Oz27

5 hours ago, Dochalo said:

I think you think I am a fan of using WPA as the sole metric for reliever value and that's just not true.  Frankly, I don't really care about WPA other than is gives us some insight into how players get credit for leverage.  My point is that a player shouldn't get credit for being clutch but they should get credit for being thrust into higher leverage situations on a consistent basis.  I think that's where our opinions diverge.  WAR actually gives some partial credit for leverage to 'closers'.  

I guess I think that a player should be rewarded if they are exclusively put into situations where game outcomes are more likely to be a certain way.  Another example is why should a reliever who pitches a scoreless 8th when their team is down by 6 runs get the same credit as the guy who does so up by one run?  You watch the games.  You know that the latter is much more difficult to pitch in.  You also know and subscribe to bringing in your best pitcher to face the opposing team's best hitter in impactful situations.  We have seen teams preferentially select certain relievers to do this which means the quality of batter they face and the importance it has on the game is skewed toward them having a tougher job.  I think they should get credit for that.  If Betances has to face Trout in the top of the 9th at home up by only one run vs. at home in the top of the ninth up by 7 runs, don't you see how the degree of difficulty changes?  

If that were to average out for a reliever over the course of a season like it does for most hitters, defensive players, and starting pitchers, I am fine with ignoring it for noise.  But it doesn't avg out for relievers.  

I think we'll ultimately agree to disagree on this, but I will never see how a pitcher getting three outs in the 8th inning of a blowout is the same as getting three outs in a tight game because you are preferentially selecting certain guys for certain spots.  You are giving your team the best chance to prevent runs when preventing runs is critical.  Sometimes it's not as critical.  Giving a pitcher credit for a win isn't even close to what I am talking about.  Baseball also didn't give enough credit to guys who got on base for the longest time.  

It's moot anyway.  Regardless of what we think, teams are paying top dollar and prospects for high leverage outs.  Saber savvy teams.  Do you think those teams are doing such in spite of the numbers, or because of them?

I'm sure teams are making educated and reasonable decisions about the price they pay for relievers because all teams mostly make educated and reasonable decisions about everything these days. Maybe we're trying to do different things here though. If we're evaluating pitcher talent, then to me leverage use has no impact on that equation. If we're evaluating the value Team X can get out of Pitcher Y, then the situations they feel they will use Y in does impact that equation. For example, they're probably evaluating Y's talent level (let's make that Z) and then forecasting the value they can get from that player by the situation they will be used in - including the leverage. But for me it's not crediting the pitcher, because in my eyes two pitchers with identical results - except for one pitching in the sixth and another in the ninth - have performed to the same level and deserve equal credit. But if you were Team X, forecasting the value you can derive from Y, then your usage plans do matter for that and leverage can and should factor into that equation. So to me, your usage plans should impact how much you are willing to pay for a player but not in how you truly evaluate their ability. That difference probably seems subtle but I think it's important.

9 hours ago, Stradling said:

Oz, how do you know that the 4th inning or the 7th inning will be the highest leverage situation of the game?  If you brought in Cam in the top of the fourth with the bases loaded up by a run, how do you know that situation won't happen again in the 8th or 9th inning?  What we do know is if you are up a run in the 9th inning it is always beneficial to have your best pitcher available.  

You have to make a calculated gamble on that. You attempt to get a pitcher into the highest leverage situation but sometimes the game will surprise you and throw up a different scenario. That is fine. Say, for example, we had Trout limited to pinch hitting duties for a week. If we were down by a run with a pair of runners in scoring position and two outs in the seventh, you could make a reasonable decision that was your best opportunity to use him. It could turn out than an even more important moment comes up later in the game, but you have still made a reasonable decision to get him in for an important moment instead of saving him for something that may not eventuate. It's sort of like Zach Britton in the wild card game. There were numerous important situations they could and should have used him in, but they chose to save him for something which never came. It's better to go early and get as many innings out of that resource as you can than to wait for a situation that might not come or that might not be that difficult (the idea we should be saving anyone to pitch with a three-run lead and only three outs left to get is rather absurd).

