On Mike Trout: Can He Make One More Adjustment? (Part 1)

[Angelsjunky]

Introduction

In a recent post, I re-assessed Mike Trout's career trajectory via WAR and comparable players, pointing out that as things stand, his 85.1 fWAR ranks him 30th all-time, and he's likely going to end up somewhere in the latter half of the top 20, depending upon to what degree his career revives. Of especial note, his 71.4 through his age 27 season (2019) was the best in major league history; now, through his age 31 season (2023), his career fWAR of 85.1 ranks him 8th among his age cohort. So if you don't want to read that other post, the takeaway is that he's slipping down the all-time rankings, and while he was arguably the greatest player in baseball history through age 27, he's fallen to the back half of the top 10 because of his sub-par age 28-31 seasons. Or to put it more starkly:

Through Age 27: 71.4 fWAR (1st all-time)

Age 28-31: 13.8 fWAR (395th all-time)

Through Age 31: 85.1 fWAR (8th all-time)

I want to go a bit further with this and make an argument that Trout has a good chance of having a career bounce-back over the next few years. So this is a bit more positive than the last!

There are two facets of it: One, observations of Trout as a player and his penchant for adjusting over the last 13 seasons and two, which I'll focus on in a sequel post, an analysis of historical comps and how they fared in their 30s.

PART 1: Mike Trout - The Great Adjuster

It was often remarked of Trout earlier in his career that a major component of his greatness was his ability to adjust. Laypeople who follow baseball casually, and don't think much about deeper technical elements, tend to think that there is a direct, one-to-one relationship between a player's stats and their improvement. While there is obvious, logical truth to this, it discounts the dynamic nature of baseball: hitters and pitchers adjust to each other, and if a hitter maintains a certain level of performance over long periods of time, it likely means that he's actually improved in terms of refinement of skills due to the necessary adjustments that are made to maintain a statistical threshold. In other words, staying at the same level of time actually might mean continual improvement, even if only in small ways (aka, adjustments).

There is also normal fluctuation. A player hitting .302, .293, .287, and .312 over a four-year period isn't necessarily getting better or worse - it is just normal fluctuation; trends are key here. If the same player hits .312, .302, .293, and .287, it may imply some degree of decline (in terms of contact, at least). And of course some statistics, like batting average, are more subject to oscillation than others are (e.g. walk rate).

But in terms of the initial point, if a player averages a .300 BA over, say, a five-year span, it actually probably means he's improved his skills as a hitter.

When hitters first show up in the big leagues, they have to adjust to major league pitching. Imagine making the jump from AA to the majors. Whereas in AA, as a hitter you might face several guys within the entire league that have blazing, elite stuff, but most pitchers are still in the process of refining their skills, and some won't even ever have real major league careers; in the majors, you'll face dozens of pitchers with elite stuff, and the baseline level is, well, a major league pitcher. After a hitter becomes more comfortable and gets in a groove, pitchers get to know them and how to pitch to them, what is proverbially called "the book" on said player. Hitters adjust, and then pitchers try to find and exploit more weaknesses. So it is an ongoing back-and-forth of adjustments and counter adjustments. Now I would argue that it becomes less pronounced over time; that there's a big adjustment period early on--the hitter to major league pitching, then the pitchers to the maturing hitter, and any further back-and-forth diminishes in impact over time as after a few years in the big leagues, hitters stabilize at a certain "plateau" level.

Inevitably hitters age. Usually starting around the age of 30 or 31, and then increasing at age 33-34, the skills of hitters decline. It may show up in reduced bat speed, diminishing eyesight and hand-eye coordination, but more importantly, the aging body's inability to bounce back as quickly as it did in one's 20s. Anyone who is in their 30s or older knows this first-hand; from hangovers to hard physical work, to lack of sleep, etc, the older you get, the longer and harder recovery is. This can be somewhat counter-acted by more stringent health regimes, but eventually Father Time catches us all. This factor is probably far more important than skill decline, at least in the first half of a player's 30s. I can't remember where I saw it, but I read somewhere that hand-eye coordination doesn't really start declining until around 40. This is why you find the occasional hitter who is just as good in their late 30s as they were in their 20s: from Barry Bonds (ignoring other factors) to Hank Aaron to Ted Williams, and other players who had peak hitting seasons in the latter half of their 30s.

