Trout Extension Concern

[floplag]

1 minute ago, Sean-Regan said:

If trading Mike Trout is outside-the-box thinking, then outside-the-box thinking can be equated with losing. 

we kinda are already doing that though... just sayin.  Trout isnt the issue regardless, we need a team around him. 

[Pancake Bear]

33 minutes ago, floplag said:

we kinda are already doing that though... just sayin.  Trout isnt the issue regardless, we need a team around him. 

Trading Trout does not fix the problem. He’s part of the solution because of the value he brings to the lineup. 

[floplag]

18 minutes ago, Sean-Regan said:

Trading Trout does not fix the problem. He’s part of the solution because of the value he brings to the lineup. 

i didnt suggest it did, but without more talent around him it really doesnt matter all that much in the grand scheme of things. 

[angelsnationtalk]

5 hours ago, Sean-Regan said:

Trading Trout does not fix the problem. He’s part of the solution because of the value he brings to the lineup. 

Exactly. A mediocre lineup like we have is cute to watch but a very strong lineup with Trout added into it is potential to be the deadliest lineup in baseball. 

[Pancake Bear]

I'll just state it one more time: You cannot get value back for Trout. The surplus value he provides in one position means that less is required at the other 8 spots for a championship team. No other team has that in as close to a guarantee as you can get. 

If you trade him, you will either get back prospects, which, historically tends to turn out badly, or major league guys who just aren't as good. Either way, you're trading quality for quantity - and in that trade, you almost always want the quality side. 

Now, maybe Trout decides to leave. I think he won't, but I could be wrong. If so, that simply means the team will have to be significantly better all around to make up for his loss. But until he leaves, you take advantage of the extraordinary benefit of having one of the very best players ever on your team. You do not trade him. Because that's what losers do.

[Jay]

5 hours ago, Sean-Regan said:

Now, maybe Trout decides to leave. I think he won't, but I could be wrong. If so, that simply means the team will have to be significantly better all around to make up for his loss. But until he leaves, you take advantage of the extraordinary benefit of having one of the very best players ever on your team. You do not trade him. Because that's what losers do.

We've already had him on our team for eight years. To me it seems extraordinary that Trout would want to stay.

 

[Stradling]

51 minutes ago, Jay said:

We've already had him on our team for eight years. To me it seems extraordinary that Trout would want to stay.

 

Well he is pretty extraordinary. 

[eligrba]

1 hour ago, Jay said:

We've already had him on our team for eight years. To me it seems extraordinary that Trout would want to stay.

 

Maybe the fact that Trout has stayed for eight years makes it seem extraordinary that he would want to leave?

[Blarg]

8 hours ago, Sean-Regan said:

I'll just state it one more time: You cannot get value back for Trout. The surplus value he provides in one position means that less is required at the other 8 spots for a championship team. No other team has that in as close to a guarantee as you can get. 

Without a strong supporting cast that has a null sum value as we have seen in past years. He can only build value when his play can impact the outcome. Being pitched around depreciates that value. 

As awesome as Trout is he is vulnerable to weak supporting cast members. It's like having Sir Lawrence Olivier performing Shakespeare with a Jr. high school drama team and expecting great reviews on Broadway. 

The surplus value in Trout is only received by the quality of play of the other 8 players. The less output by the supporting cast the less value Trout provides. 

[Stradling]

4 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Without a strong supporting cast that has a null sum value as we have seen in past years. He can only build value when his play can impact the outcome. Being pitched around depreciates that value. 

As awesome as Trout is he is vulnerable to weak supporting cast members. It's like having Sir Lawrence Olivier performing Shakespeare with a Jr. high school drama team and expecting great reviews on Broadway. 

The surplus value in Trout is only received by the quality of play of the other 8 players. The less output by the supporting cast the less value Trout provides. 

Eric, even though it hurts to read stuff like this, I love it when you come in and make these types of posts.  It is logical and there is usually a comparison that puts things in perspective.  Thanks.  

