Salmon vs. Trout

[The Ghost of Bob Starr]

As I was reading some of the AW goodness, I had a thought during my boredom.

 

Tim Salmon is revered here, like good wood.  While he was a longtime Angel during some really awful years, I've never quite understood the passion for him, unless most of his big supporters where growing up during that time.

 

Many people thinks his number should be retired, and he's the greatest Angel of all time.

 

How long until Trout eclipses that?   

 

Everyone is a WAR buff when it comes to Trout and his 20.8.   

 

Seeing that Salmon only managed to accrue a 40.6 in his career, about 10 spots behind sure-lock HOFs, Placido Polanco and Andy Van Slyke, how long until Trout is defined as the best Angel, at least in the argument of best outfielder?     Trout should bust Salmon's WAR in his FOURTH season, which might tell you just how mediocre Salmon was.

 

Just curious what the thoughts were from some of the big time Salmon supporters.

 

[full circle]

Lol at Salmon being mediocre.   Unfortunately injuries decreased his longevity otherwise his numbers would have been pretty impressive.  I don't think it shows how mediocre Salmon was, it shows how amazing Trout is.  Trout is already the greatest player to ever put on an Angel uniform.  

Edited December 31, 2013 by full circle

[AngelsAndRamsFan]

It's unfortunate that Salmon had some injury issues, had to retire somewhat early, and many seasons he got off to slow starts.

[Erstad Grit]

Mediocre? 

[Brent Maguire]

40 WAR is nothing to sneeze at.

60 WAR gets you into Hall of Fame talks so Salmon was just a good, sometimes great player. He's just not a Hall of Famer.

[The Ghost of Bob Starr]

40 WAR is nothing to sneeze at.

60 WAR gets you into Hall of Fame talks so Salmon was just a good, sometimes great player. He's just not a Hall of Famer.

 

Negative on the 60 plateau equals the HOF.  Some make it, but many do not.

 

A list of 60+ WARs that won't sniff the HOF

 

Rolen 70

Kevin Brown 68.3

Edgar Martinez 68.3

Lofton 68.1

Beltran 67.5 (active)

Dwight Evans 66.7

Buddy Bell 65.9

Randolph 65.6

Andruw Jones 62.7

Cone 62.5

Helton 61.3

Abreu 60.4 (actively waiting for the phone call that will never come)

Sheffield 60.4

Edmonds 60.3 (yes he was 20 higher than Salmon)

Keith Hernandez 60.1

 

 

There are many other guys on the list who played 60s or before (so only Eric and Bruce will remember them, since they were in their 40s in the 60s.)

 

 

My point is, for how much love Trout is given for WAR, and dude is the best... when you apply that to others that are put on a pedestal, like Salmon, you find him about 10 places below Placido Polanco.

[AngelsLakersFan]

Negative on the 60 plateau equals the HOF.  Some make it, but many do not.

 

A list of 60+ WARs that won't sniff the HOF

 

Rolen 70

Kevin Brown 68.3

Edgar Martinez 68.3

Lofton 68.1

Beltran 67.5 (active)

Dwight Evans 66.7

Buddy Bell 65.9

Randolph 65.6

Andruw Jones 62.7

Cone 62.5

Helton 61.3

Abreu 60.4 (actively waiting for the phone call that will never come)

Sheffield 60.4

Edmonds 60.3 (yes he was 20 higher than Salmon)

Keith Hernandez 60.1

 

 

There are many other guys on the list who played 60s or before (so only Eric and Bruce will remember them, since they were in their 40s in the 60s.)

 

 

My point is, for how much love Trout is given for WAR, and dude is the best... when you apply that to others that are put on a pedestal, like Salmon, you find him about 10 places below Placido Polanco.

 

People make Hall of Fame cases for those guys all of the time. 60 is the bar where the discussions start not the automatic in, and there is just as long of a list of players with less than 60 career WAR who are in the Hall Of Fame already.

[The Ghost of Bob Starr]

The majority are not in... with some who are very high and never are discussed HOF like Bobby Grich 71.0

[LightTheHalo]

For how long have you been an Angels fan, Jeff S.? I'm guessing not a very long time.

Prior to Tim Salmon, the closest the Angels franchise came to a homegrown superstar position player was Jim Fregosi or Wally Joyner. Salmon was the franchise's first Rookie of the Year and became the face of the Angels during the lead up to their first World Chamoionship. He hit two home runs, including the game winner, in their first World Series game victory and spent his entire career in an Angels uniform.