This is exemplified by Ted Williams who, in 1957 at the age of 38 had his career best wRC+ of 223 (!). But he was starting to slip in other ways - he played in 132 games, and it was between two relatively pedestrian (for him) 174 and 179 seasons, the latter of which was followed by an 111 season at age 40, by far his career worst. But Williams finished out his career with a 184 wRC+ in 1960 at age 41, which was very close to his career average of 187. Meaning, the skills were there to the end, but he fluctuated more, presumably due to age.

Mike Trout was always a great adjuster early on: pitchers would find a weakness and exploit it, and then for a month or so, Trout would struggle. But then he'd adjust, and he'd figure out how to hit what was being thrown at him. Like all great hitters, he receives fewer good pitches to hit than, say, a David Fletcher, which in turn illustrates how great hitters--when maintaining the same stats year to year--are actually improving. Trout in 2012 (167 wRC+) was receiving a lot more good pitches to hit then he was after, yet he actually continued to improve as a hitter, peaking in 2018 with a 188 wRC+.

What is also quite notable about Trout's career, even through 2022, was how he didn't vary that far from his career hitting line. Through 2023, his career wRC+ is 170; from 2012 to 2022--discounting the Covid-shortened shortened 2020 season and his mostly-lost-to-injury 2021 season--his seasonal wRC+ ranged from 167 to 188, a very tight band of 21 points. Even in 2020 he wasn't far out of that range, with a 160 wRC+.

That is an absurd degree of consistency. Among a sampling of great hitters, here are the ranges of their wRC+ in full seasons from age 20-30 (so again, discounting Trout's 2020-21 seasons):

Mike Trout: 167-188 

Hank Aaron: 103-178 (or after his rookie year, 144-178)

Willie Mays: 120-173

Ken Griffey Jr: 106-164 (after his rookie year, 132-164)

And so on. Or we can look at a few contemporary stars:

Mookie Betts: 107-185

Bryce Harper: 111-197

Aaron Judge: 141-209

This can be further illustrated in this chart, which depicts season WAR for Trout and his three contemporaries:

 

(Ccolumn width is relative to plate appearances)

What is notable about Trout from the above are two things: One, his consistency, and the fact that unlike most players, great or not, he doesn't have any huge outlier seasons, either good or bad - at least through 2022. Meaning, he doesn't have an equivalent season to Aaron Judge's 2022 (209 wRC+ vs 165 for his career), which is the 15th highest wRC+ in major league history; or Betts 185 in 2018, or Harper's 193 in 2015 -- or really any of their down seasons.

Now to be honest, this year he did seem on pace to have, by far, the worst season of his career, with a 3.0 WAR and 134 wRC+ in 82 games. He was turning things around with the bat, so if he had stayed healthy and played 130+ games, chances are he would have come close to 7 WAR and surpassed 150 wRC+. But even then they would have been career lows for him.

Two, Trout entered the league in a Venusian manner: a fully formed superstar performing at a Hall of Fame level, almost from day one (that is, after his cup-o-coffee in 2011). Betts and Harper took several years to find an elite level. Judge, however, like Trout had a great rookie year, but was already 25 years old - the same age as Trout in 2017.

The big question is: Can Trout make the biggest adjustment of his career, that is to an aging and injury-prone body? An optimistic view would hold that just as the Dude abides, so too does Trout adjust. I worry less about this year's 134 wRC+--especially when you consider that he's just a year removed from 176, and also that his performance this year was greatly marred by a terrible slump which was bookended by periods of relatively vintage Trout--than I am his inability to stay healthy. In other words, if he stays healthy, I fully expect something at least close to vintage Trout. I believe that the days are gone when Trout regularly puts up 8-10 WAR seasons, but certainly he has to be better than what we've seen the last three, injury-ridden seasons, when he average 4.1 WAR and 79 games per year. Right?

