Salmon vs. Trout

[Mattyball1212]

Did Tim Salmon say he was the greatest Angel or something? He was a dedicated Angel player probably the best player never to play in a all star game. He was loyal and led the team to the only World Series championship they have ever won. Trout hasn't even sniffed the playoffs yet. So lets not compare a two year player to a retired halo. Have to respect Tim Salmon and I bet you Mike Trout would say the same. Is Tim Salmon a hall of famer... No.... Was he a good baseball player hell yes he was. Sucked he always started the years poorly because that caused him no all star games but I'm sure like me glad he was a better 2nd half player because if he wasn't the Angels still would have won a World Series.

[Brent Maguire]

"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."

 

He was still a really solid player though. I don't think anybody has claimed he's a HOF type player or anything. He didn't have a super long career. He only had 9 seasons over 500 PA and that was as a corner outfielder. I wonder what his career would have looked like had he stayed healthier.

 

A 130 wRC+ and .383 wOBA over more plate appearances would have looked a heck of a lot nicer. 

[Second Base]

The use of WAR for Hall of Fame purposes is moronic in the first place. Trout's accumulated 20 WAR so far. At this pace, he could play 6 seasons, accumulate 60 WAR, call it quits and be a HOF candidate, all at age 26. By that measure, he could be in the HOF at age 31.

Seriously?

[Brent Maguire]

Well voters value longevity quite a bit Scotty.

And I don't get how WAR is "moronic". It's an easier way to give you an idea of where guys rank in their overall careers.

[Angelsjunky]

The use of WAR for Hall of Fame purposes is moronic in the first place. Trout's accumulated 20 WAR so far. At this pace, he could play 6 seasons, accumulate 60 WAR, call it quits and be a HOF candidate, all at age 26. By that measure, he could be in the HOF at age 31.

Seriously?

 

First of all, you have to play 10 years to be in the Hall of Fame so your concern is a moot point.

 

Secondly, if Trout played six seasons at a 10 WAR clip, he'd be a worthy Hall of Famer. There's only been 51 10+ fWAR seasons among position players since 1871. If Trout got four more, that would be 54 - and Trout would be responsible for 6 of them, or 11%. Are you saying that a player responsible for 11% of the 54 best player seasons in major league history isn't Hall of Fame worthy, no matter how many years he's played?

 

If we look at the DH-era only, 1973 to the present, we only have ten seasons of 10+ fWAR, so Trout already owns 20% of them. If he got four more he'd have 6 of 14, or 43%.

 

So yeah, six seasons of 2012-13 level Trout = Hall of Fame worthy. I think you could argue that Trout play at this level for two or three more years and be an average 2-3 WAR player for the rest of his career and be a Hall of Famer. 4-5 years at 10 WAR = 40-50 WAR, + 10-12 years at 2-3 WAR = 20-35, for a total of 60-85.

[Blarg]

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. 

 

Although I agree you can't truly separate him from his peers in the scandal years but if you assume he was clean and take his numbers and drop them into the 70's or 80's, does he not seem like a much better player than WAR gives him credit for, trying to compete against his own in the tainted decades?

 

Trout is putting up some pretty gaudy numbers right now but the baseline is lower for plate production than it was years ago. He is an A student in any class but the bell curve has more Dustin Ackleys at Shortstop than Alex Roidriguez in Trout's class. WAR is going to favor him more than it would have a decade ago.

 

But let's look at something interesting. In 1995 Tim Salmon was 26 years old and his stat line was

 

.330/.429/.594/1.024 HR 34 RBI 105 WAR 6.6

 

Mike Trout last season

 

.323/.432/.557/.988 HR 27 RBI 97 WAR 9.2

 

Somewhere there is a huge difference between player value for the year they played in as opposed to the performance they presented on the field. Salmon was 7th in MVP voting, Trout was 2nd.

 

The top three MVP candiates in 1995 blow the 2013 candidates out of the water for offensive stats. Albert Bell should have won but he was an A-hole and ended up in 2nd place behind... Mo Vaughn.

 

So what real value does WAR have when comparing Tim Salmon, that swam upstream against the steroid Juiced era and Miike Trout that plays in the Orange Juice league? Seems a little unfair and it gives guys like Jeff a less than focused view as to players that were very good to great for their time period in relationship to others that are the top of the heap of their own.

 

I would put Tim Salmon on my team any day and not regret it. He would probably would have had more rings if the Autries has put a few more guys like him at the other positions and in the rotation.

[Blarg]

The use of WAR for Hall of Fame purposes is moronic in the first place. Trout's accumulated 20 WAR so far. At this pace, he could play 6 seasons, accumulate 60 WAR, call it quits and be a HOF candidate, all at age 26. By that measure, he could be in the HOF at age 31.