For a franchise that has never produced a Hall of Fame talent, Salmon and his teammates Garret Anderson and Darin Erstad represented the pinnacle.

All of this was, of course, before Mike Trout, who is so far beyond anything longtime Angels fans have ever seen from their team. To compare him to Salmon and wonder why Salmon is revered in such context shows basic ignorance about Angels history.

[Inside Pitch]

Salmon was a career 128 OPS+ player during the PED era -- that 128 puts him into the top 200 in MLB history..  Injuries hurt his counting stats and that manifests itself in his WAR totals and everything else.  I've always hated the counting stats standards because in some cases a guy can just hang around long enough to reach certain numbers and in other cases, it's been an excuse to keep guys out.  And off the top of my head -- Kirby Puckett was only a 50 WAR player and I'm pretty sure he's in the HOF.  So, at his current pace, Trout will pass him by in his 5th year.  Does that suddenly make Puckett mediocre?

 

Your list of players not in the HOF does a pretty good job of showing how crappy the HOF voting can be.  Counting stats will get Glavine into the HOF, probably as a first ballot guy while a better pitcher like Mike Mussina, may take a few years to get in.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Inside Pitch

[Angelsjunky]

It saddens me that Mike Trout has made some fans so jaded that a 40 WAR career becomes "mediocre." OK, it doesn't really sadden me, come on, dude.

 

By the way, according to Fangraphs Salmon had 35.1 career WAR, so he's even worse than you thought.

 

Anyhow, understand that Fangraphs follows these general guidelines:

0-1 Scrub

1-2 Role Player

2-3 Solid Starter

3-4 Good Player

4-5 All-Star

5-6 Superstar

6+ MVP

 

Now look at the same chart with number of years Salmon's accomplished the feat:

0-1 Scrub (3)

1-2 Role Player (2)

2-3 Solid Starter (3)

3-4 Good Player (2)

4-5 All-Star (3)

5-6 Superstar (1)

6+ MVP (0)

 

That's 14 seasons, but in three of them he played 76 or fewer games, and five 100 or fewer - so he really only has 9 full seasons and 5 partial seasons. But Salmon has had 4 All-Star or higher caliber seasons, and 6 Good or better, 9 in which he was solid (average) or better. In 1672 games he had 35.1 WAR, which is an average of 3.4 per 162 games.

 

He's nowhere close to being a Hall of Famer, and I wouldn't say he had a great career in the larger scheme of things - but he had a very good one.

[mtangelsfan]

Yeah, I don't get this thread at all.  

 

Salmon was a good player.  Perhaps the best player to stay an Angel for his entire career.

 

 

 

I don't think anyone has ever tried to argue or state that he is or was ever a better player than Trout.  Of course, only a very small percentage of MLB players are/were.

[Inside Pitch]

The majority are not in... with some who are very high and never are discussed HOF like Bobby Grich 71.0

 

Bobby Grich is one of the poster boys for HOF stupidity among the voters.   Bill James went into detail on it in his book, The Politics of Glory.

[ScottT]

 

Many people thinks his number should be retired, and he's the greatest Angel of all time.

 

Those people are astute observers of the game of baseball and have a good handle on Angels history.  

[Angelsjunky]

By the way, with a bit better health and longevity that 35 WAR becomes 50 WAR, which makes him a solidly "Hall of the Very Good" player.

 

Also, of your list of 60+ WAR players, many of those guys are better than some players who have been voted in. The Hall of Fame doesn't care about WAR. Yet.

[Angelsjunky]

Yeah, I don't get this thread at all.  

 

Salmon was a good player.  Perhaps the best player to stay an Angel for his entire career.

 

 

 

I honestly can't think of any competition. Jim Fregosi was a better overall player, and his 42.6 as an Angel is higher than Salmon's, but his career dwindled away elsewhere. Jim Edmonds was a better player than Salmon but had his best years as a Cardinal. Only Fregosi, Grich and Downing produced more WAR as a position player in an Angels uniform than Salmon, and Downing and Grich only by a hair. After those four there's a bit drop to Erstad.

 

Trout's already 9th among all position players, by the way. He'll probably pass Vlad, Chone, Garret Anderson and Darin Erstad by the end of 2014.

 

Here's the list of Angels players by WAR.