3 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

There is placing value on the events that actually occurred on the field, which are results based statistics. Then there are predictive statistics, which don't look at the results as much as the underlying processes that should lead to results. In the first, a ball caught at the warning track is a net plus for the pitcher, in the latter it is a negative.

At the end of the season we aren't trying to evaluate which team has the most underlying talent, but rather which team actually performed the best. We use those predictive stats to guess at who will perform best tomorrow. WPA is a stat that is trying to describe what actually happened on the field - outs that were actually gotten. xFIP is trying to tell you what those results could be going forward. 

If we are talking about reliever contracts then it follows that teams will spend based on a combination of the two. They will pay guys for what future performance dictates they may be able to accomplish, and they will pay players for having successfully done the job.

I do understand that but I just don't think WPA does that good a job of describing what did happen on the field. I've made this point at length now so I won't go on for too long but it's too reflective of situations outside of a pitcher's control to truly reflect their own performance.

2 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

and then so is the situation at that point.  It's easier to get out carlos perez with the bases loaded than Mike Trout with no one on, but the probability of giving up a run is much greater in the Perez situation.  

You are more inclined to use the better pitcher when the extremes are greater though like if you are up by a run vs. down by 3.  If you don't think there is a difference, then why have you pushed for the flexibility of relievers to be available in higher leverage situations.  I know you have coupled that to the batter, but your opinion in the past was that both were important.  

The closer the game, the greater odds that one play, one strike or one swing will change the outcome.  Each at bat becomes more and more critical as the game progresses because there are fewer opportunities to change the outcome.  The reliever can't control it yet a position player doesn't determine what position they are going to play.  Yet we punish the position player for doing poorly.  Why? because it affects the outcome of the game.  

You know I am as stat inclined as anyone, but even with my limited experience playing there is a factorial difference ie an increased degree of difficulty in performing the same task when there is less time to compensate in the future or in environments where the odds of scoring runs are greater.  

You don't think that the game situation affects performance?  I am not saying that there is basis for clutch or the same player performing differently in more difficult situations than in less difficulty ones.  I am saying that some relievers in particular are put more exclusively in those more difficult situations and regardless of whether they have control you give them credit for it just like you give credit to Escobar for playing 3rd even though he's got no control over it.  I am not saying it has to be positive credit.  Just credit.  

Yeah, I believe the best pitchers should be pitching in the highest leverage situations. But I don't think we should be giving them extra credit for doing that. Isn't that what the baseball community mistakenly did with wins or save totals for so long? I don't consider the pitcher's job to be any different whether it is the fourth, the seventh or the ninth. Whenever it is, the job is still to prevent runs from being scored right? I don't see that as contradictory to the belief that the best pitchers should be in the game for the highest leverage moments. You want them in there them because that's when the team can get best value from him. But it seems unfair to give that pitcher any reward or punishment for happening to be brought in for that point of the game. If two pitchers face three batters and produce identical results (let's say out, solo homer, out, out) but one does it in the fourth and another does it in the eighth, then the way that is judged by WPA is totally different. But how is that fair? They've done the same thing. They have both given up a run and that run counts the same on the scoreboard. While I get what you're saying with the Escobar argument, I view it differently and I suppose I've already partially outlined the reasons why. Plus, none of the mainstream offensive stats we use credit Escobar based on the point at which he was playing 3B or at the plate. That isn't different to crediting a pitcher based on innings pitched instead of when those innings were.

You point out WPA does the same thing for hitters and I'd make very similar arguments about the flaws with that. For hitters, that's why WPA is used as more of a tool to make fun graphs with instead of something that tells us anything meaningful about a player, is it not? It may not be a terrible way to judge someone, but I don't think it's a particularly good one.

4 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

There should be a low correlation between xFIP and WPA because one measure value independent of leverage and the other is linear weights of what happened.  Neither takes batter quality into account btw.  Both assume that it will average out over the course of the season yet we all know that's not true when it comes to relievers.     Another problem with comparing WPA to xFIP is that one is cumulative and the other is rate based.  

