Bill James on trading Trout

[Angelsjunky]

On whether the Angels need to trade Mike Trout, I think they need to trade him this year.  

 

Trout's always had issues with the fastball up and in. He did what he could to mitigate the problem, developing a terrific eye, so that if it was a ball he'd take it and if you made a mistake he'd punish it.  

 

But that window has gotten wider this year. The fastball doesn't need to be as high or as tight or as hard. He basically can't handle the high heat anymore. There have been long stretches where he does nothing but strike out. Hang a slider and he'll still clobber it, but more pitchers are challenging him and beating him with the hard stuff. And of course pitchers are throwing harder than ever.  

 

Trout's body has been breaking down in recent years, and he's about to turn 31 in a few weeks. This could be the last year where he puts up big stats. The Angels need to pull the trigger on a trade now. Whether anyone is willing to pay 300 mil for the back half of Trout's career is another question.

Asked by: JackKeefe

---

Answered: 7/13/2022

 OK.   History may prove you right, I guess.  

 

*************************

 

Thinking more about this question. . . .it is certainly possible that time may prove that you are correct.  Players careers look very different looking forward, rather than backward.   The Angels certainly were foolish to give Albert Pujols the contract that they did, and they did that because they were looking backward, rather than looking forward.  Certainly there could be a similar point in Trout's career arc, and certainly we could be near it.  

 

But your logic seems to me. . .um.  Over-ambitious, and narrow, and poorly tailored to the issue at hand.   First of all, I think your observations about Trout, from watching him play, are just total and complete nonsense.   The man has a .967 OPS, 170 OPS+ as opposed to a career norm of 176.   I don't believe that anything you are seeing has any predictive value; I just flat don't believe it.   I don't believe it when professional scouts tell me stuff like that, but I take it seriously because sometimes they are right.   And sometimes they are wrong.  

 

But what you are REALLY missing is this.   Players of that level, that quality, do not normally see an evaporation of value in their early 30s.   You're trying to apply to a very great player a generalization that is applicable to . . .well, Kyle Calhoun or Kevin Pillar.   Great players don't normally do that.   Willie Mays didn't, Cal Ripken didn't, Barry Bonds didn't (obviously a different case), Stan Musial didn't, Roberto Clemente didn't, Ted Williams didn't, Babe Ruth didn't, Joe Morgan didn't, Mike Schmidt didn't, George Brett didn't, A-Rod didn't.   Even Mickey Mantle and Albert Pujols didn't, really; Mickey Mantle from ages 30 to 36 had an OPS+ of 195, 196, 177, 137, 170, 150 and 143, and Albert Pujols at the same ages had an OPS+ of 173, 148, 138, 116, 126, 118 and 113.   Even Ken Griffey Jr., kind of the poster boy for an early decline, han an OPS+ of 133, 124, 103, 145, 123, 144 and 99 ages 30 to 36. 

 

Teams very often make the mistake of giving players too many years on a contract, not properly anticipating their decline.   That happens A LOT; that's the normal rule.   But it doesn't really have anything to do with Mike Trout, because a player of that quality is so far above the replacement level that his glide path is much, much longer.  A "good" player, but a normal player, has an OPS+ of 115, 120.   With normal season-to-season variation, he'll have a decline path like 120, 103, 115, 94, 102, 80, 92, etc.   At age 32 his value is gone; he's no longer better than. . . .well, Franchy Cordero.   

 

But a guy who has an OPS+ of 176 is a completely different animal.   His OPS+ from ages 30 to 36 will go like 170, 150, 185, 160, 135, 152, 144.   It's not that big a deal, because even when he starts losing 4% of his value per year and even with year-to-year variation, he doesn't go to 94, and all of sudden you need to replace him.   So. . .just my opinion. . .you are trying to apply to Mike Trout a generalization about aging that doesn't really have anything to do with Mike Trout.    

