How many Mike Trouts?

[Oz27]

I just stole this idea off the magnificent baseball podcast Effectively Wild, which you should absolutely listen to if you are remotely interested in Sabermetrics. They ran this exercise with Barry Bonds and you can listen to it here - http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=30206 If you're not interested in Sabermetrics, hate hypotheticals or an advanced statistics basher, I'll save you some time and urge you not to keep reading.

If you had the current Angels roster but had the ability to clone Mike Trout and replace as many of those players on those roster with Mike Trout clones as you wished and you could generate enough clones to fill as much of your roster as you required, how many Mike Trouts would you use? So, if you wanted to, you could have a roster entirely made up of Mike Trouts. Or you could stick a Mike Trout at every position, or some positions, or just use the one. How many do you go with? For this entirely pointless exercise, I'm going to use 2015 Mike Trout since that was his last full season. That year he had a .991 OPS, 176 OPS+, a .415 wOBA and his offense was worth 59 runs above average.

Using the Baseball Musings lineup tool, we can tell a lineup made up entirely of Mike Trouts would be expected to score 8.078 runs per game or 1308 (!) runs per season. Of course the one drawback is that would involve a Mike Trout playing second base, another playing shortstop, another at catcher and so on. Our pitching staff is currently on track to allow 774 runs and if they repeated that with an offense that scored 1308 runs, they would probably win 130+ games and would smash the run differential record of 411. But obviously that would not happen, because there would be multiple Mike Trouts playing the field out of position. But we can stick a Trout in multiple positions without it being a defensive issue. Obviously he can play LF, CF, RF and DH without any issues. I'm sure he would be able to play 1B just fine, so at the very least we could have a lineup of five Mike Trouts and he would be significantly better than all of our current options at all of those positions.

The question then becomes would Mike Trout's bat make up for his obvious defensive shortcomings at the remaining positions? At catcher I am going to say definitely not. If you used multiple Mike Trouts to start 162 games at catcher, they would be worth 59 runs above average on offense but would probably be bad enough defensively - especially if you factor in framing and throwing arm - to negate that value. So I will stick with our current catchers. But at the other positions, could he really be that bad? I can't see a way he could possibly be worse at 3B than Mark Trumbo was and if you extend out his limited stay at that position for a full season, he would only have been worth -40.5 runs. So even if Trout was that bad at 3B, he would still be a +18.5 runs above average player - therefore someone who would be extremely valuable (as a comparison, Kole Calhoun is only a four runs above average player and he's obviously pretty good). But, for some context, nobody has ever had a season worse than -43 runs (Adam Dunn, if you were wondering). Could Mike Trout at SS or 2B be worse than that? It's possible. But it's not likely, I don't think. There have been some terrible middle infielders over time and plenty of guys less athletic than Trout, how much worse than them could Trout really be? There is no way he surpasses -50, I don't think. So if I say he would be a -45 run second baseman (which is pretty pessimistic), he would still be good enough to be our starting second baseman. But Andrelton Simmons is worth about 20 runs above average in total over a full season, so Trout couldn't be any worse than a -38 defender at SS to justify replacing him. I can't see that happening, so I'm keeping Simmons in the lineup.

That leaves us with a starting lineup of seven Mike Trouts, Andrelton Simmons and our group of catchers. That lineup would score 7.353 runs per game or 1191 per game. The modern era record is 1067, produced by the 1931 Yankees. Of course this team would give up significantly more runs due to its defensive shortcomings. We would be much better across the OF from having three Trouts (I'm going to estimate +15 compared to current levels) but weaker everywhere else. At 1B that would be minimal, no worse than -5 runs. At 3B and 2B it might be a lot (I'm going to guess -30 at each). So we would be 50 runs worse off and concede about 824 run, giving the team a +367 run differential and a win expectancy of 109 games using the most basic pythagorean formula. Of course that is building in our terrible pitching staff, so there would be room for improvement there.

