Pancake Bear

I wouldn’t expect a trade of Cozart. Highly doubtful that Eppler has given up on him. I could be wrong. 

2 hours ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

MLB Insider Says Slow Start Could Propel Angels to Offer Mike Trout to Braves

Angels: “Please, O Braves: Take Mike Trout off our hands. We’re not worthy of his awesomeness. Please take him.”

Greinke and Goldschmidt for Pujols - Sold.

22 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

This will be fun. What I said was "Winning and being the best player on the team that wins is important to ones legacy."

Yaz, Griffey, Bonds, and Gwynn were great players. But they didn't win titles. So they are great players who didn't win titles. 

Nope never heard of Luis Sojo. Also I am glad he won 5 titles. No where did I say winning a title makes you great. I again said "winning and being the best player on the team that wins is important to ones legacy." It is ok I will let that pass being as this is our first discussion.

While yes Peyton won Super Bowl 50 being terrible you know what he also did was win when he was great. If Peyton only won when he was terrible he would looked on differently. Also Peyton better than Brady? Hmm you do know they were in the AFC and at the peak at the same time. He also beat Brady 3 times out of the 5 in the playoffs. You know what Peyton doesn't have though? 3 more titles. Brees is great but guess what Brees also has a ring. Has been at the peak the same amount as Brady and Brady has more. Brees also didn't make the playoffs a handful of times while Brady was consistently there. Brady went to the Super Bowl 8 times. How many has Brees been to? Peyton? How about combined? 3 times combined. But hey Brees is still playing he could get there again. 

Rings are not the end all be all of who's an all time great. But if you are an all time great rings matter, it's why we play the game. To win. Jim Kelly went 0-4 in Super Bowls and that kills me as a Bills fan, Marino got to 1 and lost. Both are extremely talented and great QB's of their time, just aren't as good as some of the ones who got one. I would take Troy Aikman over Jim Kelly. Aikman got there faced the Bills and smoked them twice. I love Jim Kelly but he couldn't get the ring. 

Winning a ring doesn't mean you're great. But if you are great and you win a ring, especially as the best player on the team, it is the cherry on top of a delicious sundae. 

Isn’t that exactly what I said to begin with? One wonders what exactly you were disagreeing with. My whole point: Being on a winning team doesn’t tell us how good of a player you are. You just said the same thing. You also said basically it’s a legacy thing: Which, again, is exactly what I said in the first post that you disagreed with. 

I’m left to assume that your replies then were simply acknowledging that I was right. 

I agree. 

36 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

Sorry winning titles actually means something. The entire reason we play sports is to win. Jordan won 6, LeBron won 4, Gretzky has 4, Brady on a much larger roster has 5, Big Ben has 2 same as Peyton, even Rodgers has 1 as does Brees. Winning and being the best player on the team that wins is important to ones legacy.

Barry Bonds - 0 rings

Ted Williams - 0

Ty Cobb - 0

Carl Yastrzemski, Griffey, Gwynn - ditto. 

Ever heard of Luis Sojo? Former California Angel; career WAR: 4.2 in 848 PA over 16 seasons; he has 5 rings. 

Winning a championship sounds good on your resume, but in most sports it means next to nothing about how good you actually are. 

Peyton Manning won Super Bowl 50, becoming the worst QB (by his performance in that season) to win a SB. 

It sounds good to people who don’t know how to rate talent, but it means jack regarding what level they are as a player.

Whenever someone uses rings in an argument, it says “I have no idea how to actually measure a player’s skill and I’ve fallen for the stupid historical narrative that the best players win”. 

Best QB’s all time? There’s too many variable based on quality of team, etc. but just based on individual numbers - it’s probably Peyton or Brees. Brady is probably top 5, maybe even 3rd, but he isn’t a better QB than either of those guys. 

Back to baseball: No one effects the game even to the extent a QB does in football. Trout has more than anyone since Bonds. Remember how many rings Bonds has? Scroll up - or I’ll just tell you: It’s zero. 

Rings tell us absolutely *nothing* about how good a player is. 

1 hour ago, Hubs said:

Ya I like Kole at 1st too, but it's worth noting that last year, they had Hermosillo, Young, or Young on the roster the majority of the time. None of them play 1st.

Ausmus may like a different mix than we're used to seeing, but barring any major trades or free agency moves, they're likely to roll with the 9 starters, a backup OF and 2 backup INF. They may even go 3 Catchers, 2 OF or 3 infielders if they go with a 7 man pen.

Last season, with Ohtani only hitting, and a healthy Pujols, they usually had one backup OF, two backup INF, and one backup C.

