Salmon vs. Trout

[Blarg]

Well said Doc. I do remember Salmon not being the fastest right fielder but that hardly is a requirement for the position. His plus arm was making up for a lot of range and keeping guys honest on the base paths and not taking any extra bases that they were not damn sure they could make without a throw. A little intimidation goes a long way with an outfielder to make up for ground his feet won't provide.

 

This whole discussion came about by the OP not understanding the value Angels fans have put upon Tim Salmon. I think statistically Tim has earned that respect and regardless of how one wants to weight values of speed, throwing arm, power and plate discipline, there is no doubt in my mind that Salmon's 1995 season is pretty damn close to Trout's 2013 season.

 

Going forward I am pretty confident Trout will exceed what Tim was able to do but that is just something to look forward to and not something to look back and say, see what losers those guys were, when what you are pointing at is players any team would want on their roster.

Edited January 1, 2014 by Eric Notti

[Splint7438]

I was referring to players that spent most of their careers with the angels. Nolan Ryan is by far my favorite athlete/celebrity ever. Ryan played 3/4 of his career for other teams. And he never received the respect he deserved while he was here. One year he led the league in Ks, wins an era near 3.00 plus threw two no hitters and finished way behind Jim Palmer for the Cy Young.

Everything salmon did on the field happened as an angel.

[Splint7438]

All you need is the eye test to know trout is a better player than salmon was. But if trout plays out his contract and plays five years of a 20 year career in anaheim, would you think of him as the greatest Angel? Is way to soon to make this call yet.

[AngelsLakersFan]

"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. 

 

wRC+ Would call Tim Salmon one of the 200 best hitters of all time. That's not bad at all considering the number of players who come through MLB.

[AngelsLakersFan]

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.

 

If you put Salmon in the 70's or 80's he doesn't likely put up the same numbers. I believe a lot of the increase in homeruns came from pitchers being on steroids and throwing the ball harder. I'd argue any day that Salmon faced tougher pitching than players that came before him, yet record levels of runs were scored during his career, and that can speak towards effects beyond just steroids as well.

 

If you compare Salmon's 1995 to Trout's 2013 there are a few important factors to consider. '95 wasn't a full season, and Salmon had significantly less PA's that year than Trout did. Salmon's defense in RF was rated below average statistically for his career, where as last season Trout spent most of his time in CF. Those two things should account for the majority of the 2.6 WAR difference, the rest of which is explained by the difference in the run scoring environment, which is significantly different.

[AngelsLakersFan]

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.

 

The difference in value IS the defensive value difference between the two. Salmon never played CF because he could not handle the position. Do you believe that Salmon in CF would have contributed equal value defensively as Trout did? 

[Blarg]

You can say the inverse about Trout and his weak arm in right field. This is one of those circular arguments about value of one position over the other when every position has it's particular need for specialization.

[AngelsLakersFan]

 

 

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. 

 

 

That's because this is subjective.

[AngelsLakersFan]

You can say the inverse about Trout and his weak arm in right field. This is one of those circular arguments about value of one position over the other when every position has it's particular need for specialization.

 

I can't agree that there is no difference in defensive value between positions.Having a great defensive shortstop is far more important than having a great defensive left fielder. The same goes for centerfield. Making more tougher plays is important. I wouldn't be surprised if Trout would be a better defensive RF than Salmon even if baserunners were running on him all day long.

[GregAlso]

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.

Umm, they do agree. You obviously don't understand because your statement proves it. I hate it when people provide no original thought or logic to their argument. You failed to understand my statement at all. I suggest a reading comprehension class for you. I dare you to explain WAR in a rational essay.

Edited January 2, 2014 by GregAlso

[mtangelsfan]

message board dare!   LOL

[Docwaukee]

That's because this is subjective.

that was my point. 

[The Ghost of Bob Starr]

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

Boy, Salmon defines the Angels? Interesting. If I had to define the Angels, I would call them massive underachievers and incredible chokers that subjected their fans to many years of misery and depression.

