Trout's Walk Pace

[hopkinsHalo]

18 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Another thing. The most similar player to Mike Trout may not be Mickey Mantle, it may be peak but pre-roid Barry Bonds. Bonds reached a new level of play in 1990 and form what I read he started taking steroids sometime in 1999 or 2000. So let's look at 1990-98:

Barry Bonds 1990-98 (nine seasons): 1332 games, .305/.438/.600, 173 wRC+, 78 fWAR, 327 HR, 328 SB

162 game averages: 9.5 fWAR, 40 HR, 40 SB 

Oh yeah, that's 16.9 fWAR over #2 during those years, Ken Griffey. That's +28%.

Trout 2012-18 (six+ seasons): 931 games, .309/.415/.575, 172 wRC+, 57.4 fWAR, 210 HR, 169 SB

162 game averages: 10 fWAR, 37 HR, 29 SB

So yeah...pretty similar.

Wow...one forgets how good pre-steroids Bonds really was. 

[ten ocho recon scout]

16 hours ago, Dochalo said:

have it on pretty good authority that bonds starting juicing in college.  

you don't have to look like John Cena to be on roids.  Plenty of guys who were on PEDs didn't have 'the look'.  Andy Pettit.  Derek Turnbow.  Robinson Cano.  Bonds just advanced his regimen in 1999.  Went full bore body builder.  

You can't compare trout to bonds.  ever.  

Good point. Ive mentioned it here before. If someone has never known anyone on the gear, its not "one size fits all". Some cycles you bulk, some you cut. HGH and test wont blow you up, but it will eat all your body fat and give you strength.

The next part is diet. Thats more important to physique than lifting and juicing.

You always hear about some little guy in the minors who tests dirty. And you shake your head when you see a pic, because hes not big.

Ive run in to more than a few MLB giys in street clothes who are absolutely built, but dont look it in their uniforms. Some guys like mcgwire stood out, because he was so big. But theres been some middle infielders over the yeats who are built like linebackers under the baggy jersey...

And to my knowledge they still dont test for H...

[ten ocho recon scout]

9 minutes ago, hopkinsHalo said:

Wow...one forgets how good pre-steroids Bonds really was. 

I think when Trout came up, that was the best comp for him. A few guys I know from that era thought I was crazy when I mentioned it. People only remember the second stage bonds.

Bonds and peak ricky henderson, i think. Henderson is one of the most underrated legends ever. Imagine having peak henderson on ours or any other team right now. Gets on base at a .450 clip, 20 plus home run power, 100 stolen bases. Not sure when youll see another guy like that.

[hopkinsHalo]

6 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

I think when Trout came up, that was the best comp for him. A few guys I know from that era thought I was crazy when I mentioned it. People only remember the second stage bonds.

Bonds and peak ricky henderson, i think. Henderson is one of the most underrated legends ever. Imagine having peak henderson on ours or any other team right now. Gets on base at a .450 clip, 20 plus home run power, 100 stolen bases. Not sure when youll see another guy like that.

Interesting. It does seem like we'd remember Henderson as an even greater player if we'd valued the saber stats back then. But did he ever put up a 1.000+ OPS? 

[Dick B Back]

Trout’s walk pace = Mang’s run pace.

[Angelsjunky]

51 minutes ago, hopkinsHalo said:

Interesting. It does seem like we'd remember Henderson as an even greater player if we'd valued the saber stats back then. But did he ever put up a 1.000+ OPS? 

1990 only, when he hit .325/.439/.577 with a 190 wRC+ and 10.2 fWAR, his highest seasonal total. 1985 was also amazing: .314/.419/.516 with 80 SB, 9.7 fWAR, and 146 runs scored.

[ten ocho recon scout]

3 hours ago, hopkinsHalo said:

Interesting. It does seem like we'd remember Henderson as an even greater player if we'd valued the saber stats back then. But did he ever put up a 1.000+ OPS? 

Had to look it up. Only a few times. But his OPS+ was around 150 over a close to 15 year period...thats insane. And he retired with an OPS+ of 127...which is crazy, considering he played 25 years. Dude played till he was 45! Imagine if he hung it up in his late 30s or at 40. That number would go up a bit.