It is also worth noting that some of Trout's myriad injuries going back to 2017 were rather flukey: book-ended by two flukey hand injuries, one in 2017 due to a bad slide and the other his hamate bone earlier this season. While we can try to feel optimistic about the flukey nature of these injuries and consider a similar injury in 2024 to be unlikely, it does seem to be that Trout--perhaps due to the big-muscled bulkiness of his body--is, like other similarly built players of the past, truly "injury prone." Meaning, even if we consider that such flukey injuries are exceptions and not the rule, we cannot discount the possibility that they're far more likely for a guy like Trout than they are for "differently-bodied" (smaller and lighter) players like Mookie Betts.

But we can hope, and even with the injury-prone label, there's no reason to think that Mike Trout doesn't at least have several more almost-full seasons (e.g. 120-140 games) left in him. If I were to hazard I guess, we could see game totals over the next seven years like so: 130, 135, 107, 128, 111, 104, 58. Or something like that. Am I being optimistic? Pessimistic? Only time will tell.

 

To be continued...

 

Edited October 5, 2023 by Angelsjunky

[johndw52]

Hey, I keep losing my spot! Cliffnotes?

[PattyD22]

Is there an audio version of this post, AJ?

I truly appreciate the time and effort of this post buddy.

[The Ghost of Bob Starr]

He can retire and save the team a lot of money.  It sucks to watch him broken down.  Can’t swipe bags. Can’t hit the fastball. 
 

Dude was awesome. He’s not awesome now. 
 

and absolutely not to any kind of manager or coach role.  He hasn’t shown anything ever to take on those responsibilities. 

[Taylor]

19 hours ago, PattyD22 said:

Is there an audio version of this post, AJ?

I truly appreciate the time and effort of this post buddy.

AJ should be a guest on the next podcast episode.

[Chuck]

On 10/3/2023 at 1:23 PM, Taylor said:

AJ should be a guest on the next podcast episode.

The hosts may not get a word in. lol 

[eligrba4ever]

More periods. Fewer commas. Fewer words. 

Information overload loses readers.

Interesting thoughts, though.

[Angels 1961]

I hope he does well in Philly. If halos going to a youth movement halos be few years away from playoffs. They could use money to fill in gaps. 

[Angelsjunky]

1 minute ago, eligrba4ever said:

More periods. Fewer commas. Fewer words. 

Information overload loses readers.

Maybe don't read it?

[Torridd]

On 10/1/2023 at 11:44 AM, Angelsjunky said:

Introduction

In a recent post, I re-assessed Mike Trout's career trajectory via WAR and comparable players, pointing out that as things stand, his 85.1 fWAR ranks him 30th all-time, and he's likely going to end up somewhere in the latter half of the top 20, depending upon to what degree his career revives. Of especial note, his 71.4 through his age 27 season (2019) was the best in major league history; now, through his age 31 season (2023), his career fWAR of 85.1 ranks him 8th among his age cohort. So if you don't want to read that other post, the takeaway is that he's slipping down the all-time rankings, and while he was arguably the greatest player in baseball history through age 27, he's fallen to the back half of the top 10 because of his sub-par age 28-31 seasons. Or to put it more starkly:

Through Age 27: 71.4 fWAR (1st all-time)

Age 28-31: 13.8 fWAR (395th all-time)

Through Age 31: 85.1 fWAR (8th all-time)

I want to go a bit further with this and make an argument that Trout has a good chance of having a career bounce-back over the next few years. So this is a bit more positive than the last!

There are two facets of it: One, observations of Trout as a player and his penchant for adjusting over the last 13 seasons and two, which I'll focus on in a sequel post, an analysis of historical comps and how they fared in their 30s.

