[Fangraphs] The actual difference between Trout and Betts

[mulwin444]

6 minutes ago, Oz27 said:

Cabrera was worth 3.6 fewer WAR than Trout in 2012 and he won because people are infatuated with a couple of outdated stats so who bloody knows. But surely if Trout doesn't win, it is Betts who does.

Yeah, but a triple crown happened so no way he wasn't getting it.  2013 was more of a robbery.  Yeah, if Trout or Betts doesn't get it, it's pretty sad in terms of, again, the best ball players aren't getting awarded for their performance.  It means it's not based on what actually occurred on the field, in between the foul lines but some other nebulous, undefined reasons that only sports writers can conjure up out of thin air.

[Docwaukee]

If you are going to consider a player that really isn't the best overall player, then you have to look hard at the supporting cast of the players surrounding him.   

[notherhalo]

I would guess that Trout sells more merch and has more lucrative sponsorship deals.

 

I wonder if fangraphs will ever have a stat on that.

[Blarg]

Trout is the 5th highest jersey sale behind Ortiz, Bryant, Kershaw and Rizzo. 

[VariousCrap]

You have to wonder how much higher Trout's jersey sales numbers would be if he was on a team that was consistently in the playoffs.  That national audience would be great for Trout.

[Jeff Fletcher]

19 hours ago, Dochalo said:

Jeff - do you take into consideration the buzz among the players or who you think the fan would want?  

 

Not at all. 

[Oz27]

^My Lord. Who cloned Calzone?

[zenmaster]

I was listening to some talking heads on ESPN radio and one was arguing that Trout was having far and away the best season of any AL players so it was a no brainer. The other head said Betts was his obvious choice because Trout's team sucks. Guy A asked what Trout could have done to earn his vote, and he said the only way he would vote for Trout was if he "elevated his team to winning more than they won". Guy A kept pushing saying he actually earned many more wins for his team than betts but guy B said he'd never vote for a loser. Unfortunately guy B does have a vote and many voters feel the same way he does.

[arch stanton]

I was looking at all their numbers and really the big difference between their offensive numbers boils down to walk totals. That's what drives the differences in all the more recently developed formulas and the obp. So, if one was forced to make an argument for Betts he could simply point out that, even though it's not his fault, teams were able to neutralize Trout by pitching around him and thus the extra hits and total bases amassed by Betts, coupled with his huge dWAR advantage in BR, made his contributions more valuable. I wouldn't buy it but for those who had predetermined their position and were looking to justify it, that's one way to do it.

[VariousCrap]

9 hours ago, zenmaster said:

I was listening to some talking heads on ESPN radio and one was arguing that Trout was having far and away the best season of any AL players so it was a no brainer. The other head said Betts was his obvious choice because Trout's team sucks. Guy A asked what Trout could have done to earn his vote, and he said the only way he would vote for Trout was if he "elevated his team to winning more than they won". Guy A kept pushing saying he actually earned many more wins for his team than betts but guy B said he'd never vote for a loser. Unfortunately guy B does have a vote and many voters feel the same way he does.

 

What Guy B is ignoring is that with Trout, the Angels were a fourth place team.  Without Trout in 2016, the Angels would have had the worst record in baseball.

[VariousCrap]

7 hours ago, Vladdylonglegs said:

If the Angels were consistently making the playoffs his jersey sales would still suck. If he was on a 65 win BOS or NYY team his sales would be through the roof.

I don't agree with that.

 

 

[Blarg]

On ‎10‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 9:30 AM, Blarg said:

Trout is the 5th highest jersey sale behind Ortiz, Bryant, Kershaw and Rizzo. 

 

8 hours ago, Vladdylonglegs said:

If the Angels were consistently making the playoffs his jersey sales would still suck. If he was on a 65 win BOS or NYY team his sales would be through the roof.

@Vladdylonglegs since when is fifth in all of baseball sucking?