[Inside Pitch]

Just some food for thought...   Try applying his logic to what the Angels might look like a year from now...

[Pancake Bear]

55 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Without a strong supporting cast that has a null sum value as we have seen in past years. He can only build value when his play can impact the outcome. Being pitched around depreciates that value. 

As awesome as Trout is he is vulnerable to weak supporting cast members. It's like having Sir Lawrence Olivier performing Shakespeare with a Jr. high school drama team and expecting great reviews on Broadway. 

The surplus value in Trout is only received by the quality of play of the other 8 players. The less output by the supporting cast the less value Trout provides. 

The point is simply that with a 9-10 WAR player, you can get away with having two 3 WAR players with him in the outfield and still be successful instead of all three guys averaging 5 on a playoff team. The rest of the team would have to be considerably better to be successful without Mike Trout on the team than they do with him on it. 

[Blarg]

You might want to look at the Angels record with and without Trout in the lineup, it may surprise you.

There was no appreciable win/loss difference between May and June in 2017 when Trout missed the entire month.

Last season when Trout was out in August, again no real difference in win/loss record from July. 

Teams can nuetralize the best player in the game when he is the only guy really putting up offensive numbers. When you sandwhich Trout with a guy that can't get on base in front of him and a guy that can't run to first base behind him, there is no incentive to pitch to Trout in situations where his bat makes a difference. 

Trout has lead the AL in walks two of the last three seasons. It would have been 3 for 3 but he missed over 50 games in 2017. Those walks don't just point to his plate discipline, it also points to pitchers taking the bat out of his hands because of players lesser than league average all through the lineup. 

A poorly constructed team does not win more with the best player in the game on the roster.

 

 

[Jay]

13 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Teams can nuetralize the best player in the game when he is the only guy really putting up offensive numbers. When you sandwhich Trout with a guy that can't get on base in front of him and a guy that can't run to first base behind him, there is no incentive to pitch to Trout in situations where his bat makes a difference. 

Plus you need good pitching.

Let's hope the Angels come out of their rebuild in better shape than the Phillies.

 

[Pancake Bear]

12 minutes ago, Blarg said:

You might want to look at the Angels record with and without Trout in the lineup, it may surprise you.

There was no appreciable win/loss difference between May and June in 2017 when Trout missed the entire month.

Last season when Trout was out in August, again no real difference in win/loss record from July. 

Teams can nuetralize the best player in the game when he is the only guy really putting up offensive numbers. When you sandwhich Trout with a guy that can't get on base in front of him and a guy that can't run to first base behind him, there is no incentive to pitch to Trout in situations where his bat makes a difference. 

Trout has lead the AL in walks two of the last three seasons. It would have been 3 for 3 but he missed over 50 games in 2017. Those walks don't just point to his plate discipline, it also points to pitchers taking the bat out of his hands because of players lesser than league average all through the lineup. 

A poorly constructed team does not win more with the best player in the game on the roster.

 

 

Who said a poorly constructed team? Might want to go back and, y’know, read? 

Also, Trout sucked in the playoffs in 2014, so if the Angels make the playoffs again, maybe they should bench him so they don’t lose again. Because clearly, he provides no real value. 

Whats that? Not what you were saying? It’s about as logical as your last response. 

[Docwaukee]

2 hours ago, Blarg said:

Without a strong supporting cast that has a null sum value as we have seen in past years. He can only build value when his play can impact the outcome. Being pitched around depreciates that value. 

As awesome as Trout is he is vulnerable to weak supporting cast members. It's like having Sir Lawrence Olivier performing Shakespeare with a Jr. high school drama team and expecting great reviews on Broadway. 

The surplus value in Trout is only received by the quality of play of the other 8 players. The less output by the supporting cast the less value Trout provides. 

I agree with this.  I have always felt that there is this tipping point in any major league lineup where the production in totality becomes greater than the sum of the parts.  