Adding a guy like Bourjos works if they want a pure OF backup. Which leaves the other two spots for a backup MINF, and a backup CINF.

They also still had Valbuena at the time - he was the part time 1B. I'm not saying whoever is the 4th OF *has* to be able to play 1B, only that Fletcher has indicated that to be a possibility.

1 hour ago, Inside Pitch said:

Their current uni probably does a better job of standing up over the years than anything they have previously worn.   It's a simple clean look that stands in direct contrast with their "crosstown" rivals.   

My personal favorite is the uni Hunter is wearing below -- I've got a red cap with the lower case "a" that is pretty snappy...   As iconic as the Kendrys uni is, I always thought the Hunter uni stood out more and is more unique...   

I like the current uniforms a lot and see no reason to change. But if we went back to the ones Kendrys is rocking in this photo? I'd be down for that. 100%.

8 minutes ago, totdprods said:

Great depth to have at SLC. 

Man, I forgot how great his 2011 year was. .271/.327/.438/.765, 116 OPS+, 26 doubles, 11 triples, 12 homers, 22 stolen bases. 5 WAR.

Dude had one really solid year and then basically fell off the map. He was okay in 2013, but only played 55 games (injury? I don't remember).

Wonder if that means he's auditioning for backup OF? Probably won't make the big league club since I would imagine they'll want someone who plays 1B with that role (although Kole could play 1B, I guess), but might get a call up with injuries. 

34 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I could've sworn he passed him over in 2012 as well.

You're probably either thinking of Whicker (who voted Cabrera in 2012) or Fletcher's 2013 vote. LA chapter was Whicker and Haakenson in 2012.

https://bbwaa.com/12-al-mvp-ballots/

4 minutes ago, True Grich said:

Sean... I've been dying to ask.

How's Danny and Jamie?

That's Regan, Grich, not Reagan. 

3 minutes ago, True Grich said:

Morosi obviously hates America.  He probably doens't like apple pie either.

Who doesn't like apple pie? That's even worse than hating Trout, imo. Geez...

1 hour ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Has Fletcher ever actually voted for Trout to win an MVP?

He's had 4 chances to do so - 2013, 2014, 2016, and 2018 - and did so twice ('14/16).

2013 and 2018 were close value-wise. I think Trout deserved the vote in both, but they are legitimate disagreements. Interestingly, he also voted Brantley 2nd over Martinez (who finished 2nd) in 2014 and Donaldson over Betts in 2016. 

You want to know who has a hate-on for Trout? Morosi. Dude has voted against him all 3 times he had a vote (2013, 2016, 2018). While you can argue (as above) that 2013/2018 were coin flip votes, he voted Trout 5th this season and absurdly voted Betts over him in 2016. Best I can say? He's a Detroit guy and is still bitter that people think Trout was better than Cabrera. That or he's just a dunderhead. (Or both).

Using rings in a discussion of player ratings is one of the most most logically vacant arguments possible - and yet it seems like everybody uses it. 

For instance, this is a controversial opinion these days: Tom Brady is not the GOAT - his individual numbers simply aren't there - yet to most football fans, this is apparently a heretical position. The Patriots winning five championships with Brady does not make him the GOAT. Trout's teams never making the playoffs but once in his seven years doesn't mean he isn't the GOAT. 

Now, if we're talking memorable? I will stipulate that most people only care about the playoffs and championships. It's hard to get that kind of recognition and perception without winning championships, but on a purely objective level, championship wins mean very little in regards to who is the best (or even better) player.

1 hour ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Think about what you just wrote.

He’s “only” won 2 MVPs in 7 chances. There are 450 players in the AL every year, and he’s managed to be beaten out by one - one! - of them four times, and you think it’s some tragedy. 

Also, there are more players in the majors now.

Only 9 players in history have won more than two, and Trout has won two and he’s 27. 

I think he’s doing OK.

From Trout's perspective? I doubt he cares. At all. He just wants to win a championship. 

