7 additional runs for the Angels. 

 

Similarly since he drives in a run with 64% of his hits, this would mean about 10 additional runs driven in.

 

Bottom line:  Trout putting the ball in play is a very good thing.

This is solid...   He needs to stop watching strike three go by as often as he does.

[Angelsjunky]

His current 169 OPS+ (which leads the AL), is actually higher than his 168 (when he lead the AL), from two years ago.   So you're half right.  

 

OPS+ is only hitting, it doesn't include baserunning or defense, both of which are reduced this year from 2012-13. In other words, Trout is an equal hitter to 2012--more power but less average--but an inferior basestealer and defender, so overall he isn't as good as he was in 2012 or 2013.

[Angelsjunky]

This is solid...   He needs to stop watching strike one and three go by as often as he does.

 

Corrected.

[Mark68]

0-2

 

.287

[Inside Pitch]

OPS+ is only hitting, it doesn't include baserunning or defense, both of which are reduced this year from 2012-13. In other words, Trout is an equal hitter to 2012--more power but less average--but an inferior basestealer and defender, so overall he isn't as good as he was in 2012 or 2013.

 

Sorry -- I guess I'm just not one to fret about a guy that's had an off year by his standards and still managed to lead the league in WAR which does take base-running and defense into account..   I focused on OPS+ because the conversation seemed to center on his increase in Ks.   To the best of my knowledge Ks don't impact  his defense.   BTW, he was second in the AL in Speed/power, so he slipped one spot....  Obviously, like everyone else I'd like to see him run more but meh....  Would you have been happier with his season if instead of 180+ Ks he had 130 Ks and simply made more outs via FB/GBs?

 

When it's all said and done he figures prominently among the leaderboards http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/t/troutmi01.shtml

FWIW, his .991 OPS in September may or may not be an indication that he's adjusted, I'm curious to see how he comes out of the gate next year and if the worrisome tendencies continue.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Inside Pitch

[moccasin]

People were saying that the strike zone has been raised since the second half of this season, and that is probably why his K# have risen so much.

Brandon Moss is another guy that can't hit the high fastball, and look what happened to him.

 

Borderline pitches at the top of the strike zone used to be never called. They are right now, and Trout is having problems adjusting to the new zone.

He's been able to adjust to everything pitchers do, but not the umps.

[gurn67]

By the way, Congratulations Mike Trout on being the first player since Mickey Mantle to lead the American League in Runs Scored for the third consecutive year. Next year you get a chance to be the ONLY player to EVER lead the AL in Runs Scored 4 straight years!

Also, congratulations on being only the second Angel to ever lead the league in both Runs and RBI's!

In fact, in the first 51 years of the franchise, only 3 Angels ever lead the league in runs scored. You've played 3 season and have done it 3 times!

Rickey Henderson, considered the greatest leadoff hitter of all-time, only did it 5 times in his career!

However, some people around here think you kind of suck because you only hit .287 this year.

[Angels]

Entering today's game, Trout placed 12th in the AL in batting average (qualified players, minimum 500 PAs). Among players with a minimum of 300 PAs, he placed 17th.

And entering today's game, he was first in the majors in wRC+. He was still the best offensive player in the game.

You obviously want him to put the ball in play a lot more... but the end result still makes him the best player in baseball.

[Blarg]

This is solid... He needs to stop watching strike three go by as often as he does.

he needs to quit giving pitchers strike one looking. He needs to keep them honest and not give the 3-0 take on the first pitch. You can see clearly every pitcher is grooving first pitch and getting what every pitching coach drills into their head, get the first strike. Trout is giving away what little advantage hitters have and making something happen in a hitters count. By giving away first pitch strikes he is giving away a huge advantage. Maybe he has lulled everyone into a false sense if security and will rape them in the playoffs by attacking the first pitch.

[Angelsjunky]

Congratulations Mike Trout - you're a great player, despite having a significant hole in your game. But some people think that pointing that out or talking about it somehow means we think you suck. This just points to limited cognitive abilities on their part.

[ScottT]

It seems to be pointed out fairly often.  

[Hollyw00d]

This is like complaining Mona Lisa doesn't have huge jugs

[Angelsjunky]

No its not. Anyhow, Mona Lisa isn't so hot.

[ABC]

Yes, of course. What I said is in the context of him still being great. But BA is part of OBP and SLG and overall offensive performance. Trout's huge amount of strikeouts this year (183) have drastically impacted his average, which in term has reduced his OBP and made his SLG less impressive than it could have been. Note also that while he still leads the majors in fWAR, he's not as dominant as he was last year. The gap between him and the rest of the league has narrowed. Yeah, he's still the best in the game - but I am a tad concerned about the reduction in BA (as well as SB and defense, and the fact that he has slowed down a bit this year).

 

 

Exactly. I'm concerned that he's turning from a player that can do everything (except throw) at a very high level, to a more specialized player that is still great, but not absurdly great.

 

 

Yeah, he is great - but not as great as he was last year or the year before. The bottom line is that Trout 2012-13 > Trout 2014. And a lot of that is exemplified by his greatly reduced batting average.

 

Absurdly great means .300-plus BA just because that stat has been a staple of baseball? I'd like to see above .300 as well because it is nice to see and makes you feel warm and fuzzy. And it is the only old school stat that has kept some weight. That weight however is much reduced in light of more advanced metrics over the past decade. Trout can still be absurdly great if he hits .288 every season.

[Blarg]

Congratulations Mike Trout - you're a great player, despite having a significant hole in your game. But some people think that pointing that out or talking about it somehow means we think you suck. This just points to limited cognitive abilities on their part.

Not really seeing that in this thread.

