Mike Trout: Historically One of the Worst in Baseball

[Blarg]

Hey, don't take it out on me, I didn't write this stuff.

 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2014/1/15/5302794/mike-trouts-one-weakness

 

Going back to 1958, only 18 players have produced a worse clutch score.

 

[Angelsjunky]

Someone is also historically one of the worst spellers.

 

Yours Truly,

The Spelling Police

[NrM]

such a fluke stat. 

[Docwaukee]

that is one terrible article.  You'd think a writer would want to understand a stat before writing an article about it. 

[Blarg]

that is one terrible article.  You'd think a writer would want to understand a stat before writing an article about it. 

 

I think he explained the flaws in the stat when he described the difference between a scrub like Escobar and Trout. But since the stat has been established in a certain formula you can't say he doesn't understand it when it reflects poorly on Mike Trout more than others.

[ScottT]

His "clutch score" was good in 2012.   The "clutch score" I saw was anyway.   Whatever a "clutch score" is.

 

Clutch is not a skill. 

[Brent Maguire]

Even if you believe in clutch stats, it's going to take more of a sample to determine whether Trout does well or not in big situations.

I'll bet he has a good year hitting in the big situations considering he's so unbelievably good at making adjustments.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

I wonder how long this guy had to dig to find something that Trout was "historically bad" at.

[Stradling]

Somewhere Troll Daddy is smiling.

[Blarg]

I wonder how long this guy had to dig to find something that Trout was "historically bad" at.

Probably about 5 minutes since it is posted ob both Fangraphs and baseball reference. The rest of the article probably took quite a bit more research time.

[Taylor]

Mike Trout also is historically bad at being historically bad. He honestly skus in that area.

[Docwaukee]

I think he explained the flaws in the stat when he described the difference between a scrub like Escobar and Trout. But since the stat has been established in a certain formula you can't say he doesn't understand it when it reflects poorly on Mike Trout more than others.

I didn't see that the first time thru.  My apologies to the author. 

 

My original thought had nothing to do with whether it reflected poorly on trout. 

 

This stat is like saying someone led the league in caught stealing. 

[Blarg]

Doc, you know my disdain for big lassoo stats like WAR but sometimes isolated stats reveal what gets burried in the big mix. As much as new metrics want to dispell the idea of a clutch player, you can't just toss in the trash leveraged situations as if they don't exist when some players excell in that catagorey while some other players it is their achilles heel.

[NrM]

Doc, you know my disdain for big lassoo stats like WAR but sometimes isolated stats reveal what gets burried in the big mix. As much as new metrics want to dispell the idea of a clutch player, you can't just toss in the trash leveraged situations as if they don't exist when some players excell in that catagorey while some other players it is their achilles heel.

So I'm curious what you think this means for trout. Should the angels possibly offer him less money because he wasn't very clutch last year? 

Edited January 16, 2014 by Poozy

[Docwaukee]

Doc, you know my disdain for big lassoo stats like WAR but sometimes isolated stats reveal what gets burried in the big mix. As much as new metrics want to dispell the idea of a clutch player, you can't just toss in the trash leveraged situations as if they don't exist when some players excell in that catagorey while some other players it is their achilles heel.

I just think they should have called it something different as it leaves the wrong impression of what it means.  It's relative to linear weights so it tells you what happened, not what's going to happen.  It's only relative to himself.  So last year, Mike Trout wasn't clutch relative to himself.  But it gives me no idea of how clutch he was relative to other players. 

[Docwaukee]

This was discussed last season.

yah.  we usually talk about something the one time and then move on. 

[Guest]

They must be really desperate for hits to their site. It must be nice to be able to create alarmist/hyperbolic article titles and write absolute rubbish to earn some ad money. I guess that's internet journalism in a nutshell, though.

Edited January 16, 2014 by failos

[YouthofToday]

That was not a "clutch" post...

[IowaAngels27]

I'm not sure how you can suggest a players ability to perform in big time situations when he's never made a playoff appearance. That's where it matters.

[Blarg]

So I'm curious what you think this means for trout. Should the angels possibly offer him less money because he wasn't very clutch last year? 

 

I think a 22 year old dropped into the middle of the order and left with the responsibility to carry the offense was a bit much for him. That this was his training wheels year and the 2014 season, if put in the same scenario, he will be mentally better equipped to handle the situation. It has no bearing on what his future value should be set at.

[Angelsjunky]

That article is like pointing out that eating cabbage makes Emily Ratajkowski a bit farty. I mean, who cares?

[Blarg]

AJ I would have expected more from you. The article is well written and it does point out one flaw in Trout's game last season. You are playing fanboy with your posts rather than admitting the author was on point, regardless if it takes Trout down a notch.

[Stradling]

There is only one single area of Trout's game I am concerned with, that is his ability to jump and land on top of something that is 5 feet off the ground. That is the only thing that really worries me as it relates to Mike Trout. If someone can show me video proof he can do that, then I will just assume he is the greatest player of all time. Until then, nope.

[Angelsjunky]

AJ I would have expected more from you. The article is well written and it does point out one flaw in Trout's game last season. You are playing fanboy with your posts rather than admitting the author was on point, regardless if it takes Trout down a notch.

 

Eric, I just wanted to write "Emily Ratajkowski" and "farty" in the same sentence, although I was being half serious in trying to make a point.

 

Trout had the offense on his shoulders and might have felt that during high leverage situations. Plus there's the simple issue of sample size. Check it out:

 

2013:

low leverage (372 PA):.350/.457/.637

medium leverage (263 PA): .296/.399/.519

high leverage (81 PA): .274/.420/.290

 

2012:

low (291 PA): .319/.412/.594

medium (300 PA): .333/.393/.547

high (48 PA): .317/.354/.488

 

Let's see how he does in 2014. I don't think there's anything to worry about at this point.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Angelsjunky

[NrM]

Eric, I just wanted to write "Emily Ratajkowski" and "farty" in the same sentence, although I was being half serious in trying to make a point.

 

Trout had the offense on his shoulders and might have felt that during high leverage situations. Plus there's the simple issue of sample size. Check it out:

 

2013:

low leverage (372 PA):.350/.357/.637

medium leverage (263 PA): .296/.399/.519

high leverage (81 PA): .274/.420/.290

 

2012:

low (291 PA): .319/.412/.594

medium (300 PA): .333/.393/.547

high (48 PA): .317/.354/.488

 

Let's see how he does in 2014. I don't think there's anything to worry about at this point.

 

Like another poster also said, his Medium and high leverage numbers were fine, but is hurt by the great overall numbers he put up.

If Jeff Mathis had the same overall numbers as trout, he'd be considered the most clutch player in the history of the game.

 

You'll rarely ever see a great hitter like trout also have great "clutch" numbers.

 

Before Albert Pujols joined the Angels, he had a negatives career "clutch". He only just recently went positive because he hasn't been as good a hitter on the angels.

 

 

This is a stupid ****ing stat... enough said..

Edited January 17, 2014 by Poozy