[AngelsLakersFan]

It saddens me that Mike Trout has made some fans so jaded that a 40 WAR career becomes "mediocre." OK, it doesn't really sadden me, come on, dude.

 

By the way, according to Fangraphs Salmon had 35.1 career WAR, so he's even worse than you thought.

 

Anyhow, understand that Fangraphs follows these general guidelines:

0-1 Scrub

1-2 Role Player

2-3 Solid Starter

3-4 Good Player

4-5 All-Star

5-6 Superstar

6+ MVP

 

Now look at the same chart with number of years Salmon's accomplished the feat:

0-1 Scrub (3)

1-2 Role Player (2)

2-3 Solid Starter (3)

3-4 Good Player (2)

4-5 All-Star (3)

5-6 Superstar (1)

6+ MVP (0)

 

That's 14 seasons, but in three of them he played 76 or fewer games, and five 100 or fewer - so he really only has 9 full seasons and 5 partial seasons. But Salmon has had 4 All-Star or higher caliber seasons, and 6 Good or better, 9 in which he was solid (average) or better. In 1672 games he had 35.1 WAR, which is an average of 3.4 per 162 games.

 

He's nowhere close to being a Hall of Famer, and I wouldn't say he had a great career in the larger scheme of things - but he had a very good one.

 

fWAR also subtracts 15 wins for his defense. I can't imagine him being that terrible defensively.

 

Scratch that, make that 5 wins (the other 10 were for playing RF & DH)

Edited December 31, 2013 by AngelsLakersFan

[The Ghost of Bob Starr]

Bobby Grich is one of the poster boys for HOF stupidity among the voters.   Bill James went into detail on it in his book, The Politics of Glory.

 

Thanks IP.  I'll check that out.

[Angelsjunky]

Here's a list of position players who stayed Angels for their entire career (so far):

 

35.1 Salmon

21.1 Trout

20.1 Kendrick

14.9 Aybar

 

Jeff, I think there's your answer for why Salmon is so beloved.

[JAHV76]

Salmon holds some the teams offensive records for home runs, rbi's and walks so the fans like to praise players for those records. He also declined an offer from the Diamondbacks in 2001 to resign with the Angels. That Dacks team won the World Series. I personally hope Trout plays for the Angels for 14 years like Salmon.

[The Ghost of Bob Starr]

Salmon holds some the teams offensive records for home runs, rbi's and walks so the fans like to praise players for those records. He also declined an offer from the Diamondbacks in 2001 to resign with the Angels. That Dacks team won the World Series. I personally hope Trout plays for the Angels for 14 years like Salmon.

 

Trout might be able to play 24 seasons.

[ten ocho recon scout]

Salmons got a lot more protein.

[ten ocho recon scout]

One thing I have to disagree with is that list. Theres a handful on there like edgar martinez who have a shot, and I still believe edmonds has one as well. Do I think he gets it? Probably not. But he was good enough to do so.

As far as salmon, unless I am mistaken regarding WAR, I'd assume it has somethinf to do with the competition around you. He played in an era where the batboy was doing stacks of dbol and deca. If salnon truly never did, he, like some other guys of that era, should be recognized as such. and by that I mean his numbers should be compared to those in the pre (known) juice years.

Then again, I fully believe steroids are still around (just not nearly on the same scale), and also believe they were around a lot earlier than what's generally believed.

[AngelsLakersFan]

One thing I have to disagree with is that list. Theres a handful on there like edgar martinez who have a shot, and I still believe edmonds has one as well. Do I think he gets it? Probably not. But he was good enough to do so.

As far as salmon, unless I am mistaken regarding WAR, I'd assume it has somethinf to do with the competition around you. He played in an era where the batboy was doing stacks of dbol and deca. If salnon truly never did, he, like some other guys of that era, should be recognized as such. and by that I mean his numbers should be compared to those in the pre (known) juice years.

Then again, I fully believe steroids are still around (just not nearly on the same scale), and also believe they were around a lot earlier than what's generally believed.

 

Confucius say, one cannot separate the coffee from the creamer once you stir with the little straw! Errr

 

The steroid era is what it is. We can never know which players were truly clean. We can never know how well those players would've played against non-juiced competition, and we cannot say their production was more valuable than those players who weren't clean. Ya Salmon's offensive numbers are really hurt by the volume of offense in the years he played but he is still a product of his era, like the rest of MLB in the 90's & 2000's. 

[Taylor]

Salmons got a lot more protein.

 

But he should have eaten more bananas while in the league.