 

[Angelsjunky]

Thought I'd post this here. I think Bill James makes an important point - that the decline of a Mike Trout is very different from the decline of a Kole Calhoun (he wrote "Kyle" but I think he meant Kole). Meaning, a peak seasons of 120 OPS+ declines to 100 to 90, etc. Whereas Trout peaked around 180-190, so his first plateau of decline might be more in the 150-160 range. Plus, even in decline, great players still seem to have one or two peak-level seasons mixed in.

So my sense is that the next five years of Trout is going to see more ups and downs, but still one or two vintage Trout performances. James' hypothetical OPS+ line of 170, 150, 185, 160, 135, 152, 144 sounds about right...obviously it won't be right, but something like that.

I'm also not convinced that Trout can't adjust. He's done it before, and more so, he's been dominant for good periods of time this year. He may still continue to struggle with the high fastball, but if he can lay off it more, his walks will go up, and he can focus on pitches he can hit. For whatever reason he's swinging at pitches he's generally avoided in the past.

Edited July 14, 2022 by Angelsjunky

[Erstad Grit]

Even if we wanted to trade Trout, how many teams would be able to take that salary?

Looking at the aftermath of the Marlins dumping Stanton tells me it's a terrible idea. 

If we traded Trout we'd probably not get any great prospects, have to eat some salary, be an even worse team, and be the team who traded Trout. 

We're better off allowing him to naturally decline and cement him as an Angel HOF and hopefully build around him. 

[Angelsjunky]

 

3 minutes ago, Erstad Grit said:

Even if we wanted to trade Trout, how many teams would be able to take that salary?

Looking at the aftermath of the Marlins dumping Stanton tells me it's a terrible idea. 

If we traded Trout we'd probably not get any great prospects, have to eat some salary, be an even worse team, and be the team who traded Trout. 

We're better off allowing him to naturally decline and cement him as an Angel HOF and hopefully build around him. 

I'm reminded of Tim Salmon, who was part of the 2002 WS winners at age 33, and in decline. The point being, I don't think it matters whether the Angels win with Trout in his prime or not. It is important they win - and that Trout is around to be part of it. 

[Taylor]

6 minutes ago, Erstad Grit said:

Even if we wanted to trade Trout, how many teams would be able to take that salary?

Looking at the aftermath of the Marlins dumping Stanton tells me it's a terrible idea. 

If we traded Trout we'd probably not get any great prospects, have to eat some salary, be an even worse team, and be the team who traded Trout. 

We're better off allowing him to naturally decline and cement him as an Angel HOF and hopefully build around him. 

Yep, it's a no-win situation for the Angels.

[tdawg87]

Trout has a full no trade clause. I think he only gets traded if he specifically asks for it, which I don't honestly see him doing. 

If they WERE going to do something like this...they'd trade Ohtani. I don't want them to do that but he's the far more tradeable asset and the one most likely to net a reasonable return.

[Angelsjunky]

 

3 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Yep, it's a no-win situation for the Angels.

I think the "win situation" is doing what Erstad Grit said in his last sentence - keep Trout, and do what you need to do build a contender.

It isn't impossible. Every year, you assess what went right and what went wrong; you look at deficiencies, and you address those.

As we've talked about endlessly, the biggest problems for the Angels this year are (in no particular order):

1. Hitters slumping

2. Lack of lineup depth

3. The blowpen

I tend to think that the first is partially because of the last two. The players are disheartened. As some have pointed out, Trout looks checked out. We tend to undersell the psychological component, but it is huge. 

The second can be addressed in the offseason. You either sign a starting middle infielder and a couple good platoon/bench guys, or you go with Rengifo/Stefanic and stock up on a kick-ass bench. You also try to flesh out the upper minors a bit with clean peanut position players.

As for the third, I think this will be solved naturally with the wealth of AA pitching the Angels have. These guys are going to be knocking at the gates, and can be auditioned starting in the second half. 