The Cam example is pretty tough to get on board with considering that his leverage was really low early in the year in that he was coming off a pretty bad season where it was tough to trust him.  Then it escalated until he got hurt.  

I guess I am also implying that I don't think xFIP is a great tool to measure reliever quality.  Being a fly ball pitcher without giving up hrs is a skill.  Weak contact is a skill.  

I don't think WAR or WPA tells the entire story for relievers.  I have to believe that major league teams have come up with a way to conglomerate WAR/FIP/xFIP with leverage and batter quality.  I think they have incorporated that into their team WAR calcs along with their proprietary defensive metrics and their makeup metrics.  

I understand they are measuring things in different ways, but shouldn't WPA correlate more strongly with our best pitching metrics if it were demonstrative of ability? Also, shouldn't the year-to-year WPA correlation be stronger if it were telling us something about a pitcher's ability instead of just, well, noise? For pitchers the year-to-year correlation is .266, which is lower than the year-to-year correlation for every somewhat mainstream pitching stat (the lowest is ERA at .311, while SBERA is up at .433).

Out of interest, why do you differentiate xFIP for relievers as opposed to starters? We're measuring the same thing, right? Pitching is the ability to prevent runs being scored and, DRA aside (which I would always use in preference), it is the best measure we have to reflect past performance and, to an extent, indicate future performance. I agree with you that being a fly ball pitcher who doesn't give up homers is a skill, we see guys who regularly under or over perform their FIPs and we need to be mindful of that when measuring pitchers using a FIP-based stat. But I still believe it's the best individual metric we have, besides DRA, to measure a pitcher's performance. I'm sure you're right about teams having come much closer to perfecting the right mix of all the factors we are talking about in whatever numbers they are using. DRA is the closest the public sphere has come to that.

55 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

I disagree with Sheehan's first point and agree on the second.  

Leverage does not take into account the hitter, but he's essentially contradicting himself between the two point.  If run context doesn't matter, then situational variances shouldn't be accounted for at all in determining value.  

I don't agree with this bit. The game situation is out of the control of the pitcher, all he can do is get the batter out. I don't believe we should be rewarding somebody more for getting an out with his team up by a run later in the game than we would if they were down by a run earlier in the game. In my opinion, that doesn't impact the difficulty of his task. But the quality of the hitter does impact that. It's more difficult for a pitcher to get Mike Trout out than it is for him to retire Carlos Perez, right? If we're going to contextualize stats, then to me that is the sort of context we should be going for - not factors that were out of a pitcher's control (I know the quality of the batter is out of his control, but what happens when he's facing that batter is within his control).

55 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

In order to determine the value of a player, context matters for some and not for others.  And here's why.  

The average leverage a player finds themselves in is important.  The average leverage for a qualified hitter in within 10% in either direction from 1.0.  That's why clutch doesn't matter for hitters value.  Because over the course of 600 plate appearances, it gonna avg itself out.

The quality of a batter that a reliever faces is likely to average itself out for the most part unless the trend of having a manager preferentially select for certain relievers to face higher quality batters continues.  

The point is, is you preferentially select for a player to perform is more critical situations then that player is worth more.  Those situations are worth more.  

In baseball, context matters.  It's why you bring in your best reliever to face the other team's best hitters in situations where there are increased odds of scoring.  

Certain relievers find themselves in those spots.  Leverage doesn't account for all of it, but it's better than not giving credit at all.  

So every run counts the same.  But if you are a player who is constantly put into a situation where preventing that run significantly increases your team's chance of winning whereas if you don't it significantly decreases the chances of winning, then your value should go up.  

 

Isn't that again rewarding/punishing a player for something outside of their control, though? Theoretically good pitchers should find themselves in high leverage situations but that depends on managers making sound decisions. Cam Bedrosian was clearly our best reliever last year but his gmLI was ninth on the team, behind many relievers he was much better than (in order, Salas, Street, Bailey, Smith, Valdez, Ramirez, Morin and Alvarez). Judging by ability, Bedrosian should have been in the highest leverage situations but that wasn't how he was used. Should that impact how we evaluate him? In my opinion, no.