As an example, let's say you were 8 total wins below average on offense at 1b, 3b, C and RF and you added players as well as had some improve from the previous year that in total gave you what would be considered average production.  I personally feel that you will end up benefiting the team by more than 8 wins in that case.  

I know that lineup protection has been debunked and all, but no one is going to convince me that Mookie Betts, while a great player, didn't have his overall production aided by the fact that there were so many other good hitters around him.  

I think you can get away with a hole or maybe even two in your lineup, but after that, the negative impact has more of an effect than is measured by normal analytics.  

[Blarg]

2 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

I know that lineup protection has been debunked and all...

I don't think the analysis on that was solid. Lineup protection is more relevant when you take in account not the guy batting behind Trout but also the guy batting before Trout. Make the situation of walking Trout less beneficial to the defense and more to the offense. 

So far the Angels have not addressed leadoff unless the plan is using Ohtani. Otherwise you are seeing Fletcher, who is a smart runner but not a base stealing threat. Getting the front loading for Trout at bats may be another year of frustration. 

 

[Docwaukee]

41 minutes ago, Blarg said:

You might want to look at the Angels record with and without Trout in the lineup, it may surprise you.

There was no appreciable win/loss difference between May and June in 2017 when Trout missed the entire month.

Last season when Trout was out in August, again no real difference in win/loss record from July. 

Teams can nuetralize the best player in the game when he is the only guy really putting up offensive numbers. When you sandwhich Trout with a guy that can't get on base in front of him and a guy that can't run to first base behind him, there is no incentive to pitch to Trout in situations where his bat makes a difference. 

Trout has lead the AL in walks two of the last three seasons. It would have been 3 for 3 but he missed over 50 games in 2017. Those walks don't just point to his plate discipline, it also points to pitchers taking the bat out of his hands because of players lesser than league average all through the lineup. 

A poorly constructed team does not win more with the best player in the game on the roster.

 

 

they're always going to pitch around Mike.  He's always going to walk a ton.  It's just part of his game.  But I am curious to see what would happen if there are actual consequences to doing so because every player in the  4, 5, 6 spots are actually all somewhat dangerous.  

last year, the Angels 4th, 5th, and 6th hitters ranked as follows by wRC+ relative to the rest of the league.  23rd, 21st, 22nd.  

[Docwaukee]

7 minutes ago, Blarg said:

I don't think the analysis on that was solid. Lineup protection is more relevant when you take in account not the guy batting behind Trout but also the guy batting before Trout. Make the situation of walking Trout less beneficial to the defense and more to the offense. 

So far the Angels have not addressed leadoff unless the plan is using Ohtani. Otherwise you are seeing Fletcher, who is a smart runner but not a base stealing threat. Getting the front loading for Trout at bats may be another year of frustration. 

 

Mike had 231 PA with runners on last year.  Ranking him 112th of 346 qualified.  I definitely feel like that's on the low side.  

Our #1 hitter had a .295 obp last year.  2nd worst in all of baseball.  

 

[Blarg]

Last couple of seasons the Angels lineup card nuetralized Mike Trout more than other teams did.

[tdawg87]

Has anyone made a Viagra joke yet

[Jeff Fletcher]

As I’ve said before, you only trade Trout if BOTH of these are true....

-You have no chance of signing him to an extension. 

-You have no chance of winning with him during the remainder of his contract. 

I can’t envision a scenario in which either of these statements would be true, let alone both of them. 

[Lou]

I'm starting to warm up to the idea of going thug life on Trout. 

 

 

Get it done, Don Eppy 

[Docwaukee]

2 hours ago, Lou said:

I'm starting to warm up to the idea of going thug life on Trout. 

 

 

Get it done, Don Eppy 

Trout is from Jersey.  Someone is gonna find Arte's yacht in a river.  

wait.  I suck at this.  

[Taylor]

If Trout has a dog named Don, we're screwed.