Meanwhile, trade Syndergaard and anyone else for guys on the cusp. At this point, I think it would be more important to go after AA/AAA players with lower upside than low minors guys with higher upside. Again, a huge problem has been lack of depth - and a lot of this is the high minors. 

[Taylor]

To clarify, I meant trading Trout is a no-win situation for the Angels. Keeping him is the best option, even through his Pujols years.

[Angelsjunky]

3 minutes ago, Taylor said:

To clarify, I meant trading Trout is a no-win situation for the Angels. Keeping him is the best option, even though his Pujols years.

OK, yes. Agreed.

[Lou]

Fan: Trade Trout!

Trout: No 

Fan: Ok 

[Angels 1961]

Just another long-term contract that ends up bad. No fault of Trout but he will decline. If Ohtani leaves so will his protection. In off season I would sit down with Trout and have some serious discussions. About his future and of Angels. 

[Second Base]

Strictly from a physical standpoint, players decline not because of a lack of strength (men can carry sustained strength well into their 40's), but because of what it's referred to as "quick twitch athleticism" or "explosive strength". I mean just look at Albert, he's got a gut now but he's still a pretty strong dude, but he's obviously not destroying the ball as he did when he was 25. 

The up and in fastball for Trout has multiple factors. First, it's picking the ball up, reading it and analyzing whether to swing or not. That part of the brain doesn't typically show until much later, 50's and 60's. So Trout is fine there. The second part is reacting, the quick twitch, as it were. That tends to go downhill right around 30, which is where Trout is at. And the third part, is all out of Trout's control, how often he sees those pitches and the quality of those pitches. Pitchers are throwing harder than ever before. 

Ruth, Williams, Mantle, etc... They never had to worry about the quality of pitching being so high that they couldn't physically react. Trout does. Modern baseball is just played at a level far superior to the level they played. It's not too day they wouldn't still be good today, it's to say that the average player in 2022 is better than 1950. 

I do think Trout will decline faster than the all-time greats, not because Trout is worse, he's actually better than all of them in a singular comparison. The game is just better. If Mays struggled with the up and in fastball, it's not a big deal because at 35 he's facing 85-90 mph velocity, and physically he can handle that. But he wasn't facing 95-100 mph velocity, which he couldn't have handled. 

Trout is still great and will remain up be great for a little while longer. But probably around 34, he's going to need to do what Torii Hunter did, and alter his approach and change who he is as a player to succeed. 

 

 

[Angelsjunky]

24 minutes ago, Second Base said:

Strictly from a physical standpoint, players decline not because of a lack of strength (men can carry sustained strength well into their 40's), but because of what it's referred to as "quick twitch athleticism" or "explosive strength". I mean just look at Albert, he's got a gut now but he's still a pretty strong dude, but he's obviously not destroying the ball as he did when he was 25. 

The up and in fastball for Trout has multiple factors. First, it's picking the ball up, reading it and analyzing whether to swing or not. That part of the brain doesn't typically show until much later, 50's and 60's. So Trout is fine there. The second part is reacting, the quick twitch, as it were. That tends to go downhill right around 30, which is where Trout is at. And the third part, is all out of Trout's control, how often he sees those pitches and the quality of those pitches. Pitchers are throwing harder than ever before. 

Ruth, Williams, Mantle, etc... They never had to worry about the quality of pitching being so high that they couldn't physically react. Trout does. Modern baseball is just played at a level far superior to the level they played. It's not too day they wouldn't still be good today, it's to say that the average player in 2022 is better than 1950. 

I do think Trout will decline faster than the all-time greats, not because Trout is worse, he's actually better than all of them in a singular comparison. The game is just better. If Mays struggled with the up and in fastball, it's not a big deal because at 35 he's facing 85-90 mph velocity, and physically he can handle that. But he wasn't facing 95-100 mph velocity, which he couldn't have handled. 

Trout is still great and will remain up be great for a little while longer. But probably around 34, he's going to need to do what Torii Hunter did, and alter his approach and change who he is as a player to succeed. 