It's worth as well noting the wide gap between WPA and xFIP. If what we're trying to do is evaluate true ability, check out our 2016 reliever WPA leaderboard.

1. J.C. Ramirez, 0.79 WPA (seventh best xFIP out of 18)

2. Andrew Bailey, 0.69 WPA (10th in xFIP)

3. Greg Mahle, 0.25 WPA (13th in xFIP)

4. Cory Rasmus, 0.12 WPA (16th in xFIP)

5. Cam Bedrosian, 0.04 WPA (first in xFIP)

For our 2016, a chart measuring our reliever xFIP and WPA results would look like random dots on a page. Admittedly, the wider correlation isn't quite that low. The base correlation across MLB between xFIP and WPA is .495, so there is a relationship. But it really isn't that strong given we're measuring two things from the same sample. So if WPA isn't reflecting actual pitcher ability, which we best judge through xFIP or DRA, what is it actually showing us? I like using WPA, it is a fun tool to play around with. But I'm not convinced the trend towards using it to evaluate individual relievers or even groups of relievers makes a great deal of sense.

32 minutes ago, ettin said:

Disagree with this Oz. Alvarez had a 15.6% K%-BB% vs. RHP in 2016, which is 1.5% above league average. He also suffered from a hugely inflated BABIP of .398 which is nearly 100 points higher than the League average of .299. The decision to have Alvarez face RHP was not bad it was a victim of bad luck and not leaving enough hitters left on base. I am not saying that Jose is the best choice the Angels have to face RHP but as a set up guy there is potential there. Sample sizes with relievers in any season should always be taken with a grain of salt. As I learned recently during a Twitter exchange with Mitchel Lichtman and Tangotiger our perception(s) of long standing baseball "standards" or long held beliefs can be incorrect when you look at the numbers supporting them. Actual results matter of course but they belay the underlying nature of proper sample size (of which his 15.6% might be an outlier) and, perhaps, misguided perceptions (confirmation bias).

I certainly agree with the latter part of your post. 

I'll be honest, I hadn't dived in as deeply into Alvarez's splits as I should have and the high BABIP vs RHH isn't supported by his much higher ground ball rate (relative to his performance vs LHH) and it is significantly different to his 2015 result. So yeah, there is definitely some room for improvement there. I'm not sure that it's safe though to dismiss it entirely as him being a victim of bad luck though. I do want to delve into his batted ball results a bit more to see if there is a cause for it. There can be causes for high BABIP beyond bad luck. It is also worth pointing out his multi-year true average against RHP is .269, vs LHP it is .228.

On a side note, it hadn't hit me how bad Alvarez was on the road in 2016. His peripherals were hideous and his raw results were too. Maybe that was just random chance but, wow, those road results were bad.

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

Ok Oz you jack off to stats except now when it says he's pretty good at bullpen management? That's pretty convenient.  

The guy has had shit bullpens for quite awhile now.  

I should have mentioned before as well the problems with using leverage and WPA to measure bullpen success. Do runs count more in the eighth than they do in the sixth? Of course not. But according to those stats, they do. As Joe Sheehan, former Baseball Prospectus guru, wrote a few days ago:

"Leverage is an interesting descriptive stat, but as a value one it's basically a restatement of saves, in the same way that Win Probability Added is nerd talk for RBIs. Leverage takes into account game state, weighting later innings more highly than early ones, because runs in the eighth inning count more than runs in the third. No, wait. That's not right. Leaving that problem aside, though, my bigger one is that leverage ignores the opposing hitters"

Are there better ways to judge bullpen management? Definitely. We just haven't perfected them yet. But it's wrong to think the stats have conclusively said anything beyond doubt, no matter how many snide comments you want to put in your post. To be clear I don't mean that as a criticism of Doc at all, I'm just saying we haven't really come up with a flawless way to evaluate this or to justify making sweeping, hyperbolic statements such as "the smart people know this" or to dismiss a contrary position as "convenient".

14 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Ok Oz you jack off to stats except now when it says he's pretty good at bullpen management? That's pretty convenient.  

The guy has had shit bullpens for quite awhile now.  