Seriously?

 

Trout is certainly better than his peers at this point. The question really is, are his peers worse than their predecessors and inflating his value?

[bloodbrother]

It's still a crime that Salmon was never an all-star, especially when you see people like Mark Redman or Bryan Lahair make it

[Tank]

It's still a crime that Salmon was never an all-star, especially when you see people like Mark Redman or Bryan Lahair make it

 

agree 100%. the most satisfying thing though is that salmon has a ring. that can sure make up for a lot of things.

[Tank]

WAR

OPS+

wRC+

wOBA

fWAR

counting stats

 

how do you decide which one of these categories to use? that's part of my issue in the modern era of player evaluation.

 

as for salmon, here's what i know: he could hit for power, he could take a walk, he had a cannon of an arm in right field and he fielded his position well. he also stayed out of the newspaper for controversy or cheating. 

 

use any measure you wish, but he was the best player the team produced, and fans recognized his talent and his value. he's not HOF worthy in cooperstown, but i have no doubt he'll be enshrined in anaheim. i'd put his number up on the wall in right without hesitation.

[bloodbrother]

agree 100%. the most satisfying thing though is that salmon has a ring. that can sure make up for a lot of things.

 

Indeed it does.

[Inside Pitch]

agree 100%. the most satisfying thing though is that salmon has a ring. that can sure make up for a lot of things.

 

One of my favorite Salmon moments was when someone asked him about not having made an ASG and he responded bu making a fist pointing at his ring and said something about that ring being the only validation he needed.

 

Guy was class through and through.

[Docwaukee]

Although I agree you can't truly separate him from his peers in the scandal years but if you assume he was clean and take his numbers and drop them into the 70's or 80's, does he not seem like a much better player than WAR gives him credit for, trying to compete against his own in the tainted decades?

 

Trout is putting up some pretty gaudy numbers right now but the baseline is lower for plate production than it was years ago. He is an A student in any class but the bell curve has more Dustin Ackleys at Shortstop than Alex Roidriguez in Trout's class. WAR is going to favor him more than it would have a decade ago.

 

But let's look at something interesting. In 1995 Tim Salmon was 26 years old and his stat line was

 

.330/.429/.594/1.024 HR 34 RBI 105 WAR 6.6

 

Mike Trout last season

 

.323/.432/.557/.988 HR 27 RBI 97 WAR 9.2

 

Somewhere there is a huge difference between player value for the year they played in as opposed to the performance they presented on the field. Salmon was 7th in MVP voting, Trout was 2nd.

 

The top three MVP candiates in 1995 blow the 2013 candidates out of the water for offensive stats. Albert Bell should have won but he was an A-hole and ended up in 2nd place behind... Mo Vaughn.

 

So what real value does WAR have when comparing Tim Salmon, that swam upstream against the steroid Juiced era and Miike Trout that plays in the Orange Juice league? Seems a little unfair and it gives guys like Jeff a less than focused view as to players that were very good to great for their time period in relationship to others that are the top of the heap of their own.

 

I would put Tim Salmon on my team any day and not regret it. He would probably would have had more rings if the Autries has put a few more guys like him at the other positions and in the rotation.

 

Trout get's a full win for being a CFer over Rfer.  He's also an above average defender (in 2013) vs. salmon being a below average defender in 1995 (statistically).  So probably another half to a full win right there.  Trout is also a tremendous baserunner and excellent base stealer.  Another win right there.  That's about 2.5-3.  And then you factor in the level of competition.  So it's a combo of both. 

[disarcina]

Salmon's number should be retired. He's an all time great Halo.

 

having said that and I think Salmon himself would agree with this -- Salmon's not in Trout's league.

 

Trout, if he does not get hurt, stands to become one of the game's/ era's best players........

 

Having said that -- I think Trout winds up in pinstripes.........he won't he a Halo for life.

[maximus p]

Salmon's number should be retired. He's an all time great Halo.

 

 

I don't know why it takes so long for the organization to retire worthy players' numbers.  Besides Salmon, I think GA should also be retired.

[Blarg]

Trout get's a full win for being a CFer over Rfer.  He's also an above average defender (in 2013) vs. salmon being a below average defender in 1995 (statistically).  So probably another half to a full win right there.  Trout is also a tremendous baserunner and excellent base stealer.  Another win right there.  That's about 2.5-3.  And then you factor in the level of competition.  So it's a combo of both. 

There is a sticking point with me about defensive value. Trout may get an extra point, unfairly just because he plays center field but he had a total of zero assists from his position. Put Trout in right field and his value drops like a rock because he can't make the throws. There is an inflated value being added to Trout just because of position without real regard to actual realized performance. 