PART 1: Mike Trout - The Great Adjuster

It was often remarked of Trout earlier in his career that a major component of his greatness was his ability to adjust. Laypeople who follow baseball casually, and don't think much about deeper technical elements, tend to think that there is a direct, one-to-one relationship between a player's stats and their improvement. While there is obvious, logical truth to this, it discounts the dynamic nature of baseball: hitters and pitchers adjust to each other, and if a hitter maintains a certain level of performance over long periods of time, it likely means that he's actually improved in terms of refinement of skills due to the necessary adjustments that are made to maintain a statistical threshold. In other words, staying at the same level of time actually might mean continual improvement, even if only in small ways (aka, adjustments).

There is also normal fluctuation. A player hitting .302, .293, .287, and .312 over a four-year period isn't necessarily getting better or worse - it is just normal fluctuation; trends are key here. If the same player hits .312, .302, .293, and .287, it may imply some degree of decline (in terms of contact, at least). And of course some statistics, like batting average, are more subject to oscillation than others are (e.g. walk rate).

But in terms of the initial point, if a player averages a .300 BA over, say, a five-year span, it actually probably means he's improved his skills as a hitter.

When hitters first show up in the big leagues, they have to adjust to major league pitching. Imagine making the jump from AA to the majors. Whereas in AA, as a hitter you might face several guys within the entire league that have blazing, elite stuff, but most pitchers are still in the process of refining their skills, and some won't even ever have real major league careers; in the majors, you'll face dozens of pitchers with elite stuff, and the baseline level is, well, a major league pitcher. After a hitter becomes more comfortable and gets in a groove, pitchers get to know them and how to pitch to them, what is proverbially called "the book" on said player. Hitters adjust, and then pitchers try to find and exploit more weaknesses. So it is an ongoing back-and-forth of adjustments and counter adjustments. Now I would argue that it becomes less pronounced over time; that there's a big adjustment period early on--the hitter to major league pitching, then the pitchers to the maturing hitter, and any further back-and-forth diminishes in impact over time as after a few years in the big leagues, hitters stabilize at a certain "plateau" level.

Inevitably hitters age. Usually starting around the age of 30 or 31, and then increasing at age 33-34, the skills of hitters decline. It may show up in reduced bat speed, diminishing eyesight and hand-eye coordination, but more importantly, the aging body's inability to bounce back as quickly as it did in one's 20s. Anyone who is in their 30s or older knows this first-hand; from hangovers to hard physical work, to lack of sleep, etc, the older you get, the longer and harder recovery is. This can be somewhat counter-acted by more stringent health regimes, but eventually Father Time catches us all. This factor is probably far more important than skill decline, at least in the first half of a player's 30s. I can't remember where I saw it, but I read somewhere that hand-eye coordination doesn't really start declining until around 40. This is why you find the occasional hitter who is just as good in their late 30s as they were in their 20s: from Barry Bonds (ignoring other factors) to Hank Aaron to Ted Williams, and other players who had peak hitting seasons in the latter half of their 30s.

This is exemplified by Ted Williams who, in 1957 at the age of 38 had his career best wRC+ of 223 (!). But he was starting to slip in other ways - he played in 132 games, and it was between two relatively pedestrian (for him) 174 and 179 seasons, the latter of which was followed by an 111 season at age 40, by far his career worst. But Williams finished out his career with a 184 wRC+ in 1960 at age 41, which was very close to his career average of 187. Meaning, the skills were there to the end, but he fluctuated more, presumably due to age.

Mike Trout was always a great adjuster early on: pitchers would find a weakness and exploit it, and then for a month or so, Trout would struggle. But then he'd adjust, and he'd figure out how to hit what was being thrown at him. Like all great hitters, he receives fewer good pitches to hit than, say, a David Fletcher, which in turn illustrates how great hitters--when maintaining the same stats year to year--are actually improving. Trout in 2012 (167 wRC+) was receiving a lot more good pitches to hit then he was after, yet he actually continued to improve as a hitter, peaking in 2018 with a 188 wRC+.