No need to be so aggressive. There are a lot of ways to evaluate bullpen management and I'm not sure I or anyone can conclusively say which is one is right or wrong. I've seen studies say that he is good, not good and in the middle. Doc's methodology and analysis is good, as usual. But I've seen similar analysis with a different, but still valid, methodology, reach contrasting conclusions so I don't take any of it as gospel for the moment.

Also, all I did was point to one clear example of mismanagement to raise a contrary point to your "us smart people know this" nonsense. No need to be so damn aggressive about it.

31 minutes ago, hangin n wangin said:

Smart normal people understand he's average to good at bullpen management? That's interesting. So it's only the smart normal people that can understand?? 

So those that think he isn't very good at bullpen management are dumb retards? I think I'm getting it. Put me in the dumb retard category.

You're just not smart enough to understand it.

8 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Yep he should have gone with his better options.  The ones he doesn't have.  

Silly response and you know it. Alvarez vs RHH is worse than nearly any RHP would be.

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

You must not frequent the game day threads.  But yes the smart normal people understand he's average to good at bullpen management. During the season however the vocal majority crucify him for his pen decisions. 

That is a hell of an overgeneralization. He probably isn't terrible compared to his peers (guys like Matheny and Baker exist, after all) but there is no shortage of inexplicable decisions. For example, Jose Alvarez faced more RHH than LHH last year when a 30 second glance at his Baseball-Reference page is enough to tell you that was a terrible decision.

3 hours ago, Troll Daddy said:

There's always room for improvement for every team. Eppler may or may not add another piece ... either way, we're good to go.

Wow, this is some top notch analysis. Perhaps you should send something like this to Fangraphs or Baseball Prospectus and see if they'll hire you? People who can deliver such cutting, thoughtful insight are hard to find.

2 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

 

 

Numerous studies have suggested the attention seeking behavior you exhibit is a symptom of jealousy. Of course it could be neglect too. Or loneliness. Either way, it's boring. Get a new act.

15 hours ago, Dochalo said:

I am gloomy on the front 7 as it stands and nothing has changed in that regard for me.  I have little hope that Street is capable of being a closer.  My only hope for Alvarez is that he faces lefties almost exclusively and I have my doubts that Scioscia will use him that way. Guerra is smoke and mirrors.  I would be ok as him being our 5/6th inning guy ie 5th or 6th on the depth chart.  I don't share your confidence in Morin.  His peripherals are decent, but I see him as an untimely hr waiting to happen every time he goes out there and I don't want him near the game if it matters.  

My remote confidence comes from the fact that I think we've got enough upside depth where none of those guys will even by part of the pen by June.  I am talking myself into a group of Bedrosian, Campos, Middleton, Pounders, Lamb, Grendell, and Paredes being the primary squad if it's going to work.  Maybe a couple guys of Bailey, Guerra and Ramirez work out or maybe Banuelos or Meyer or De Los Santos or Yates or Parker get it done but I am banking on the depth and not the guys who break camp. 

This is a pretty good summary. I think the 'pen could be awful early on, especially since Bailey and Street will probably start in key roles and Morin and Guerra will probably be around then too. I have no confidence in any of them and a group with them (plus Alvarez, who'll inevitably throw too often against righties and get hammered by them) throwing so many innings shapes as terrible. But there are enough arms around that some of them should not be so terrible right? I doubt Banuelos or Meyer stick in the rotation so maybe they'll end up being okay relievers. Middleton could develop quickly. Campos actually looks pretty good. Paredes is a breakout candidate. So there are the guys there who could make the bullpen not totally suck. But for that to happen, you're counting on a lot going right. Plenty rides on Bedorisan staying healthy and good and then everyone else beyond that has major question marks. While it's far from impossible to see the bullpen actually being kinda good, it still strikes me as likely that it's below average and possible that it's terrible.