 

In terms of DWAR Mike Trout was nearly dead last for Center fielders last season with a -0.8. He was also listed as 9th in Range Factor and let's say this one more time, zero assists.

 

Mike's WAR this year was generated by his bat and bat only,. He really had few highlight catches and was defensively neutral at best. When you compare this last season with Tim's 1995 season you have to say these two guys are pretty damn equal in performance and that the level of competition is the separation between the perceived value using WAR that uses a baseline that fluctuates from year to year depending on competition.

[GregAlso]

WAR also factors in baserunning and the extra bases he takes or steals, minus his CS. Trout adds a ton of value on the base path compared to Salmon.

I think people dislike WAR because they fail to understand it. Understand it yourself before you criticize it. oWAR is well understood based on linear weights. dWAR is not as well understood and fluctuates the most. The SABR community is still trying to settle on the best way to analyze defensive ability.

WAR doesn't compare players to their peers except for defense. Replacement level, which recently was standardized between BRef & FanGraphs, is the only comparison and it is only to a reference point not a specific year. You can criticize it all you want once you really understand it.

[Splint7438]

Apparently some of you guys never saw Tim play. Productive bat. Class on the field. Tim is probably the greatest Angel ever. The OP I believe asked how soon Trout is considered the greatest Angel. It takes more than two years. He is absolutely a better player than Tim. But if you are looking for just numbers we could have a lot more long time angels in this discussion. Jered. Finley. Percy. Ralston. But to me he is the. Greatest Angel because he was a class act with a solid bat and he brought us our ring.

[The Ghost of Bob Starr]

Apparently some of you guys never saw Tim play. Productive bat. Class on the field. Tim is probably the greatest Angel ever. The OP I believe asked how soon Trout is considered the greatest Angel. It takes more than two years. He is absolutely a better player than Tim. But if you are looking for just numbers we could have a lot more long time angels in this discussion. Jered. Finley. Percy. Ralston. But to me he is the. Greatest Angel because he was a class act with a solid bat and he brought us our ring.

 

Though I do not agree that he's the greatest Angel (I go with Ryan), I do give you thumbs up for including Ralston in your mention of All time greats.   But Split, I'm guessing you're someone who is 30 or younger.   You don't mention Ryan or Fregosi, or even Grich, Downing, or Baylor.   There were others who were good.   Tanana also gets little credit for being a decent pitcher as an Angel.   He was pretty young when they let him go.  26 or 27 maybe.

[Second Base]

I think that's the boat I'm in Greg. Pitching and offensive metrics make perfect sense to me and I love them. But defensive metrics are so inaccurate at this point I just can't trust them. I like the theory of WAR and think it provides a crude yet practical way of evaluating players, but when it comes to defense I've still found nothing better than the eye test.

I do enjoy FIP and RC27 though.

[Stradling]

Though I do not agree that he's the greatest Angel (I go with Ryan), I do give you thumbs up for including Ralston in your mention of All time greats. But Split, I'm guessing you're someone who is 30 or younger. You don't mention Ryan or Fregosi, or even Grich, Downing, or Baylor. There were others who were good. Tanana also gets little credit for being a decent pitcher as an Angel. He was pretty young when they let him go. 26 or 27 maybe.

Actually Soto, Splint is in his 50's. My guess is he prefers Salmon to those guys because he started with the Angels and was here his entire career. I also know that Nolan is his all time favorite player.

[disarcina]

For long time Halos fans, Tim Salmon is the second generation of Halos' fans' Jim Fregosi

 

When we talk of players like this -- we are not necessarily talking about the greatest player, the player with the best all time team record stats (although being up there on the list helps) but the player who is the heart and soul and face of the organization.

 

For many years the Angel player that came to mind when you mentioned the Halos was Jim Fregosi (even after the NOLAN RYAN trade!!!)

 

No one really replaced him as an Angel icon until Tim Salmon came along and then Salmon sealed the deal when he hoisted that World Championship trophy and directed it to the fans in the stands at Angel Stadium -- a true iconic moment for the franchise.

 

There's a lot of great Halo players -- Nolan Ryan perhaps the best ever, GA is on that list, Don Baylor's years here (not that long of a period of time, though) were clearly memorable, Jimmy Edmonds made some highlight reel catches for the ages and Chuck Finley was worthy Halo all time guy successor to Dean Chance (Nolan Ryan IMO is in a league of his own -- no one will ever match his numbers - IP and K's in a season, no hitters etc. even if one Halos GM thought Nolan was as good as "two 8-7 pitchers"), Rod Carew finished his career here but like Torri was always more associated with Minnesota than here; Garret Anderson is probably a guy on the list who at some point will get his Halos number retired. His consistency in numbers/ hits/ etc. in the 90's early 2000 period were the best in baseball during that span right up there with Jeter's hit totals and later Ichirio's.