I was never in to him as a kid, but i read up on him a few years ago and was blown away. I cant believe more people dont bring him up.

Hell, he brings himself up!

[GrittyVeterans]

Yeah, Henderson is one of the all time great players that people just don't talk about much. Another would be a guy like Joe Morgan 

[ten ocho recon scout]

8 minutes ago, GrittyVeterans said:

Yeah, Henderson is one of the all time great players that people just don't talk about much. Another would be a guy like Joe Morgan 

Good call. Morgan was a beast. I think people forget about him because the mexican mafia guy played by william forsyth in american me had the same name. Only reason i can think of.

[Angelsjunky]

Joe Morgan was great, especially from 1972-76, one of the greatest five-year peaks in baseball history. During those years he accrued 47.3 fWAR, or 9.5 per season. His 11.0 fWAR in 1975 is the 25th highest all time, and the highest non Bondsian season since Yaz in 1967.

[AngelsLakersFan]

9 hours ago, True Grich said:

If you want to talk about players who walk a lot - we should look at Joey Votto.

Joey Votto has lead the league in walks four times.  He has lead the league in OBP 6 times.  He has 1,027 career walks and 1,633 career hits.  He's been an MVP.  He's lead the league in OPS twice. 

Is he a Hall of Famer? 

He's not going to get 3,000 hits.  He's not going to hit 600 homeruns.  Does his propensity for getting on base via the walk hurt him and his legacy? Will it hurt Mike Trout's?  Trout walks a ton too.  Will this prevent him from getting to 3,000 hits? 

Would you prefer he expand the strike zone more and try to hit the ball?  Or would that take him out of his game to the detriment of the team?

I have mixed thoughts.  It's great that he has a high OBP, but I sure would like to see him swing the bat a bit more at times.  Maybe I'm wrong for wishing that.  I don't know.

I care about winning more than than milestones. Pujols' milestones are holding the team back if anything.

No player hits enough on contact to out produce a guaranteed walk - thus Trout and guys like Votto are only hurting the team when they strike out looking on pitches they should be swinging it.

[AngelsLakersFan]

4 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

I think when Trout came up, that was the best comp for him. A few guys I know from that era thought I was crazy when I mentioned it. People only remember the second stage bonds.

Bonds and peak ricky henderson, i think. Henderson is one of the most underrated legends ever. Imagine having peak henderson on ours or any other team right now. Gets on base at a .450 clip, 20 plus home run power, 100 stolen bases. Not sure when youll see another guy like that.

As crazy as it is to think, Mike Trout blows Bonds away when discussing early career.

[Taylor]

33 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Good call. Morgan was a beast. I think people forget about him because the mexican mafia guy played by william forsyth in american me had the same name. Only reason i can think of.

Maybe because he was one of the most insufferable baseball commentators of all-time. Joe Buck is the only one who is worse.

[Angelsjunky]

9 hours ago, True Grich said:

If you want to talk about players who walk a lot - we should look at Joey Votto.

Joey Votto has lead the league in walks four times.  He has lead the league in OBP 6 times.  He has 1,027 career walks and 1,633 career hits.  He's been an MVP.  He's lead the league in OPS twice. 

Is he a Hall of Famer? 

He's not going to get 3,000 hits.  He's not going to hit 600 homeruns.  Does his propensity for getting on base via the walk hurt him and his legacy? Will it hurt Mike Trout's?  Trout walks a ton too.  Will this prevent him from getting to 3,000 hits? 

Would you prefer he expand the strike zone more and try to hit the ball?  Or would that take him out of his game to the detriment of the team?

I have mixed thoughts.  It's great that he has a high OBP, but I sure would like to see him swing the bat a bit more at times.  Maybe I'm wrong for wishing that.  I don't know.

I love Joey Votto and players like him: more substance than flash. He doesn't hit 40 HR a year, but he hits 25-35, draws 100++ walks (three seasons of 135 or higher, five times leading the NL), hits .300+. His career line is absurd: .312/.427/.537. He's the Edgar Martinez of this era.