It wouldn't surprise me if Trout in his mid to late 30s is a very different player to what he is now. Slower, bigger, a lot more home runs but still plenty of walks. He could still be extremely valuable in that capacity, especially if he's still able to stick as a corner outfielder at that time. That is part of why I think the home run record isn't quite as absurd as it seems at first thought. Another factor I didn't mention which will impact his final home run total is where he plays. If he leaves Anaheim to go somewhere like New York or Colorado, then obviously that will really help his chances of hitting 700+ dingers. I also agree with AJ about Trout being unlikely to post an 11-12 WAR Fangraphs season. I was using the BR model and I think it's entirely possible with that one. He was close this year and would have done it in 2012 had he been called up a month earlier. It's far from unthinkable with that model.

And AJ, you raise a good point about WAR formula. I've spoken quite a bit about how I think defensive metrics, especially for outfielders, will be way more advanced in a few years compared to what it is now. The work Tom Tango is doing at MLBAM makes me think we're really close to having much more reliable outfield defensive metrics. It's likely that will only apply to the Statcast era (2015 onwards) but that could give Trout a retrospective boost (or drive him down a bit too) if WAR models were adjusted to work with whatever the eventual statistic they come up with is.

5 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

to get Trout to age 40, he's got 15 seasons.

 

I was using the Baseball-Reference age style, so to get to 16 I was including the season in which he'd actually turn 41 in August.

I agree with pretty much all of what you said though. I sometimes wonder if I'm deluded from thinking we'll see some 11-12 WAR seasons from him. After all, they're exceptionally rare. But I could see him sitting at 180 OPS+ for a couple of seasons and that could well be enough to get him there.

I did think about the possibility of someone else breaking the strikeout record, @arch stanton, but it's not as likely as I thought it would be. There is only one active player (Beltran) within 1000 Ks of Jackson and he is obviously no chance of catching up (he is more than 900 behind). Granderson, Beltre, Melvin Upton, Jhonny Peralta and Jayson Werth are all in the top 100 but none will play long enough to get there. The two players who are more advanced in their careers than Trout with any chance of getting there are Miguel Cabrera and Justin Upton. But Cabrera would need to average 132.5 strikeouts per season over his remaining guaranteed years to get there and I just don't see him playing enough in his later years to do that. Upton is still more than 1200 strikeouts away so unless he can reverse his sharp downward trend in overall performance he won't play enough to break it. Trout is the rare blend of really good player who strikes out a lot, which is the combination you need to get to that record.

And @Angelsjunky it's definitely fair to say he is pretty damn unlikely to break any of the records (aside from strikeouts) that I mentioned. But I view each of them as at least a very slim possibility. Runs might be a bit more than that. I could see him becoming more of a power hitter later in his career and really surging up the home run leaderboard, potentially even giving the record a shake if a whole bunch of things went his way.

Mike Trout has already broken plenty of records. Even if he is traded before his current contract runs out, he'll leave the Angels with a pile of single-season and career club records. If he plays out the next four years in Anaheim, there is a pretty good chance he will depart with the club record for home runs, runs and WAR. If he sticks around longer than that, he'll break many more (the club lead for stolen bases, RBIs, extra base hits and walks are all in touching distance if he plays seven or eight more seasons in Anaheim).  But what about the big ones? Which Major League records is he a legitimate chance of breaking? None of them are easy and he'll need plenty to go right to get to any of them, but there are marks he has a somewhat plausible chance of eclipsing.

Let's start with the ones he is no chance of reaching. He would need to play every game for 17 more seasons to break Pete Rose's games played record. To reach the stolen base record, he'd need to steal 63 bases per year on average over the next 20 seasons. If he plays through his age 40 season, he'd need to average 140 runs batted in per year to catch Hank Aaron's mark. He'd need to walk 130 times per year on average through age 40 to catch Barry Bonds for that record. So all of those, plus a few others I haven't mentioned, are completely unrealistic.

But there are some which could happen, if a lot goes right. Let's assume Mike Trout plays through his age 40 season, or 16 more years, and see what he would have to do to get there.