 

 

Good stuff. A couple things.

For one, I think there's a slight incongruence between saying all that you did, but then saying that he'll probably need to adjust around age 34. Maybe that time is now? And of course this is the adjustment that Albert never made. I remember a bunch of us complaining many times over the years that if Albert just focused on making contact, he could hit .290 with 25-30 HR rather than .250 with 35 HR. And more to the point: Trout's greatness is partially because he's always adjusting.

I also don't think we can say that Willie Mays was facing pitchers only throwing 85-90 mph. While velocities have certainly gone up, pitchers were always throwing 95+ -- or at least in Mays' time. Maybe a lower percentage; if that's what you're saying, I agree, but it still seems like an exaggeration. 

Anyhow, as I said, I think the key to his problems can be found in his reduced walk rate. While all that you say is likely true, and he could be losing quick-twitch, the fact that he's walking a lot less this year implies that something else is going on - that he's just swinging more, maybe not seeing the ball as well. Problems that can be addressed. And again, it also implies that he's not making the adjustments he's typically made, but instead trying to fight his way through...like Albert did, and ultimately failed to do and declined steeply.

I think it was Bill James who first talked about "old player skills" - that players, in general, take more walks, strike out more, and hit for more power as they age. This is partially why I question the idea that Trout's problem is natural aging. His walk rate shouldn't be going down. If anything, it should be going up as he stops swinging at pitches he knows he can't hit. Especially considering that, as you say, his ability to analyze a pitch shouldn't be decline...unless there's a problem with his vision or, more likely, he's just pressing more, possibly due to frustration at how the season's turned out.

So maybe -- hopefully -- it is simply a matter of Trout making a mental adjustment: accepting the season for what it is, and going back to his traditional approach of "adjust and crush." I mean, a very telling factor to all of this is that his first slump - the worst of his career - started during the losing streak. Up until that point he was having the best start of his career. Or to put it in numbers:

April 7 - May 24: 163 PA, .328/.436/.693, 214 wRC+, 14.7 BB%, 24.5 K%

May 25 - now: 163 PA, .214/.301/.510, 122 wRC+, 9.2 BB%, 35.0 K%

(Note the exact same PA in the two periods...a lucky coincidence)

 

Edited July 14, 2022 by Angelsjunky

[Erstad Grit]

1 hour ago, Angelsjunky said:

 

I'm reminded of Tim Salmon, who was part of the 2002 WS winners at age 33, and in decline. The point being, I don't think it matters whether the Angels win with Trout in his prime or not. It is important they win - and that Trout is around to be part of it. 

Yes, and like Tony Gwynn in the WS in 1998. BTW He was past his prime but still hit .500

[Angel Oracle]

Sooo, the discussion hits on a point to consider.

Will hitters generally decline at younger ages today due to the high pitch velocities?

In turn, will less long term contracts be handed out to hitters who have reached 30?

[79CAAman]

1 hour ago, Angelsjunky said:

 

I think the "win situation" is doing what Erstad Grit said in his last sentence - keep Trout, and do what you need to do build a contender.

It isn't impossible. Every year, you assess what went right and what went wrong; you look at deficiencies, and you address those.

As we've talked about endlessly, the biggest problems for the Angels this year are (in no particular order):

1. Hitters slumping

2. Lack of lineup depth

3. The blowpen

I tend to think that the first is partially because of the last two. The players are disheartened. As some have pointed out, Trout looks checked out. We tend to undersell the psychological component, but it is huge. 

The second can be addressed in the offseason. You either sign a starting middle infielder and a couple good platoon/bench guys, or you go with Rengifo/Stefanic and stock up on a kick-ass bench. You also try to flesh out the upper minors a bit with clean peanut position players.

As for the third, I think this will be solved naturally with the wealth of AA pitching the Angels have. These guys are going to be knocking at the gates, and can be auditioned starting in the second half. 