Votto is the type of player that should get into the Hall but might not. It all depends upon counting stats at this point, and it really shouldn't. nd actually, Edgar is an interesting comp. Edgar probably would have gotten in if the Mariners hadn't delayed his major league debut; Edgar wasn't a regular until 1990, at age 27, languishing in AAA for several years. Here are their career lines:

EDGAR: 2055 games, .312/.418/.515, 309 HR, 1261 RBI, 1219 Runs, 147 wRC+, 65.5 fWAR

VOTTO: 1477 games, .312/.427/.537, 263 HR, 854 RBI, 885 Runs, 157 wRC+, 53.9 fWAR

That said, I think both Edgar and Votto will get in eventually, seeing as baseball knowledge is increasing and the Hall voters are getting younger and more sabermetrically savvy. Edgar will be voted in with other underrated players like Bobby Grich and Jim Edmonds. Votto really only needs to play a few more years at a decent level and he's in.

[Angelsjunky]

8 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

As crazy as it is to think, Mike Trout blows Bonds away when discussing early career.

Early career, yes. 

Trout through age 25 (2011-2017): .306/.410/.566, 169 wRC+, 54.9 fWAR

Bonds through age 25 (1986-90): .265/.358/.479, 132 wRC+, 31.1 fWAR

Despite Bonds really only coming into his own in 1990 at age 25, his 31.1 fWAR through age 25 was still the third highest among position players for that span, behind only Wade Boggs (36.8) and Rickey Henderson (35.5).

Trout, on the other hand, has been so much better than the competition--first in fWAR, and well above #2 Andrew McCutchen (39.0). And that includes his 2011 season in which he only played 40 games.

What we don't know is how much better Trout will get. Bonds became Trout-level in 1990 at age 25; Trout is 26 now and possibly still getting better. 

Trout's 2018 triple-slash is almost identical to 2017, so presumably this is his new level. But there is a sense that he could up it a bit. Right now he's at .294/.440/.632 (last year he was .306/.442/.629).  Both seasons saw him post low BABIPs...he ended 2017 on a slump and he's just pulling himself out of a slump, so I wouldn't be surprised to see his numbers trend upward and him ending the year something like .310/.450/.650 with 45 HR, 190+ wRC+ and 10 fWAR.

[101halo]

Looking up Trout career stats, a few fun ones:

1) In 1,328 minor league PA, roughly 2 full MLB seasons for a regular, he has only 23 HR. 

2) Through yesterday, he's the 129th most valuable position player of all time (yeah, at age 26).

3) With 58.2 career fWAR, if season ended today he'd be 3rd all-time through age 26, behind Mantle and the leader Cobb at 63.5. Needs 5.3 WAR to overtake Cobb by end of year. To this, Trout replies, "hold my beer." (this is one of my favorite to check every month or two)

4) At current pace, Trout reasonably could go join the 50 HR/ 35 SB club. A club that would be of 1. Have to reduce criteria to 45/30 to allow Larry Walker and Rafael Soriano to El Fish's presence. Prefer 40/40? Take out Walker and add Bonds, Canseco, A-Rod. 

Edit, fixed point #4. Had wrong % of PA completed for 2018 overstating his pace. Still crazy, and includes the slump that is longer than he usually has. So could still best that. 

[Angelsjunky]

The only players who are really comparable to Trout's career so far are Ty Cobb and Mickey Mantle, the only two players who have a higher fWAR through age 26 - and Trout will probably surpass both this year. Cobb isn't really comparable because he played a century ago.

Mantle is more than half a century ago, but very similar in terms of skill set. The thing about Mantle, though, is that his best two years according to WAR were in 1956-57, when he was 24-25 years old. Trout is 26 and is on pace for his best WAR season, so he might be peaking a bit later than Mantle did, although this might be because of Mantle's drinking. Mantle was on a downturn from age 26-28, but then had another 10 WAR season at age 29, then was 6 or lower for the rest of his career. As I've said before, we can hope in Trout to see Mantle-like peak years, but more of them. 

