AngelsWin Today: Dissecting Mike Trout and why you should not worry

[fan_since79]

10 hours ago, Mark68 said:

Babe Ruth & Hank Aaron say hi. 

Interesting that the Babe never struck out as many as 100 times in a season, and never four times in a single game.

[Blarg]

100 years ago is exactly the same as today's game. 

[Stradling]

It’s cool to see full circle show up as a total asshole in this thread. 

[Angelsjunky]

4 hours ago, fan_since79 said:

Interesting that the Babe never struck out as many as 100 times in a season, and never four times in a single game.

See my post upthread. Strikeout rates were very different back then - the league average went as low as 6.9% in 1925. Only Arraez among qualifiers has a K% below that (a ridiculous 5.0%). Ruth's K% was 16.0% that year, which is more than double the league average and second after Gabby Hartnett (17.4%) among all hitters with at least 400 PA.

Or to put it another way, between 1871-1945 (through WW2) there were 310 hitters with at least 5,000 PA. Ruth's career K% of 12.5 is 6th highest. Jimmie Foxx, also one of the greatest hitters of all time (156 wRC+), was 2nd with 13.6%, and Hack Wilson (141 wRC+) was 4th.

Let's find a similar sample size. During the 21st century (2000-23) there have been 322 hitters with at least 4,000 PA. Trout is 54th with 22.3%.

Or to put it another way, this notion that "great hitters don't strike out a lot" or Trout's rate is abnormally high, relative to his era:

[bloodbrother]

5 hours ago, fan_since79 said:

Interesting that the Babe never struck out as many as 100 times in a season, and never four times in a single game.

You really gotta stop comparing players and MLB today to 100 years ago.

[WicketMaiden]

58 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

See my post upthread. Strikeout rates were very different back then - the league average went as low as 6.9% in 1925. Only Arraez among qualifiers has a K% below that (a ridiculous 5.0%). Ruth's K% was 16.0% that year, which is more than double the league average and second after Gabby Hartnett (17.4%) among all hitters with at least 400 PA.

Or to put it another way, between 1871-1945 (through WW2) there were 310 hitters with at least 5,000 PA. Ruth's career K% of 12.5 is 6th highest. Jimmie Foxx, also one of the greatest hitters of all time (156 wRC+), was 2nd with 13.6%, and Hack Wilson (141 wRC+) was 4th.

Let's find a similar sample size. During the 21st century (2000-23) there have been 322 hitters with at least 4,000 PA. Trout is 54th with 22.3%.

Or to put it another way, this notion that "great hitters don't strike out a lot" or Trout's rate is abnormally high, relative to his era:

Excellent research @Angelsjunky. Good point, well made.

[Inside Pitch]

22 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

My concern has grown the longer this has gone on. If it were only or mostly bad luck, we likely would have seen improvement by now. As I said, 200 PA is a long time to slump, especially if the primary factor is luck.

You are looking for improvement in counting/rate stats while ignoring across the board improvement in all the predictive data. The fact that the BABIP was bad in May and atrocious in June pretty much screams its luck driven unless one believes he's lost his power stroke.

IMO for this to be a serious decline and not an extended blip then one has to believe that he can no longer elevate balls and has lost the ability to hit for power.  So, if people believe that Trout is hitting the ball squarely and it's dying on the warning track -- by all means be concerned, I will be.  I just am not seeing that.  I'm seeing a guy that's missing and either under or over balls hit into the air and I fully believe some of that is it being in his head.

His issues with certain pitches/locations bears watching too, but that balls in play data stands out to me as the biggest factor during his slump.

 

[Jason]

42 minutes ago, bloodbrother said:

You really gotta stop comparing players and MLB today to 100 years ago.

Maybe he enjoys reliving his childhood

[Inside Pitch]

1 hour ago, bloodbrother said:

You really gotta stop comparing players and MLB today to 100 years ago.

To be fair, he's been a fan since 1869.

[Taylor]

17 hours ago, full circle said:

Lmao.  Enjoy your month, it’s just for you! 

I saw a truck earlier that had your avatar as a sticker on the back window and Angels license plate holder.

[Angelsjunky]

1 hour ago, Inside Pitch said:

You are looking for improvement in counting/rate stats while ignoring across the board improvement in all the predictive data. The fact that the BABIP was bad in May and atrocious in June pretty much screams its luck driven unless one believes he's lost his power stroke.

IMO for this to be a serious decline and not an extended blip then one has to believe that he can no longer elevate balls and has lost the ability to hit for power.  So, if people believe that Trout is hitting the ball squarely and it's dying on the warning track -- by all means be concerned, I will be.  I just am not seeing that.  I'm seeing a guy that's missing and either under or over balls hit into the air and I fully believe some of that is it being in his head.

His issues with certain pitches/locations bears watching too, but that balls in play data stands out to me as the biggest factor during his slump.

 

I'm not ignoring the predictive data, I'm just not sure it is sufficient to explain what has been going on - especially after 200 PA.

In the end the counting stats are what, err, counts. The predictive data is useful if it accurately forecasts what will occur. My concern is not through ignoring it, but the unusually long lag-time between the predictive data saying one thing, and actual changes manifesting on the field. I mean, this thread was started--and you wrote a very similar post--five weeks ago and he got worse. 

But he's been better over the last week or so, so hopefully he's working his way out of it.

[Angelsjunky]

1 hour ago, WicketMaiden said:

Excellent research @Angelsjunky. Good point, well made.

Thanks. I think the best comp for Ruth that we have today is Aaron Judge over the last two seasons: 207 and 189 wRC+, respectively. His career K% is 28.8, and this year is 29.6. But he's been the best hitter in baseball for the last year and a half.

[Blarg]

1 hour ago, Angelsjunky said:

In the end the counting stats are what, err, counts.