[gurn67]

This is like complaining Mona Lisa doesn't have huge jugs

I was thinking about this last night and it's kind of like complaining that The Beatles could have made better albums. Well, yes, I guess if you took some of the singles like Strawberry Fields Forever, Penny Lane, All You Need Is Love, etc... and replaced some of the weaker tracks off the LPs, you could argue that would make the LPs better but you know what the albums are great and they did the best they could. That's how I feel about Mike Trout, the guy goes out and plays his ass off every night and does the best he can. Could he improve if he changed a few things, possibly, but he's still the best, and the team had the best record out of 30 teams, so who cares?

Edited September 29, 2014 by gurn67

[Hollyw00d]

Fan, if Altuve had better pitch selection skills his OBP wouldn't be only .36 points higher than his batting average.  He only has 36 walks so he is basicly Erick Aybar on a season long hot streak.

Wow, that's discounting altuve's achievements quite a bit.

I love aybar, but he's not on altuve's level. He did some things this season no second baseman has done in a long, long time.

[Blarg]

Absurdly great means .300-plus BA just because that stat has been a staple of baseball? I'd like to see above .300 as well because it is nice to see and makes you feel warm and fuzzy. And it is the only old school stat that has kept some weight. That weight however is much reduced in light of more advanced metrics over the past decade. Trout can still be absurdly great if he hits .288 every season.

He is one of the few players that would be limiting himself at 288 when his ceiling is much higher. This year his focus seems to be raising his slugging percentage but the cost, as a couple have pointed out isn't really a team gain. I could see him using this season and adapting to maintain his power numbers while reducing his K rate which would be putting more balls in play.

[Angels]

I'm not sure how anyone could think that finishing the season with 8 WAR isn't "absurdly great."

Since 1966, there have been only eleven 10-WAR seasons in baseball. Trout has 2 of them. A guy named Barry Bonds has 5. Trout is only one of six players to have a 10-WAR season since 1966. And he's one of two players (Bonds being the other) to have multiple 10-WAR seasons since 1966.

It sucks that Trout can't have a legendary season all the time, and we're only left with a measly, uninspiring 8-WAR campaign.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Angels

[Troll Daddy]

Mike's career has been enhanced batting in front of Pujols . I was happy to see his RBI's, HRs , and Run production up ... not sure if he'll ever hit over .320 again.

His second-half numbers were a little disappointing ... but his future looks bright.

Hrs RBI's Runs! If he leads in these stats screw the other stats.

[Angels]

Mike's career has been enhanced batting in front of Pujols . I was happy to see his RBI's, HRs , and Run production up ... not sure if he'll ever hit over .320 again.

His second-half numbers were a little disappointing ... but his future looks bright.

Hrs RBI's Runs! If he leads in these stats screw the other stats.

2/10 on the troll attempt

[mulwin444]

He's 23...he's going to change and develop. I think we have potentially unreasonable expectations oF a player who is still am unfinished product. Maybe, just maybe, he's just a Hall of Fame player and not the greatest player of all time.

I can't help it but whenever I see these threads it reminds me of the scene from "Say Anything" where his loser buds are sitting around knocking hot chicks that would never have them for the most minor of blemishes

Edited September 29, 2014 by mulwin444

[Angelsjunky]

Absurdly great means .300-plus BA just because that stat has been a staple of baseball? I'd like to see above .300 as well because it is nice to see and makes you feel warm and fuzzy. And it is the only old school stat that has kept some weight. That weight however is much reduced in light of more advanced metrics over the past decade. Trout can still be absurdly great if he hits .288 every season.

 

No, because his high strikeouts have led to a reduced BA, which in turn has led to a reduced OBP.

 

I personally dig BA; it is an old favorite.

 

Not really seeing that in this thread.

 

Evidently you didn't read gurn67's post back up thread a bit - I was spoofing that.

 

I was thinking about this last night and it's kind of like complaining that The Beatles could have made better albums. Well, yes, I guess if you took some of the singles like Strawberry Fields Forever, Penny Lane, All You Need Is Love, etc... and replaced some of the weaker tracks off the LPs, you could argue that would make the LPs better but you know what the albums are great and they did the best they could. That's how I feel about Mike Trout, the guy goes out and plays his ass off every night and does the best he can. Could he improve if he changed a few things, possibly, but he's still the best, and the team had the best record out of 30 teams, so who cares?

 

I think it is a good analogy - all Beatles albums are good, but some are great. Maybe we can't expect every season of Trout's to be "the White Album" or "Abbey Road."

 

I'm not sure how anyone could think that finishing the season with 8 WAR isn't "absurdly great."

Since 1966, there have been only ten 10-WAR seasons in baseball. Trout has 2 of them. A guy named Barry Bonds has 5. Trout is only one of five players to have a 10-WAR season since 1966. And he's one of two players (Bonds being the other) to have multiple 10-WAR seasons since 1966.

It sucks that Trout can't have a legendary season all the time, and we're only left with a measly, uninspiring 8-WAR campaign.

 

Yeah, 10 WAR is absurdly great, but 8 WAR isn't. Great, yes, but not "absurdly" so. Of course this is just semantics, but I'll use your strangely arbitrary year. From 1966 to the present there have been exactly one hundred 8+ fWAR seasons, that's about an average of two per year. I wouldn't call that "absurd," but again, maybe this is just semantics.

 

 

People really need to chill out with my relatively minor complaint. But again, consider the context: This year his BA dropped 36 points and his strikeouts went through the roof. I think some concern is valid. I mean, let's be clear: I do love and appreciate what Trout brings. The guy is great. I'm just disappointed in his drop in batting average.