What is also quite notable about Trout's career, even through 2022, was how he didn't vary that far from his career hitting line. Through 2023, his career wRC+ is 170; from 2012 to 2022--discounting the Covid-shortened shortened 2020 season and his mostly-lost-to-injury 2021 season--his seasonal wRC+ ranged from 167 to 188, a very tight band of 21 points. Even in 2020 he wasn't far out of that range, with a 160 wRC+.

That is an absurd degree of consistency. Among a sampling of great hitters, here are the ranges of their wRC+ in full seasons from age 20-30 (so again, discounting Trout's 2020-21 seasons):

Mike Trout: 167-188 

Hank Aaron: 103-178 (or after his rookie year, 144-178)

Willie Mays: 120-173

Ken Griffey Jr: 106-164 (after his rookie year, 132-164)

And so on. Or we can look at a few contemporary stars:

Mookie Betts: 107-185

Bryce Harper: 111-197

Aaron Judge: 141-209

This can be further illustrated in this chart, which depicts season WAR for Trout and his three contemporaries:

 

(Ccolumn width is relative to plate appearances)

What is notable about Trout from the above are two things: One, his consistency, and the fact that unlike most players, great or not, he doesn't have any huge outlier seasons, either good or bad - at least through 2022. Meaning, he doesn't have an equivalent season to Aaron Judge's 2022 (209 wRC+ vs 165 for his career), which is the 15th highest wRC+ in major league history; or Betts 185 in 2018, or Harper's 193 in 2015 -- or really any of their down seasons.

Now to be honest, this year he did seem on pace to have, by far, the worst season of his career, with a 3.0 WAR and 134 wRC+ in 82 games. He was turning things around with the bat, so if he had stayed healthy and played 130+ games, chances are he would have come close to 7 WAR and surpassed 150 wRC+. But even then they would have been career lows for him.

Two, Trout entered the league in a Venusian manner: a fully formed superstar performing at a Hall of Fame level, almost from day one (that is, after his cup-o-coffee in 2011). Betts and Harper took several years to find an elite level. Judge, however, like Trout had a great rookie year, but was already 25 years old - the same age as Trout in 2017.

The big question is: Can Trout make the biggest adjustment of his career, that is to an aging and injury-prone body? An optimistic view would hold that just as the Dude abides, so too does Trout adjust. I worry less about this year's 134 wRC+--especially when you consider that he's just a year removed from 176, and also that his performance this year was greatly marred by a terrible slump which was bookended by periods of relatively vintage Trout--than I am his inability to stay healthy. In other words, if he stays healthy, I fully expect something at least close to vintage Trout. I believe that the days are gone when Trout regularly puts up 8-10 WAR seasons, but certainly he has to be better than what we've seen the last three, injury-ridden seasons, when he average 4.1 WAR and 79 games per year. Right?

It is also worth noting that some of Trout's myriad injuries going back to 2017 were rather flukey: book-ended by two flukey hand injuries, one in 2017 due to a bad slide and the other his hamate bone earlier this season. While we can try to feel optimistic about the flukey nature of these injuries and consider a similar injury in 2024 to be unlikely, it does seem to be that Trout--perhaps due to the big-muscled bulkiness of his body--is, like other similarly built players of the past, truly "injury prone." Meaning, even if we consider that such flukey injuries are exceptions and not the rule, we cannot discount the possibility that they're far more likely for a guy like Trout than they are for "differently-bodied" (smaller and lighter) players like Mookie Betts.

But we can hope, and even with the injury-prone label, there's no reason to think that Mike Trout doesn't at least have several more almost-full seasons (e.g. 120-140 games) left in him. If I were to hazard I guess, we could see game totals over the next seven years like so: 130, 135, 107, 128, 111, 104, 58. Or something like that. Am I being optimistic? Pessimistic? Only time will tell.

 

To be continued...

 

Trout is a Hall-of-Famer. If he can't make an adjustment at this age, I'd be incredibly surprised.