So to answer the question I set out with initially, most teams now carry 12 pitchers on their 25 man roster. Of the 13 position players an average team would carry, I would keep two backup catchers and Simmons. That gives us seven starting Trouts and three to give the other guys a rest and pinch hit. But you could argue an extra Trout would be more valuable than a seventh relief pitcher, so I'm going to go with that and lift us up to 11 Trouts. Some would say we need a backup shortstop. But I think a starting Trout shortstop would be worth no worse than +15 runs over a full season, so he's going to be a better player than any backup anyway. Therefore, I say just play Trout there in any game Simmons needs an off day. So, after all that, I'm going to say the optimum number of Mike Trouts for our roster is 11. That would leave us with 11 Trouts, Simmons, Bandy, Perez and 11 pitchers as our optimum roster in this crazy hypothetical world.

Now, does anybody have a cloning machine?

[AngelsLakersFan]

I would not put him at catcher, but depending on how much time he got to practice I'm sure he could be passable at third, short and second.

Now if it was literally for tomorrows lineup, I'd only do it for curiosities sake, not because I'd expect it to work out on day one.

[Oz27]

8 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I would not put him at catcher, but depending on how much time he got to practice I'm sure he could be passable at third, short and second.

Now if it was literally for tomorrows lineup, I'd only do it for curiosities sake, not because I'd expect it to work out on day one.

Yeah I think I'm working on the assumption that we would go into the season like this, so the Trouts would get a few weeks at least to get accustomed to their positions. But if we told Trout (or a Trout clone) tomorrow that he was now a second baseman and we played him there every day, I'm still very confident he would be better than our alternatives.

[totdprods]

I'll take 25 Trouts please. Defensive and pitching limitations aside, that would be fun as hell to watch, and any unexpected success a Trout-clone has pitching or playing out of position would just make it even more astonishing.

He was a middle infielder and pitcher in high school, right? Obviously that's a whole other stratosphere of talent, but he'd at least have had some experience there in his lifetime.

[moccasin]

All OF positions and 2B are obvious.

1B, I'd like to use someone to pick up some of Trout's errant throws, so I'll take Pujols/Cron.

SS, I'd still take Simmons. 3B, Trout slightly over Escobar. Catcher, obviously Bandy and others.

We also need 4th OF Trout and utility INF Trout, and DH Trout.

So in all, 8 Trouts please.

 

[Slegnaac]

Ha, I use to tell one of the guys that worked for me that if I had 5 guys like him I would only need 3.

[Taylor]

I'd go with 6 Trouts and 2 Rondons.

[Angelsjunky]

I'd be tempted to go with nine. He's so athletic and talented that, with time, he could be passable at any position, and the difference in offensive value between him and Bandy/Perez, or him and Simmons, might make up the difference.

Plus there's the psychological effect of having to face Mike Trout, at bat after at bat, with no relief. Putting Bandy/Perez and Simmons in there gives opposition pitching two soft spots to look forward to.

So yeah...nine Trouts. Why not?

[Ohtaniland]

Luxury tax explosion if you have more than one Mike Trout.

[Oz27]

1 minute ago, Angelsjunky said:

I'd be tempted to go with nine. He's so athletic and talented that, with time, he could be passable at any position, and the difference in offensive value between him and Bandy/Perez, or him and Simmons, might make up the difference.

Plus there's the psychological effect of having to face Mike Trout, at bat after at bat, with no relief. Putting Bandy/Perez and Simmons in there gives opposition pitching two soft spots to look forward to.

So yeah...nine Trouts. Why not?

Don't forget the bench Trouts!

But yeah, there is merit in this idea. How bad could a Trout catcher really be? The Simmons thing was close. If we had an average shortstop I would have gone with Trout, but I was struggling to imagine Trout being good enough defensively to the point where his offensive advantage wouldn't be canceled out. It wasn't far off though.

[ten ocho recon scout]

5 minutes ago, CALZONE said:

Luxury tax explosion if you have more than one Mike Trout.

Lol

[gotbeer]

LF, RF, CF, DH, and 1B.  I think the transition from OF to 1B would be the easiest.  2B, SS, 3B and C require a different skillset.  Not saying that Mike can't do those.  But it's just different.  Bounces are different, movement to ball is different, throw is different, and I think fielding is different. 

[ELEVEN]

How many Trouts ya got, Mon?

Ya lazy lout. I has me ten Trouts.

[Stradling]

I would go with:

1 Bandy

1 Simmons

1 Perez

1 Cowart

21 Trouts

-10 Mike Trout

-11 Steve Trout

[Docwaukee]

Cool stuff Oz.  