 

But true iconic Angels -- I'd argue there are only three right now worthy of that title: Jim Fregosi, Tim Salmon and ,of course, NUMBER 26 -- the Cowboy, Gene Autry.

 

As for managers -- Mike Scioscia is the all time Halos manager passing up a truly great baseball guy -- the late Bill Rigney.......

[Guest]

Salmon defines the Angels. He was born an Angel, and he retired an Angel. My favorite player of all time.

[Blarg]

WAR also factors in baserunning and the extra bases he takes or steals, minus his CS. Trout adds a ton of value on the base path compared to Salmon.

I think people dislike WAR because they fail to understand it. Understand it yourself before you criticize it. oWAR is well understood based on linear weights. dWAR is not as well understood and fluctuates the most. The SABR community is still trying to settle on the best way to analyze defensive ability.

WAR doesn't compare players to their peers except for defense. Replacement level, which recently was standardized between BRef & FanGraphs, is the only comparison and it is only to a reference point not a specific year. You can criticize it all you want once you really understand it.

 

I really hate it when people fall back on the you don't understand it argument as if this is some mysterious alchemy that only grand wizards can comprehend. I fully understand WAR and how it is calculated and I also understand you just contradicted it's value by admitting the SABR community can't even agree on how the formula works and doesn't work.

[Docwaukee]

There is a sticking point with me about defensive value. Trout may get an extra point, unfairly just because he plays center field but he had a total of zero assists from his position. Put Trout in right field and his value drops like a rock because he can't make the throws. There is an inflated value being added to Trout just because of position without real regard to actual realized performance. 

 

In terms of DWAR Mike Trout was nearly dead last for Center fielders last season with a -0.8. He was also listed as 9th in Range Factor and let's say this one more time, zero assists.

 

Mike's WAR this year was generated by his bat and bat only,. He really had few highlight catches and was defensively neutral at best. When you compare this last season with Tim's 1995 season you have to say these two guys are pretty damn equal in performance and that the level of competition is the separation between the perceived value using WAR that uses a baseline that fluctuates from year to year depending on competition.

I pretty much agree. 

 

Although dWAR does factor in OF assists. 

 

One thing to remember about dWAR is that it's actually dWAA (wins above average).  They assume a replacement level player will provide about league average defense. 

 

I, like many others, am not overly inclined to give dWAR a ton of credence on a yearly basis, but looking at a players dWAR over the course of an entire career isn't a horrible way to judge a player imo. 

 

Salmon had a nice arm but fairly poor range making him a average to slightly below average defender overall.  My eyes told me this as well. 

 

Trout was tremendous in CF in 2012 from a range standpoint and in 2013, he was good but not as great as the previous year.  Yes, his arm hurts him from a metrics standpoint and in real life.  I am not overly inclined to use either 2012 or 2013 as a good measure of Trout's CF defense at this point because of such a large discrepancy.  For now, I think we can agree that his arm is pretty poor and that having him at a corner decreases his value because it emphasizes the need for a stronger arm and de-emphasizes his ability to make up for that with good range. 

 

I also feel like he was pretty bad in LF (by the eye test) early in the season.  OK in CF initially once he went back there, and he got better and better as the year went on.  By the end of last year, he seemed to be making plays in a similar fashion to 2012.   

 

One think you keep leaving out in the comparison of those two seasons is Trout's speed.  He's an excellent base stealer, and base runner.  Salmon was not.  Both had a high obp so this is a fairly important thing to consider and to me is worth 1-2 wins over the course of a season. 

 

I do agree that from a pure numbers standpoint that Salmon's hitting stats were actually a touch better than Trout. 

Trout's wOBA - .423

Salmon's wOBA - .441

 

and that Trout get's credit for having lesser competition around him

Trout's wRC+ - 176

Salmon's wRC+ - 163

 

so the numbers bear that out as well.

 

my point was not to justify Trout's excessively higher WAR but to explain it.  Where Trout got his that Salmon did not.  And therein lies the problem with comparing the WAR of one player's season to another players season.  It doesn't tell you who had the better year, but only how they performed relative to their peers for that year. 

 

using wOBA gives you a more accurate picture of how they both performed on an absolute level but that also only takes into account hitting. 

 

I know of no stat that would truly take into account all of the factors necessary to accurately compare whether a players season in one season was better or worse than a different players season in a different year. 

 

Hell, people can't even agree about players' seasons and their value within the same year.