Position player WAR:

Current record - Babe Ruth, 163.1

Trout - 48.5

Barry Bonds got very close to this one, falling 0.7 wins short (using bWAR). Had his career not been abruptly ended, rightly or wrongly, when he was still really good then he would have breezed past it. But Trout has the potential to seriously threaten the record. Between now and 2032, Trout's age 40 season, he would need to average 7.16 WAR. Every Trout full season has been much better than that and he is coming off a 10.6 WAR campaign, so that total may seem really low. But the chances of him sustaining his current 8-10 WAR per season standard into his late 30s are very low. Within the next seven or so years he'll probably move to a corner outfield spot and by his mid 30s he could be a first baseman or a DH, which makes it much harder to amass giant WAR totals. His baserunning skills will gradually fall off and later on his hitting will too. Having said that, this one isn't impossible. But he will need to stay healthy and maintain his crazy pace for a few more years to have a realistic chance. In all likelihood, he is going to need to average 9 WAR or higher for another eight seasons at least to have any chance of making it happen. If he can do that, he'll be at 120.5 through his age 32 season and would then have to average 5.325 WAR over the following eight years. The latter part of that equation might be too hard though (how many 6 WAR players do you see in their mid 30s?). So it might have to be 9.5 WAR per year for the next eight and 3.575 WAR per season for the eight years after that. To average 9.5 WAR over the next eight seasons he'd really need to put up some 11-12 win campaigns soon, you would think. All in all this one is pretty unlikely, but not impossible.

Home runs:

Current record - Barry Bonds, 762

Trout - 168

How does 'Mike Trout - Home Run King' sound? It probably seems crazy since he is still 594 runs short probably a quarter of the way into his career. Others who have shown early promise (Alex Rodriguez, Albert Pujols) have ended up getting nowhere close. But 37.125 homers per season over the next 16 years would get Trout there. This one would have seemed much more likely prior to 2016, when he "only" hit 29 homers. But he has shown 40 homer power and is still at an age where guys develop more power. Bonds didn't have a 30 HR season until age 25 and didn't touch 40 until 28. Sure, he likely had an extra advantage which Trout doesn't have, but is it unthinkable that as Trout ages he regularly hits 40 and maybe breaks 50 a couple of times? If we break Trout's remaining career (again assuming 16 more seasons) into half once again, he realistically will need to do the bulk of that lifting in the front half. If he were to average 42 dingers per season over the next eight seasons, that would leave him just 258 (or an average of 32.25) over the final eight to get there. Given we've seen guys continue to show real power to a late age, even as all their other skills decline rapidly (Albert Pujols immediately springs to mind), this one is less absurd than it might seem at first glance.

Total bases:

Current record - Hank Aaron, 6856

Trout - 1670

This is the most unlikely of the ones I have gone into any detail about here. If he breaks this one, it's probably because he really developed as a power hitter and got close to Bonds' home run record. He is a quarter of the way there but, if he plays 16 more seasons, would need to average 324 total bases per season. He has only had more than that three times and only recorded 302 total bases last season. If Barry Bonds, with a career .444 on-base percentage and the all-time HR record didn't get there, then it's hard to imagine who would. Aaron is more than 700 total bases ahead of second on the list, so this record might be close to unbreakable. Pujols once seemed like a decent chance to break this one, but even if he replicated his 2016 total for each of the next five seasons he would fall short.

Runs:

Current record - Rickey Henderson, 2295

Trout - 600

Here we have the one he is the best chance of breaking. If you were building a player to break this record, you would want somebody with speed, power and a high on-base percentage. Trout has all three covered and has a slim, yet realistic, chance of breaking this record. 106 runs per year over the next 16 seasons would get him there and he has averaged 116 over the past five campaigns. If he could keep up that pace for the next eight seasons he would be at 1528 at that point, although would still need 96 per season over the final eight years. Again, he'd need to stay healthy and productive to a late age. Maintaining speed and playing on a good offensive club would really help too. So much needs to go right for him to do this but Trout represents the best chance to break this record since Bonds retired (and fell just 68 runs short).