[Jeff Fletcher]

10 hours ago, arch stanton said:

I was looking at all their numbers and really the big difference between their offensive numbers boils down to walk totals. That's what drives the differences in all the more recently developed formulas and the obp. So, if one was forced to make an argument for Betts he could simply point out that, even though it's not his fault, teams were able to neutralize Trout by pitching around him and thus the extra hits and total bases amassed by Betts, coupled with his huge dWAR advantage in BR, made his contributions more valuable. I wouldn't buy it but for those who had predetermined their position and were looking to justify it, that's one way to do it.

There is some validity to this. 

In 2013, when I had an MVP vote, I did discount Trout's walks because his walk rate doubled the moment Albert Pujols' season ended. They were essentially intentional walks, more than him showing such great plate discipline. 

I don't think that's the case this year because he was walking all year and Pujols was behind him all year. 

[ScottT]

Walks are valuable either way.  Especially for a player like Trout (or Betts)... elite base runners.  

[Jeff Fletcher]

4 minutes ago, ScottT said:

Walks are valuable either way.  Especially for a player like Trout (or Betts)... elite base runners.  

It's the same argument with RBIs.

One guy gets a lot more RBIs than another guy because he has better hitters in front of him, so it's not an even comparison. 

One guy walks more than another guy because he has worse hitters behind him, so it's not an even comparison. 

Again, I'm not talking about this year because Trout had Pujols hitting behind him all year. I'm talking about 2013. 

[ScottT]

Trout drew the walks himself. He deserves all the credit.  Sure, they pitched around him... still do... but not every player takes those walks.   They pitched around him because he is a great hitter.

You don't drive in runs by yourself most of the time.   You draw walks yourself.  

[Ohtaniland]

Betts had 359 total bases. That's pretty amazing.

[Lou]

21 minutes ago, CALZONE said:

Betts had 359 total bases. That's pretty amazing.

but he was caught 411 times

[ScottT]

Mookie Betts had a great season.

[Oz27]

32 minutes ago, CALZONE said:

Betts had 359 total bases. That's pretty amazing.

If people try hard enough, they will find a reason to argue against Trout. As seen here, that argument is often pretty stupid and it never seems to be the same each year. But there is always a way.

[Stradling]

Hey stat guys, why wouldn't total bases include walks?  Hell I think it should include walks and stolen bases.  

[ScottT]

33 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Hey stat guys, why wouldn't total bases include walks?  Hell I think it should include walks and stolen bases.  

 

 

The same reason it doesn't include park effects, base running, or body mass index.   That's not what it measures.  

[Stradling]

Ok so walks aren't part of total bases?  It seems silly but ok.  So it's a counting stat that only counts bases from hits.  

[arch stanton]

Total bases are used to calculate slugging percentage. You can always add the walks, HBP, then subtract the GIDP and CS or do whatever it is you want to do to get the numbers you're looking for.

[Docwaukee]

31 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Hey stat guys, why wouldn't total bases include walks?  Hell I think it should include walks and stolen bases.  

sb minus CS in my opinion.  the reason is gonna sound kinda stupid, but it's because it never did.  It's just another arbitrary measure of performance that seemed to make sense to keep track of.  The goal of any stat is really to look back on it and assess the value of that player because of it.  Guys who accumulate a large number of total bases tend to be better than those that don't.....for the most part.  But it doesn't hold true as often as some other stats and their consistency in determining value.  

The thing that people tend to overlook in regards to a lot of these new fangled stats is that they were created in reverse.  The stat heads took all of the conventional stats and used regression analysis and other techniques to determine how closely those stats correlated to the ultimate outcome of scoring a run.  So they started with things like hits (0.74), walks (0.68), doubles (0.61) and then they looked obp (0.89) and slugging (0.89).  Then they did the same analysis by combining various stats and the correlation got even closer.  like ops (0.95).  Then they neutralized the stats via park and league factors.  And so on and so forth until they generated an amalgam of stats that made for the highest correlation which is WAR.  

But keep in mind that this was done on a per player basis.  When you try to add up all those players accumulated stats and correlate them to the number of team wins, you get even further from the actual truth of what happened because of sequencing, luck, and the sheer fact that WAR doesn't take into account every variable.  But it still correlates more strongly to actual runs and therefore wins than any other one stat.  But it's always going to be less than 1.