[WicketMaiden]

On 6/23/2023 at 8:16 PM, full circle said:

My scouting report on Trout has been dead on balls accurate.  When many thought he would come out of his slump, I said he wouldn’t. And it isn’t data that tells me that. 

Is it written in crayon?

[Stradling]

3 hours ago, Taylor said:

I saw a truck earlier that had your avatar as a sticker on the back window and Angels license plate holder.

Was the dude driving a gigantic asshole?  If so I can guess who it is.  

[Blarg]

Trout's Last 5 days .278/.409/.722/1.131    

[Stradling]

7 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Trout's Last 5 days .278/.409/.722/1.131    

But….

[Blarg]

That number just went up. 

[T-angel]

That first home run by Mike was very uplifting. Fastball in the upper third of the strike zone. Not much heat on that fastball but Mike put the best looking swing on a high fastball I've seen in months. 

[Docwaukee]

10 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

I'm not ignoring the predictive data, I'm just not sure it is sufficient to explain what has been going on - especially after 200 PA.

In the end the counting stats are what, err, counts. The predictive data is useful if it accurately forecasts what will occur. My concern is not through ignoring it, but the unusually long lag-time between the predictive data saying one thing, and actual changes manifesting on the field. I mean, this thread was started--and you wrote a very similar post--five weeks ago and he got worse. 

But he's been better over the last week or so, so hopefully he's working his way out of it.

This implies that you don't think the predictive data is predictive.  Why is it accurate for everyone else but Trout?  It's a lot different than seeing a pitcher who's an outlier in terms of ERA to FIP.  It's not saying that his BA should be .330 and his slg. .600.  It's more like .270 and .500.  Which is still a decline.  

His swing and miss rate on fastballs in the strike zone has gone up a fair amount and pitchers are throwing him more fastballs in the zone.  But the effect shouldn't be nearly as dramatic as it's been.  

So it's really a combo of things and I'm gonna put a little psych into it as well.  Personally, I think he's being stubborn.  He's never really had to change his approach before.  His previous slumps were when his swing timing was off.  It was always about getting that foot down on time for him as he stated a million times.  When his timing was on, he would hammer off speed and adjust to the fastball.   I personally think he's gonna have to make an actual adjustment for the first time in his career.  Prove to pitchers that he can hit the fastball which should stop them from feeding him a steady diet of them.  

Personally, I think he's been reluctant to do that as of yet.  Although we saw some of it tonight.  All hits on fastballs.  We'll see if it continues and what the collateral is if he's really adjusted or just found his groove again with his previous approach.  He fouled off two at 95+ tonight and those were the only ones that were 'swinging strikes'.  

So at the end of the day it's multi-factorial as many have mentioned.  Some decline, some bad luck, and probably some mental.  

[Angelsjunky]

6 hours ago, Docwaukee said:

This implies that you don't think the predictive data is predictive.  Why is it accurate for everyone else but Trout?  It's a lot different than seeing a pitcher who's an outlier in terms of ERA to FIP.  It's not saying that his BA should be .330 and his slg. .600.  It's more like .270 and .500.  Which is still a decline.  

His swing and miss rate on fastballs in the strike zone has gone up a fair amount and pitchers are throwing him more fastballs in the zone.  But the effect shouldn't be nearly as dramatic as it's been.  

So it's really a combo of things and I'm gonna put a little psych into it as well.  Personally, I think he's being stubborn.  He's never really had to change his approach before.  His previous slumps were when his swing timing was off.  It was always about getting that foot down on time for him as he stated a million times.  When his timing was on, he would hammer off speed and adjust to the fastball.   I personally think he's gonna have to make an actual adjustment for the first time in his career.  Prove to pitchers that he can hit the fastball which should stop them from feeding him a steady diet of them.  

Personally, I think he's been reluctant to do that as of yet.  Although we saw some of it tonight.  All hits on fastballs.  We'll see if it continues and what the collateral is if he's really adjusted or just found his groove again with his previous approach.  He fouled off two at 95+ tonight and those were the only ones that were 'swinging strikes'.  

So at the end of the day it's multi-factorial as many have mentioned.  Some decline, some bad luck, and probably some mental.  

This is basically along the lines of what I was saying, especially the multi-factorial part. And it isn't that I don't think the predictive data is predictive, it is that I was concerned with the time it was taking for it to translate to his actual performance. Meaning, because I do think it is generally predictive, his long slump was so baffling and concerning, and implied a psychological or non-quantifiable component.

All that said, fingers crossed as he's actually been very good the last week or so. We're seeing an increasing rate of productive games, including two of the last five games being the best he's had since April. That is encouraging.

Edited June 25, 2023 by Angelsjunky

[Blarg]

Trout the last 11 games is hitting .290/.451/.579/1.030    

Trout the last 5 games is hitting .353/.476/.941/1.417

I think the slump is over. 

 

[Angelsjunky]

15 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Trout the last 11 games is hitting .290/.451/.579/1.030    

Trout the last 5 games is hitting .353/.476/.941/1.417

I think the slump is over. 

 

STFU

[Angelsjunky]

16 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Trout the last 11 games is hitting .290/.451/.579/1.030    

Trout the last 5 games is hitting .353/.476/.941/1.417

I think the slump is over. 

 

But seriously, while I hope you're right, I'll feel better if he keeps hitting for another couple weeks. Those stats you quote are deceptive in that for the first 6 of the 11 games, he hit .238/.433/.286...the walks came back, but poor contact and power. So most of the damage has been the last five games. Or to be more pessimistic, he's had two great games amongst a few decent ones.

I do think he's finally waking up, but I just want to be cautious in my expectations.

[Stradling]

His next two strikeout game full circle will be back.