[Angelsjunky]

Speculation:

fWAR through 2018, his age 26 season: 65 fWAR. That would put him in the top 100 and around the full careers of Jim Edmonds and Tony Gwynn.

fWAR through 2021, his age 29 season: 90 fWAR.  That would put him close to the top 25, and all while only playing in his 20s. If he reaches 90 fWAR by the end of 2021, he would be the first to do so at age 29 (even though ends 2021 at 30 years old, it is his age 29 season).

fWAR through 2027, his age 35 season: 130 fWAR. Here's where it gets dicey, because we don't know how his second act will look. We can't assume he follows the Willie Mays or Hank Aaron path--both were as good or better in their 30s than in their 20s--but we can hope he doesn't follow the Mantle or Griffey path. I'm assuming somewhere in-between.

fWAR through 2032, his age 40 season: 145 fWAR. Similarly above. Assuming he slows down substantially, but remains a productive player. 145 fWAR leaves him 5th all-time, behind only Ruth, Bonds, Mays, and Cobb. I can live with that.

Of course there are still a wide range of outcomes, but that speculation assumes relative health and typical decline. Trout has been graced with excellent health, but is anything but typical. But at this point, assuming no catastrophic injury or decline, he could finish anywhere north of 120 fWAR.

[101halo]

11 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

The only players who are really comparable to Trout's career so far are Ty Cobb and Mickey Mantle, the only two players who have a higher fWAR through age 26 - and Trout will probably surpass both this year. Cobb isn't really comparable because he played a century ago.

Mantle is more than half a century ago, but very similar in terms of skill set. The thing about Mantle, though, is that his best two years according to WAR were in 1956-57, when he was 24-25 years old. Trout is 26 and is on pace for his best WAR season, so he might be peaking a bit later than Mantle did, although this might be because of Mantle's drinking. Mantle was on a downturn from age 26-28, but then had another 10 WAR season at age 29, then was 6 or lower for the rest of his career. As I've said before, we can hope in Trout to see Mantle-like peak years, but more of them. 

Semi jinx. 

[Angelsjunky]

Oh stop it. 

(On the other hand, how awesome would it be if I had the power to effect the career of the greatest living ball player?)

[ten ocho recon scout]

I cant read joe morgan and not see that first

[101halo]

1 minute ago, Angelsjunky said:

fWAR through 2032, his age 40 season: 145 fWAR. Similarly above. Assuming he slows down substantially, but remains a productive player. 145 fWAR leaves him 5th all-time, behind only Ruth, Bonds, Mays, and Cobb. I can live with that....... 

The simple fact that a statement like what I bolded for you isn't insane fanboy fantasy is just absurd. Love it. 

[ten ocho recon scout]

2 minutes ago, 101halo said:

The simple fact that a statement like what I bolded for you isn't insane fanboy fantasy is just absurd. Love it. 

Especially knowing only bonds is in the mix in terms of the competition, and he cheated.

[101halo]

12 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Especially knowing only bonds is in the mix in terms of the competition, and he cheated.

I'm always on the fence with that. So much we'll never really know given technology limits in the past, but pre-integration is a really valid argument. And then in the reverse direction, is baseball these days getting the best talent given youth preference for NFL and NBA? Really tough to know for sure (though with head trauma issues in football, seems reasonable to think basketball and baseball might get a better share of athletes moving forward). 

[ten ocho recon scout]

29 minutes ago, 101halo said:

I'm always on the fence with that. So much we'll never really know given technology limits in the past, but pre-integration is a really valid argument. And then in the reverse direction, is baseball these days getting the best talent given youth preference for NFL and NBA? Really tough to know for sure (though with head trauma issues in football, seems reasonable to think basketball and baseball might get a better share of athletes moving forward). 

Thats totally valid. Football and basketball suck up a huge amount of talent. But i think if you include how many guys come from other countries now (not just at the big league level, but also in the minors), travel ball, etc, baseball is still the hardest sport to excel in.

Mike trout and guys like him could at least contribute in the nba...jordan couldnt hit 20 year old pitchers.