Meanwhile, trade Syndergaard and anyone else for guys on the cusp. At this point, I think it would be more important to go after AA/AAA players with lower upside than low minors guys with higher upside. Again, a huge problem has been lack of depth - and a lot of this is the high minors. 

He shouldn't be!  He has like over $37 million reasons not to be be.  If the face of the franchise looks "checked out".  This is huge.

[Second Base]

6 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Good stuff. A couple things.

For one, I think there's a slight incongruence between saying all that you did, but then saying that he'll probably need to adjust around age 34. Maybe that time is now? And of course this is the adjustment that Albert never made. I remember a bunch of us complaining many times over the years that if Albert just focused on making contact, he could hit .290 with 25-30 HR rather than .250 with 35 HR. And more to the point: Trout's greatness is partially because he's always adjusting.

I also don't think we can say that Willie Mays was facing pitchers only throwing 85-90 mph. While velocities have certainly gone up, pitchers were always throwing 95+ -- or at least in Mays' time. Maybe a lower percentage; if that's what you're saying, I agree, but it still seems like an exaggeration. 

Anyhow, as I said, I think the key to his problems can be found in his reduced walk rate. While all that you say is likely true, and he could be losing quick-twitch, the fact that he's walking a lot less this year implies that something else is going on - that he's just swinging more, maybe not seeing the ball as well. Problems that can be addressed. And again, it also implies that he's not making the adjustments he's typically made, but instead trying to fight his way through...like Albert did, and ultimately failed to do and declined steeply.

I think it was Bill James who first talked about "old player skills" - that players, in general, take more walks, strike out more, and hit for more power as they age. This is partially why I question the idea that Trout's problem is natural aging. His walk rate shouldn't be going down. If anything, it should be going up as he stops swinging at pitches he knows he can't hit. Especially considering that, as you say, his ability to analyze a pitch shouldn't be decline...unless there's a problem with his vision or, more likely, he's just pressing more, possibly due to frustration at how the season's turned out.

So maybe -- hopefully -- it is simply a matter of Trout making a mental adjustment: accepting the season for what it is, and going back to his traditional approach of "adjust and crush." I mean, a very telling factor to all of this is that his first slump - the worst of his career - started during the losing streak. Up until that point he was having the best start of his career. Or to put it in numbers:

April 7 - May 24: 163 PA, .328/.436/.693, 214 wRC+, 14.7 BB%, 24.5 K%

May 25 - now: 163 PA, .214/.301/.510, 122 wRC+, 9.2 BB%, 35.0 K%

(Note the exact same PA in the two periods...a lucky coincidence)

 

What you're referring to without knowing it are micro adjustments versus macro. Trout needs to make smaller adjustments right now, just like he would when he's slump busting. But changing his entire game, he doesn't need to do that right now, at age 30. 

And no, Willie Mays wasn't facing that kind of velocity. The documentary "fastball" that indicated Walter Johnson threw 104-107 mph side arm for 200 pitches a game was laughably inaccurate and has been proved as such. Most people don't realize this, but his first died tests in 1912 measured Walter Johnson to throw an 84 mph fastball multiple times, and this was thought to be the fastest pitch ever thrown. The modern inaccuracy as it were was not understanding the speed of film and microseconds missing between moving pictures of old film. Even going back to Koufax, who people thought threw the ball harder than anyone ever was likely sitting 93-95, not the 99 that was inaccurately measured. Given the variables you could subject anywhere from 4-11 mph off those readings. And that's the elite velocity of his day, the 1960's, which made up the majority of Mays' career (he played until 1973). So to say Mays faced pitchers that threw 95 is misleading. He may have faced one or two. The vast majority threw 85-90. Even looking back to the 1980's, the average fastball was around 88. In the 1990's it was 92. In the early 2000's it was 93. Today, the average is still around 94, but the difference is there are more outliers throwing 100 than there ever were because of the rise of the reliever. 