Strikeouts:

Current record - Reggie Jackson, 2597

Trout - 774

Is it depressing to think that the best player of our generation's strongest chance to break an all-time record is to top Reggie Jackson's strikeout mark? Well, unfortunately, that is the reality. If he stays mostly healthy and plays for another 16 years, it's hard to see how he doesn't end up with this unwanted record. For his career, Trout averages 711 plate appearances per season and strikes out in 22 per cent of those. Moving forward he'll obviously miss time for various reasons (injury, more days off and eventually deteriorating performance), so let's project an average of 575 PAs per year. If he strikes out in 20 per cent of those plate appearances (that was his rate in 2016), he'll finish 17 ahead of Jackson. If he were to continue to strike out at his career rate, he would top Jackson by 201. With a strikeout rate of 22 per cent for the rest of his career, he'd still top Jackson even if he only averaged 525 PAs per year over the next 16 seasons. Of course Trout's strikeout rate is trending in the right direction and it's possible he ends up striking out much less than he does now, but it's also reasonable to then expect an increase in K's later in his career as his skills deteriorate. I certainly wouldn't go as far as to say it's likely Trout breaks this record, but there is a high chance he at least goes close.

So, putting the depressing thoughts about the strikeout mark aside, there are four records relating to mainstream stats which Trout has a semi-realistic chance of breaking. I would guess runs is the most likely, followed by home runs, position player WAR and then total bases. There is also a chance he gets to more than one of them due to overlapping impact. For example, if he breaks the home run record, then I would really like his chances of reaching the runs scored mark too. He probably won't get to any of these and might not even get close. But if Trout remains an everyday player through his age 40 season and can maintain a high level of performance to a late age, without getting hurt too much, then it's entirely possible we see him atop a career statistical leaderboard.

1 hour ago, Angelsjunky said:

This got me curious. My first thought was "Joe Carter" and then I looked him up and saw that he accounted for 3 of the 18 seasons (if you are going with rWAR). My second thought was Dante Bichette, but he only has 1. After that...god, who knows. Some Rockies?

Just now, tomsred said:

Eppler trades Cron for Blake Snell (P) of the Rays.

 

If Eppler can do that, he really needs to buy a lottery ticket too.

Something Trout related is the obvious one. Maybe he posts an absurd WAR total. Only one hitter has topped 12 bWAR since the 1920s (and that one was 50 years ago). Could Trout do it?

For a general baseball prediction, I really like Clayton Kershaw's chances of beating Pedro's single-season WHIP record. He had a better WHIP than that last year but didn't pitch enough innings to qualify.

Also, could Pujols join a very elite club of posting 100+ RBI and a sub-zero WAR in the same season? It has only happened 18 times ever. As long as he plays a full season and bats behind Trout, he's likely to drive in 100 runs. I doubt he falls below replacement level this year but it's not impossible, especially if he is primarily going to DH.

2017 is old news. It's already 13 hours old here.

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

@Oz27 how hard do you get watching this video?

I would definitely sword fight with that dude in the bathroom.

3 hours ago, Troll Daddy said:

My last post for 2016

Yasmani Grandal is Noah Syndergaard

Salvador Perez is Hector Santiago 

This comparison is classic stuff! 

Enjoy a happy and safe New Year everyone 

 

Hey genius, I think you forgot to check the statistical category you seem to believe is most important...

Grandal's 2016 RBI total: 72

Perez's 2016 RBI total: 64

I thought RBIs were king?

2 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

Oz, I like you, you're a cool, intelligent guy and I'd probably sword fight in the bathroom with you, but I'm going to side with Doc on this one, and also respectfully disagree on the importance of pitch framing. I'm definitely more saber inclined than average, but this one just crawls under my skin. Partly because I, admittedly, don't understand it. But what I do understand makes no sense to me. 

I believe framing is important and should be given more respect in the stat field, but I'm just not onboard with WARP yet or the implication that framing is worth more than 1 win at most.

To me, this seems like a useful stat that's still working out the kinks.

Well sure, but who wouldn't you sword fight in the bathroom with?

On 28/12/2016 at 10:05 AM, disarcina said:

Harper --

saw him play last year in a couple of games at SF and, of course, have seen him on TV games.

what's the fuss?

In 2015, he had the best hitting season since Barry Bonds. Some of the recent greats of the sport, such as Trout, Cabrera and Pujols, have never had a season that good. How is that not worth a fuss?