As much as I think Salmon was A decent ball player who had a couple of outstanding years, I wouldn't say he defines the Angels.

Unrelated to Salmon at all, I think I'll make a new post for this, how do fans define the Angels?

[mtangelsfan]

Wow Soto, you are a glass empty kind of guy.

I kind of feel bad for you that you look at it that way.  I have totally enjoyed being an Angel fan.

[Brent Maguire]

Boy, Salmon defines the Angels? Interesting. If I had to define the Angels, I would call them massive underachievers and incredible chokers that subjected their fans to many years of misery and depression.

As much as I think Salmon was A decent ball player who had a couple of outstanding years, I wouldn't say he defines the Angels.

Unrelated to Salmon at all, I think I'll make a new post for this, how do fans define the Angels?

Salmon is the first guy I think of when I think about the Angels in their history. Is that really interesting?

 

He was a good player and spent his entire career here. 

[Guest]

Boy, Salmon defines the Angels? Interesting. If I had to define the Angels, I would call them massive underachievers and incredible chokers that subjected their fans to many years of misery and depression.

As much as I think Salmon was A decent ball player who had a couple of outstanding years, I wouldn't say he defines the Angels.

Unrelated to Salmon at all, I think I'll make a new post for this, how do fans define the Angels?

That's an unfortunate perspective.

[Inside Pitch]

Well said Doc. I do remember Salmon not being the fastest right fielder but that hardly is a requirement for the position. His plus arm was making up for a lot of range and keeping guys honest on the base paths and not taking any extra bases that they were not damn sure they could make without a throw. A little intimidation goes a long way with an outfielder to make up for ground his feet won't provide.

 

This whole discussion came about by the OP not understanding the value Angels fans have put upon Tim Salmon. I think statistically Tim has earned that respect and regardless of how one wants to weight values of speed, throwing arm, power and plate discipline, there is no doubt in my mind that Salmon's 1995 season is pretty damn close to Trout's 2013 season.

 

Going forward I am pretty confident Trout will exceed what Tim was able to do but that is just something to look forward to and not something to look back and say, see what losers those guys were, when what you are pointing at is players any team would want on their roster.

 

I wish I had all my old Stats Inc books that are in SoCal...   One of the editions had a list of RFers who limited base-runners and Salmon was way ahead of the pack over a 3 year period.  Salmon played one of the deepest RFs in the AL early in his career, not much got by or behind him, instead he preferred to keep the ball in front of him and used his arm to keep people from advancing..   Dude also perfected that little Salmon slide to catch a ball coming in.

 

I remember sitting in ST one year and some guys from the Cubs had their guns out and were making all sorts of interesting comments -- Salmon did his slide and one of them said something along the lines of, there's Salmon flashing his prevent defense.  To me -- that summed up Tim Salmon's entire defensive game.  The metrics didn't much care for it but limiting guys to singles wasn't a bad choice to make for a guy with bad wheels.

[AngelsLakersFan]

I wish I had all my old Stats Inc books that are in SoCal...   One of the editions had a list of RFers who limited base-runners and Salmon was way ahead of the pack over a 3 year period.  Salmon played one of the deepest RFs in the AL early in his career, not much got by or behind him, instead he preferred to keep the ball in front of him and used his arm to keep people from advancing..   Dude also perfected that little Salmon slide to catch a ball coming in.

 

I remember sitting in ST one year and some guys from the Cubs had their guns out and were making all sorts of interesting comments -- Salmon did his slide and one of them said something along the lines of, there's Salmon flashing his prevent defense.  To me -- that summed up Tim Salmon's entire defensive game.  The metrics didn't much care for it but limiting guys to singles wasn't a bad choice to make for a guy with bad wheels.

 

Interesting. The stats never liked Torii Hunter's defense that much either, and he played a deep CF. Looks like that might be a common denominator there.

[Ohtaniland]

I like both.