From a baseball history perspective, though? 2 MVP's sounds great in a vacuum, but that ignores the context - which, in this case, is everything: 

2018: Best player offensively
- Analytics: Essentially a tie overall depending what you do with defense

2017: Only played 114 games; still finished 4th overall in WAR; had better rate stats (OBP, OPS, OPS+ wRC+, wOBA) than all three guys above him (still finished below Ramirez - probably due to playing 38 less games); 
- Everyone agreed Trout didn't play enough to win this year

2016: Won MVP with a relatively dominant WAR lead of 9.6 to 8.2 fWAR and 10.5 to 9.7 bWAR
- Yet only received 19 1st place votes and two writers placed him 5th and 7th
- Betts received 9 1st's, and Ortiz/Beltre each received 1

2015: Trout loses to Donaldson despite leading in WAR and rate stats
- Vote is Donaldson with 23 1st's, and Trout with 7

2014: Trout wins MVP unanimously in his worst full season in the majors, probably owing mostly to his higher power numbers
- There wasn't really anyone else particularly close that year

2013: Cabrera wins for the second straight year with 23 1st place votes to Trout's 5
- Again, Trout ends up with a 5th and a 7th for who knows what reason
- Analytics: This one was tougher than 2012; Miggy had an absurd 193 wRC+ to Trout's (still insanely good) 176; Cabrera hit for a higher average and a slightly better BB rate; Trout's WAR was higher, probably due to baserunning and defense
- It should've been at least a close vote (a coin flip, imo, depending on what you value more), but it wasn't (as per usual)

2012: Cabrera's Triple Crown carries him to 22 1st place votes to Trout's 6
- Analytics: Offensively, they're similar - Cabrera hit more bombs, but Trout's AVG/OBP are higher; their wRC+ is about equal, and while Cabrera wins on OPS, Trout's OPS+ beat Miggy slightly
- Given Cabrera's below average defense (although not as bad as Andujar) and baserunning (Trout excelled at both in 2012), offensive tie favors Trout decisively;
- WAR: 10.0 to 7.2 (fWAR) and 10.5 to 7.1 (bWAR)

To sum up, we have 
- A horrible vote in 2012
- A coin flip in 2013
- A good one for once (and the only time) in 2014
- A horribly lopsided voted in 2015 that probably should've gone Trout's way (was at worst another coin flip)
- What should've been as decisive a vote as this year (but wasn't) in 2016
- A relatively fair vote in 2017 (2/7)
- And another lopsided vote over what was effectively a tie this year

So, you tell me: Have the writers been remotely fair to Trout?

You say "He's 'only' won 2 MVP's in 7 chances" as if you guys should get a pat on the back, but the numbers say he should have *at least* three decisively, almost certainly a fourth, and a strong argument is there for six.

Trout has a higher WAR than any player up to his age has *ever* had. He routinely puts up 9 WAR seasons like it's nothing. His only full season that he missed that mark was in 2014. In his seven years in the league, how many guys have hit 9 WAR? Two:

Harper (2015), Betts (2015 - bWAR only; 2018)

We have never seen a roid-free (presumably) player like Trout in goodness knows how long. Pujols hit 9 WAR in 2003 (by Fangraphs calculations) and 2008-09 (by Baseball Reference). That's it. And he's arguably a top 5 all time hitter by his career.

Even with help, A-Roid only had 4 such seasons (by bWAR) for his career (or 6 per fWAR). Trout has 5 at age 27 (would be 6 if he wasn't hurt in 2017). That. Is. Insane. 

But sure, despite, being effectively the best player in 6/7 years, he has *2* MVP awards. If you're Mookie Betts who has only had 2 seasons at that level, 2 MVP's would be freaking fantastic. 

That's why context matters. And that's why 2, in Trout's case, is a black mark and a gigantic embarrassment. 

To be clear, I don't mean that personally against you - the only two votes of yours I'd quibble with at all were 2013 and 2018, but since both were essentially coin flips, I can't fault you too much for not voting Trout, even though I would've both times. 

As far as my assessment of Trout, the BBWAA, etc: You can disagree - it doesn't matter to me - we're both entitled to our individual opinions. But given how this generation already looks down on the backwards thinking of previous decades, I honestly don't believe posterity will look at Trout's two wins as favorably as you seem to. I could be wrong. 

31 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Maybe he will win the He Deserves Better Award.

Considering MLB seems utterly unwilling to give him any other award, he’ll probably lose out on that, too. 

Hilarious considering how much trouble the league says they have marketing their stars. Trout never gets in-season recognition with weekly/monthly player selections. He gets dumped on by the players’ choice awards, the writers, umpires (gets awful calls more than most, as far as I can tell, although I can’t find any data that measures that), and the managers (GG voting). Trout is by a healthy distance the best player in the game and you’d think he was just another all-star. 

Analysts like to pat themselves on the back for the advances they’ve made, but in twenty years the next generation is going to wonder how the heck Mike Trout only won 2 MVP’s instead of 6 by the age of 27. It’s a freaking joke. 

Scioscia to Rangers confirmed. 

I would’ve voted Trout, but I can’t fault his reasoning. Fletch puts more (and better) thought into the process than most writers, IMO. Although lol at Khris Davis. Not even the third best player on his team, a train wreck defensively, and with a worse WAR than Ohtani. 