I would want 25 Trouts to start.  I would trade a Trout for each of the following:

One for Bryant, Contreras and Chapman

One for Altuve, Correa and Giles

One for Miller, Lindor and Carrasco

One for Sale and Quintana

One for Urias, Seager and Jansen.  

One for Kelvin Herrera, Sal Perez, and Danny Duffy

One for Jose Fernandez, Yelich and Kyle Barraclough

Lineup:

Altuve 2b

Trout CF

Trout LF

Trout RF

Trout DH

Trout 1b

Bryant 3b

Correa SS

Perez C

Rotation:  Fernandez, Sale, Quintana, Carrasco, Duffy/Urias

Bullpen: Chapman, Miller, Jansen, Giles, Barraclough, Herrera, and Duffy/Urias

Bench: Seager, Yelich, Lindor, Contreras

I would trade the other 13 Trouts for prospects and have the best farm in baseball for years to come.  

MS would be the manager and Maddon the bench coach.  

 

If I couldn't trade any Trouts, then I agree with the sentiment of others.  I'd let Bandy catch, and Simmons would be at SS.  All the rest would be Trouts.  

[Oz27]

Hahaha that's cheating, Doc, but also a cool idea! That is what I would do if you could trade Trouts (I hadn't even thought of that, to be honest). My scenario would be what you would do if we were playing under 'no trade' rules.

Follow up question, would a team of 25 Trouts - meaning the Trouts would be our only pitchers - be better than this year's team? I'm guessing not but we've never seen Trout pitch so it's impossible to know.

[Docwaukee]

12 minutes ago, Oz27 said:

Hahaha that's cheating, Doc, but also a cool idea! That is what I would do if you could trade Trouts (I hadn't even thought of that, to be honest).

Follow up question, would a team of 25 Trouts - meaning the Trouts would be our only pitchers - be better than this year's team? I'm guessing not but we've never seen Trout pitch so it's impossible to know.

Not sure.  I think the cumulative effect of having Trout at every spot in the lineup would amount to more runs than the individual Trout's are worth.  

[Oz27]

24 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

Not sure.  I think the cumulative effect of having Trout at every spot in the lineup would amount to more runs than the individual Trout's are worth.  

Okay I think I've answered my own question. 2016 Tim Lincecum is arguably the worst pitcher ever and if every inning of a season was pitched by 2016 Tim Lincecum, that team would give up 1559 runs. Surely the Trouts would be worse than that, or at best no better than it. Even if they were equal to the Lincecums, that's still a negative run differential of -251 runs.

BTW, that really speaks to how awful Tim Lincecum was this year. A team made up of Tim Lincecum clones as every pitcher and Mike Trout clones as every position player would be pretty damn terrible.

[Angelsjunky]

Doc, I like the gist but I might pick Corey Seager or a re-converted Manny Machado at SS over Carlos Correa.

[ten ocho recon scout]

I think weve figured it out in this thread. Basically, we pimp trout out to various teams on a year to year basis. They get a year of our bottom bitch in return for a handful of decent players. Then, in 4 years, we resign him (herpes and all) and sit back and watch the west coast cubs.

I imagine mike would have a pierced lip, bleached bangs and a constant runny nose by then, but fuck it...arte gets his ring finally. 

Before anyone shoots this down, imagine gubi saying the song "roxanne" is key to the match up with the mets in 2020.

[Billy_Ball]

Trout can move to 1B.  It worked for another Angels Gold Glove CF (Erstad.)  If  Peter Bourjos Jahmai Jones becomes a speedy good defensive CF that can hit .280+ and have 30+ steals.

Just kidding. We have Matt Thaiss.

[Dick B Back]

Trout was a SS in HS before moving to the outfield; however, that was a much smaller version.

[ELEVEN]

I can't help feeling there is something fishy about this Trout business.

[Make Angels Great Again]

Trout threw a no hitter in his Junior year. His average velo was around 86 as a 16 year old.

[Docwaukee]

13 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Doc, I like the gist but I might pick Corey Seager or a re-converted Manny Machado at SS over Carlos Correa.

Though about that.  Was gonna use Trout for Machado and Gausman.