So to suggest Trout is facing velocity that's 5-10 mph harder than Mays at minimum, is accurate. It's probably choose to 10-12 mph harder. Now obviously Mays has to deal with unnatural ball movement from everything they lathered on the ball back then, but if we're strictly talking a high fastball, the difference is pretty stark. 

[stormngt]

2 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

 

I think the "win situation" is doing what Erstad Grit said in his last sentence - keep Trout, and do what you need to do build a contender.

It isn't impossible. Every year, you assess what went right and what went wrong; you look at deficiencies, and you address those.

As we've talked about endlessly, the biggest problems for the Angels this year are (in no particular order):

1. Hitters slumping

2. Lack of lineup depth

3. The blowpen

I tend to think that the first is partially because of the last two. The players are disheartened. As some have pointed out, Trout looks checked out. We tend to undersell the psychological component, but it is huge. 

The second can be addressed in the offseason. You either sign a starting middle infielder and a couple good platoon/bench guys, or you go with Rengifo/Stefanic and stock up on a kick-ass bench. You also try to flesh out the upper minors a bit with clean peanut position players.

As for the third, I think this will be solved naturally with the wealth of AA pitching the Angels have. These guys are going to be knocking at the gates, and can be auditioned starting in the second half. 

Meanwhile, trade Syndergaard and anyone else for guys on the cusp. At this point, I think it would be more important to go after AA/AAA players with lower upside than low minors guys with higher upside. Again, a huge problem has been lack of depth - and a lot of this is the high minors. 

We definitely underbelly the psychological component 

[T.G.]

8 minutes ago, stormngt said:

We definitely underbelly the psychological component 

It's dark under there.

[well_red]

This organization has no fucking idea how to build a sustainable winning team. If we are honest with ourselves, trading Trout isn't going to change that. Enjoy watching the generational talent every day and hope we stumble into a functional team one of these years before his late 30's.

[notherhalo]

Trout to Philly would be pretty cool

The guy deserves a chance to win and he wont get it here, and we shouldnt be so selfish to keep him down

 

[Dtwncbad]

35 minutes ago, well_red said:

This organization has no fucking idea how to build a sustainable winning team. If we are honest with ourselves, trading Trout isn't going to change that. Enjoy watching the generational talent every day and hope we stumble into a functional team one of these years before his late 30's.

Exactly.  If the problem is the front office/ownership is incompetent, then trading Trout will result in a bad deal that won’t help.  So there is no point in doing it.  You might as well lose with the great player to market.

If the front office/ownership has an amount of competence that makes it possible to win, then trading away a great player like Trout seems silly.  You need some great players so just keep him.

[ettin]

3 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Thought I'd post this here. I think Bill James makes an important point - that the decline of a Mike Trout is very different from the decline of a Kole Calhoun (he wrote "Kyle" but I think he meant Kole). Meaning, a peak seasons of 120 OPS+ declines to 100 to 90, etc. Whereas Trout peaked around 180-190, so his first plateau of decline might be more in the 150-160 range. Plus, even in decline, great players still seem to have one or two peak-level seasons mixed in.

So my sense is that the next five years of Trout is going to see more ups and downs, but still one or two vintage Trout performances. James' hypothetical OPS+ line of 170, 150, 185, 160, 135, 152, 144 sounds about right...obviously it won't be right, but something like that.

I'm also not convinced that Trout can't adjust. He's done it before, and more so, he's been dominant for good periods of time this year. He may still continue to struggle with the high fastball, but if he can lay off it more, his walks will go up, and he can focus on pitches he can hit. For whatever reason he's swinging at pitches he's generally avoided in the past.

So I do believe this, when it comes to Trout, but this was also a similar argument that was made prior to extending Albert Pujols (which I think was, in hindsight, a mistake for a 1B/DH type of player).

[AngelsFaninGA]

I doubt we get that good of a haul for him anyway, given his age and contract. There's zero upside to trading him

[Angelsjunky]

1 hour ago, True Grich said:

It's dark under there.

He agrees: