WAR graph comparisons - Trout and others

[Angelsjunky]

Intro

I find that visualizing data is very helpful in understanding its value. A "6.3 WAR player" is one thing, but seeing it graphically compared to other players helps bring it to light in a new way.

So I thought I'd create a way to compare players that puts their WAR--as the current best single metric of value--into a visual form. It is simply a bar graph for each player.

This was inspired by the Griffey vs. Trout thread, but I thought I'd start a new thread where I can periodically dump stuff in, for those interested. Meaning, this is the first post of at least several, so if this sort of thing is of interest, keep checking back.

1. Bonds, Griffey, and Trout

To start, here are the careers of Bonds, Griffey, and Trout.

 

As you can see, this includes the entire careers of Bonds and Griffey, and only Trout's so far, through 2021, his age 29 season. Here's how they look through age 29:

Analysis:

Trout's 20s were significantly better than both Bonds and Griffey, mainly due to reaching a peak level almost instantly, and then maintaining close to it through 2019, his age 27 season (aside from his injury-shortened 2017/age 25 season).

Or to put it in numbers:

Career Statistics (through age 29)

Trout: .305/.419/.583, 310 HR, 203 SB, 172 wRC+, 77.8 WAR in 1288 games.

Griffey: .299/.380/.569, 398 HR, 167 SB, 144 wRC+, 68.5 WAR in 1535 games.

Bonds: .285/.394/.537, 259 HR, 309 SB, 153 wRC+, 64.9 WAR in 1281 games.

Bonds didn't start his major league career until 1986, his age 21 season, so is a bit behind Griffey in terms of playing time, although Trout lost a lot over the last two seasons and thus they have almost the same number of games played through their 20s, while Griffey played 247 more games than Trout. Both Bonds and Griffey also had a more gradual developmental period than Trout, with Bonds not reaching peak form until 1989 or 90 (24-25) and Griffey not until 1992 (age 22).

If you look at the first chart, you can see that Bonds' and Griffey's careers diverge sharply after age 30, when Griffey declined sharply and Bonds continued as is for a few more years.

And of course the elephant in the chart is Bonds' late career spike. Regardless of how much his numbers were "augmented," he was showing little sign of decline before his 1999 injury, and we can imagine how his career might have looked without "augmentation." If we look at his 1996-98 seasons, we can see a slight downward trajectory, which is probably too small to indicate actual decline. But if we want to imagine what his career might have looked like, keep 2000 as it is and then imagine a downward trajectory from there on, with retirement in 2005 or 2006.

In later installments, we'll compare Trout to other all-time greats through age 29, as well as recent stars, and other historical comparisons.

[Lazorko Saves]

Excellent work, thank you.

Unfortunately, I only have this WAR graph comparison to share.

[WicketMaiden]

1 hour ago, Lazorko Saves said:

Excellent work, thank you.

Unfortunately, I only have this WAR graph comparison to share.

That would be funny if only the French hadn't won more military battles than any other country in the history of the world. 

[Inside Pitch]

6 minutes ago, WicketMaiden said:

That would be funny if only the French hadn't won more military battles than any other country in the history of the world. 

That whole Maginot Line thing is still hilarious...

[Lazorko Saves]

 

[WicketMaiden]

21 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

That whole Maginot Line thing is still hilarious...

Fantastic isn't it? They've been pretty limp for about the last century, a real demise considering they were a formidable warmongering nation for a very, very long time before that. Have to tip your hat to Napoleon, he was a military genius at times. A measure of how much we English love beating the French (and an indirect measure of our respect for them as enemies) is the long standing tradition of flicking the V's up and down at someone to tell them to eff off, which is a direct reference to the English archers killing all the French troops in Agincourt in 1415. 

[Second Base]

11 hours ago, WicketMaiden said:

Fantastic isn't it? They've been pretty limp for about the last century, a real demise considering they were a formidable warmongering nation for a very, very long time before that. Have to tip your hat to Napoleon, he was a military genius at times. A measure of how much we English love beating the French (and an indirect measure of our respect for them as enemies) is the long standing tradition of flicking the V's up and down at someone to tell them to eff off, which is a direct reference to the English archers killing all the French troops in Agincourt in 1415. 

Americans love the wars involving the English and French. Every time one happens, we either gain our independence (Revolutionary War), or huge continental landmasses (purchasing the Louisiana Territory to fund Napoleon), or reaffirm our status as the global superpower (back to back WW champs). 1812 doesn't count. No one cares about Canada. 

It's the commies we hate fighting. We get stuck in unwinnable wars and worse, end up adopting such policies domestically. So if you could help us out and declare war on some non-socialist country, we could really use the boost. Maybe pick an easy target no one will defend. Like Australia or something. 

Edited January 22, 2022 by Second Base

[tdawg87]

Sigh.

[Stradling]

2 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

Sigh.

Yep. 

[Angelsjunky]

Keep that bullshit out of my thread.

[Stradling]

8 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Keep that bullshit out of my thread.

Careful.  

[Lazorko Saves]

4 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Keep that bullshit out of my thread.

Yeah, it could have been a great thread,but...  This is all my fault.

No freedom fries for me for two weeks as punishment.

[tdawg87]

52 minutes ago, Lazorko Saves said:

Yeah, it could have been a great thread,but...  This is all my fault.

No freedom fries for me for two weeks as punishment.

It wasn't your fault at all.

[Blarg]

On 1/21/2022 at 1:53 PM, WicketMaiden said:

Fantastic isn't it? They've been pretty limp for about the last century, a real demise considering they were a formidable warmongering nation for a very, very long time before that. Have to tip your hat to Napoleon, he was a military genius at times. A measure of how much we English love beating the French (and an indirect measure of our respect for them as enemies) is the long standing tradition of flicking the V's up and down at someone to tell them to eff off, which is a direct reference to the English archers killing all the French troops in Agincourt in 1415. 

Actually it was to show the French they still had their bow string fingers which the French amputated if they captured an archer. 

[tdawg87]

The usual suspects "liking" Scotty's post.

[Angelsjunky]

2. Golden Era of Outfielders

We're going to back-track a bit and look at some of the greatest outfielders of the mid-century, or specifically, from the late 30s to the early 80s. The late 50s, in particular, was truly a Golden Era of outfielders, with Williams and Musial still around and productive, and Mays, Mantle, Aaron, and Robinson in their primes and Clemente warming up.

We'll look at nine outfielders, in groups of three.

Group A. DiMaggio, Williams, Musial

The light colors are a projection of what sort of performance the players might have done if it wasn't for their military service. As you can see, Ted Williams lost three of his very best years--right in the middle of his four best seasons, and then most of another two seasons later on. DiMaggio also lost some prime years, and Musial a single year.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, if not for his military service, Williams may have ended up with the lead in career WAR or, at the very least, been right there with Ruth and Bonds. DiMaggio might have reached the 100 WAR mark, but is still clearly the lesser of the three players, partially due to longevity.

Group B. Mays, Mantle, Aaron

Willie Mays may be the most "perfect player" in that he could do everything at an elite level: hit for average, hit for power, run, field, even draw some walks. But at his best, Mantle was probably slightly better, or at least his two best years are better than any by Mays, but his career was marred by chronic injuries and alcoholism. Aaron wasn't as good as either one at their respective bests, but he may be the most consistently great player in baseball history, as evinced by the "blockish" shape of his graph.

Group C. Robinson, Clemente, Yaz

Contemporaries of the former group, these are the "lesser trio" - but still great players in their own right. What I find most interesting is Clemente's gradual improvement over the first dozen years of his career, with his best year at age 32. He was probably in decline when he tragically died, but probably would have finished roughly equal to Robinson in terms of total career value, rather than 20ish WAR below. Yaz had three truly great seasons, with the rest of his career ranging from good to very good. Robinson is the 18th best player in history according to WAR, but the fourth best of his era and thus tends to get overlooked.

In the next installments, I'll bring Trout back into the mix and compare him both to all-time greats as well as recent and contemporary top players. 

[AngelStew43]

Thanks so much for this.  It just proves how great Ted Williams was.  

[Angelsjunky]

39 minutes ago, AngelStew43 said:

Thanks so much for this.  It just proves how great Ted Williams was.  

No problem - it is a fun project while I'm watching a series or something.

And yeah, Williams might actually be slightly underrated. It is hard to call the guy with the 8th highest career WAR underrated, but if not for military service, he'd definitely be in the top 5, probably top 3 - and maybe even #1. Again, he probably lost at least 30 WAR to WW2 and 10-15 WAR to Korea, so if you add 40 WAR to his career total, he's at 170, just ahead of Ruth.

Williams was not a good defender, which even Def picks up on. But he has the second highest career wRC+ (188) behind Ruth (197), and well ahead of #3 (Gehrig, Hornsby, and Bonds at 173). I'd also argue that a 188 wRC+ in the 40s and 50s is more impressive than a 197 wRC+ in the 20s and 30s, which is why I personally think that Williams--and not Ruth--is the greatest hitter in baseball history.

 

[Inside Pitch]

Ted Williams was the greatest hitter of all time.  His book "The Science of Hitting" is like taking a look inside a mad scientist's brain.

[Lazorko Saves]

Added an addendum to the Ted Williams chart.

[Lazorko Saves]

I have to ask, are the light green bars for Ted Williams in 43-44-45 his WAR stats over Replacement-Level Navy pilots?

[Angelsjunky]

3. Trout's Contemporaries

So let's return to Mike Trout. Below are a series of charts, with Trout's graph lined up alongside the best players of his era. The first chart are players who peaked well before Trout, more in the 2000s and early 2010s:

As you can see, Trout's peak is higher than all of them - except for lone seasons by Beltre, Pujols, and to a lesser extent, Cabrera. Meaning, their career years are garden variety peak seasons for Trout.

Now if you want something to worry about, look at how similar Trout's career has been to Pujols' first decade: very similarly consistent, if Trout reaching a mostly higher level (largely due to playing center field and being a better baserunner). But Pujols steep decline from such heights is rare...oh, wait, there's a guy right next to him. That said, there are some differences between Pujols and Miggy: Pujols had a big drop between 2010 and 2011 (his alleged age 30 and 31 seasons), then a gradual decline for a few years before falling again to what we've seen the last five years. Miggy just fell through the roof after his age 33 season and has been a replacement level player since.

This next group are the guys who peaked in Trout's early years. Posey is one of three active players--along with Betts and Trout--to have a 10 WAR season, the last being Barry Bonds in 2004. He retired after 2021 and is almost certainly bound for the Hall of Fame.

Remember how good Andrew McCutchen was? For a few years there, he was the closest thing the NL had to a Mike Trout - not quite as good, but he had the third highest WAR in baseball from 2012-15, after Trout and Posey. And then he declined rather sharply.

Freeman, Donaldson, Goldschmidt, and Altuve are among the better players of the last decade.

 

Finally we have players who started the same year or shortly after Trout, including two players who have been most frequently compared to the Great One: Bryce Harper and Mookie Betts. As you can see, they don't really hold a candle to Trout. Mookie has a coup years--2016 and 18--that would fit well into Trout's prime, but the rest is just more garden variety star. Harper has that one year, but had his second best year in 2021, so might be starting a nice run. 

Machado, Rendon, Lindor, and Correa are among the game's current best players.

In the next installment, we'll compare Trout's first decade with the equivalent years of a group of comparable all-time greats.