16 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Jon Moronsi

10 minutes ago, True Grich said:

Morosi proves voter fraud is real.

Moron couldn’t tie his own shoes without help. Being a writer doesn’t require the ability to think analytically. Dude shouldn’t vote if he’s that bad at it, and his record is pretty awful. 

Wow. The voters were a lot dumber than I expected. Trout barely beat out third/fourth place. Betts destroyed everyone. Despite Trout being better offensively and barely worse defensively.

Considering how many times he's been robbed of the MVP, he deserved better.

The playoff argument ultimately is arbitrary and subjective, being mostly based on the argument from tradition, which is never a good reason to hold to stuff by itself. There’s a good reason why voters have shifted away from it. It just isn’t remotely defensible on any level.

Based on objective value, Trout is a hair better offensively. It’s close, but there isn’t really any question on that point.

Defensively, both are great, but every defensive rating system puts Betts over Trout. Defensive analytics are notoriously imperfect, but even though every system disagrees on how exactly to measure defensive value or how to value it compared to other aspects of the game, they all agree that Betts has higher value on that front. 

Unlike previous years, I don’t believe there is a wrong answer between the two. I’d vote Trout as the tie-breaker because he’s gotten jobbed in the past,  but that’s just me. 

I don’t actually think that Martinez bleeds off much from Betts unless we get a particularly strange group of the BBWAA electorate. And I’m okay with that - it bugs me seeing that kind of willful ignorance and I’m glad it’s leaving the sport, however slowly. In past years, we’d have a top two of JD and Khris Davis (ugh) - thank goodness we’re long past that insanity. 

My prediction: Trout grabs 6ish 1st place votes, give or take two. Martinez maybe gets one 1st. Betts probably gets the rest. Trout probably snags something around 20 2nd’s, and a few 3rd or lower from the Neanderthals. 

12 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

Not quite accomplished? Harper has a rookie of the year and an mvp. Um ok then. 

Trout: Best player in the game by a lot - which probably means best ever.

By WAR, he's the best player to date up through his current age season.

He has 2 MVP awards, which is actually a couple less than he should have.

Ohtani: Despite injury issues, had a historic first season, putting up two-way numbers nobody has touched since Babe Ruth.

Pitching in the major leagues is tough. Lot of guys with far more athletic talent than any of us can't stick at that level. Hitting at the major league level - ditto.

Ohtani can pitch ridiculously well *and* get big hits against big-time ace pitchers on his off days when most pitchers are recovering from their last start (to say nothing of his crazy on-base skills).

Harper? He's a star player. He had one of the best seasons ever in 2015. But (depending which site's metrics you prefer), he's only had one other season to date besides 2015 where he broke 5 WAR (bWAR, fWAR maxes him out at 4.8). 

Don't get me wrong, Harper is great. But, of his 7 seasons he's played: Three of them he maxed out at 1.5 bWAR or less (FG is more forgiving of his defense, giving him 3 and 3.5 fWAR in 2016 and 2018).

So, forgive me if I refer to him as less accomplished than Trout and Ohtani. While I might be premature on Ohtani, I'm not sure Harper's best season to date was as accomplished as Ohtani's *one* season in the majors. 

........ that the Angels already have an even more historic duo: Trout and Ohtani. 

Now if Arte wants to dig into his piggy bank and make it a trio by adding a not-quite-as-accomplished-as-the-other-guys third wheel? Uh, okay, I guess. I'm down as long as it doesn't screw up our chances to compete like Pujols' contract has. 

54 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

you just blew up Obi-Wan Troll Daddy's Alderaan.  He was watching cops and a million voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.  

Sarah Lang of ESPN tweeted:

This is a perfect example of why the pitcher win/loss record is absolute horse crap. It’s worse than meaningless - it’s misleading. Its probably even worse than the RBI. 

(Edit: Side note: That’s best and worst ERA for inning qualified starters, just in case anyone is unclear)

Zero chance Trout gets 500 mil. And that looks probable compared to the chances of Harper clearing 400 mil. Bryce maxes out at 350 at absolute most. Trout probably gets 400ish. 500 is a story that journos come up with because it gets clicks. Based on last offseason and the recent trajectory of long term contracts, I’m not even bullish that either Harper or Machado beats out Stanton’s contract in years or dollars. I think they probably do, but I wouldn’t be stunned if either or both missed. 

I like Santana, but that seems like a mid-season deal. No way he can be brought it now with Pujols/Ohtani. Only way it works is if Pujols is already out with injury. Similar story on Cesar. I think you have to see what you’ve got first.