History, Peaks and Mike Trout
Looking back on it, I think I took LeBron James for granted during his time in Cleveland.
When a player reaches a certain level of greatness, this can be a natural human response. You can only hear or read about one excelling at such a high level for so long before it starts to seem like old news. I wish I had gone to more Cavaliers games before James did a thing on TV that made me stop acknowledging his existence in the NBA, or really the existence of the NBA in general. He is, obviously, an incredibly special athlete who played right in my backyard, and I took him for granted.
You might be tired of hearing or reading about Mike Trout, but you really shouldn’t be. Don’t take this one for granted. Mike Trout is, obviously, an incredibly special athlete and, really, enough can’t be said about him.
A few things happened on Tuesday night: 1.) I attended the Indians vs. Angels game in celebration of my 23rd birthday. This was a day I circled on the calendar as soon as the MLB schedule came out, because I felt the baseball gods had given me a personal gift by allowing me the opportunity to see the world’s best baseball player on my birthday. 2.) I spent the day fretting about by Wednesday FanGraphs post as I am still in a state of laptop purgatory while I wait for my new, not broken MacBook to arrive in the mail. 3.) Mike Trout hit two more home runs and reminded me of a table I made long before I became a FanGraphs writer, simply because I was curious about Mike Trout’s place in history just two-plus seasons into his unprecedented career.
Mike Trout had arguably the greatest rookie season in MLB history two years ago and then followed it up with an even better one. After Tuesday night’s game, Trout is again tied for the major league lead in WAR and is projected for another 10-win season. His wRC+ is the highest of his career. Mike Trout, somehow, could still be getting better. We don’t know how the rest of this season will pan out, but we do have projections and, as Dave Cameron recently pointed out, you should trust the projections.
After two 10-win seasons, Mike Trout is projected to be right there again. It goes without saying, that is absolutely remarkable. And that’s before you even start to factor in that he’s still only 22 years old, which somewhat pains me to write on the evening I turn 23.
It started out with me wondering where Trout’s first three seasons may rank among baseball’s greatest peaks. It turned into me being fascinated by the peaks of MLB players throughout generations of baseball history. What follows is a (hopefully) complete, entirely sortable table of the 50 greatest three-year peaks in MLB history, by WAR, since the start of the live-ball era in 1920. I did this all by hand, so I may have missed a guy or two (and if I did, please let me know), but this should be a pretty comprehensive list. I used Trout’s first two seasons plus his updated ZiPS WAR projection. What one finds, among other things, is that Mike Trout is well on his way to one of the greatest three-year stretches the MLB has ever seen, trailing only Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, Mickey Mantle, Rogers Hornsby, Willie Mays and Ted Williams. Not bad company.
Please, play around with this table. That’s why it’s here. There is a lot of fun to be had with it. I find it interesting to sort by year to see which players defined each generation. Sort by age to find the insane disparity between when players peaked. Athletes are crazy. Eddie Mathews peaked when he was 21. Willie Mays didn’t peak until he was 32. Sort by position to create your own “Mount Rushmore” of each position. Sort by wRC+, Def or BsR to see how some of the game’s greatest players created their value. Check out the honorable mentions list to see where Trout’s first two seasons compare to the three-year peaks of some of the game’s greats. Or how some of the game’s current players, such as Andrew McCutchen, Evan Longoria and Miguel Cabrera fare. Just go crazy.
Anyway, enough talking. I’ll let you have your fun with it as you may. Enjoy:
| Player | Team(s) | WAR | Years | Age | Pos | wRC+ | Def | BsR | HR | SB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Babe Ruth | NYY | 35.7 | 1926-28 | 31-33 | RF | 209 | -0.7 | -5.6 | 161 | 22 |
| Barry Bonds | SFG | 35.0 | 2001-03 | 36-38 | LF | 231 | -8.3 | -3.5 | 164 | 29 |
| Mickey Mantle | NYY | 32.7 | 1955-57 | 23-25 | CF | 199 | +13.5 | +6.6 | 123 | 34 |
| Rogers Hornsby | STL | 31.5 | 1920-22 | 24-26 | 2B | 192 | +16.7 | -2.1 | 72 | 42 |
| Willie Mays | SFG | 31.0 | 1963-65 | 32-34 | CF | 178 | +43.8 | +3.1 | 137 | 36 |
| Ted Williams | BOS | 30.7 | 1946-48 | 27-29 | LF | 202 | -15.0 | -0.7 | 95 | 4 |
| Mike Trout* | LAA | 30.4 | 2012-14 | 20-22 | CF | 172 | +22.9 | +25.3 | 92 | 112 |
| Jimmie Foxx | PHI-A | 30.0 | 1932-34 | 24-26 | 1B | 186 | -5.1 | -2.2 | 150 | 16 |
| Lou Gehrig | NYY | 29.5 | 1927-29 | 24-26 | 1B | 187 | -8.0 | -7.7 | 109 | 18 |
| Joe Morgan | CIN | 29.1 | 1974-76 | 30-32 | 2B | 174 | +26.7 | +25.3 | 66 | 185 |
| Alex Rodriguez | SEA/TEX | 27.1 | 2000-02 | 24-26 | SS | 158 | +40.3 | +5.6 | 150 | 42 |
| Stan Musial | STL | 26.8 | 1948-50 | 27-29 | LF | 182 | -10.8 | +2.3 | 103 | 15 |
| Carl Yastrzemski | BOS | 26.1 | 1967-69 | 27-29 | LF | 166 | +36.8 | +0.8 | 107 | 38 |
| Joe DiMaggio | NYY | 25.7 | 1939-41 | 24-26 | CF | 176 | +19.9 | -1.0 | 91 | 8 |
| Mike Schmidt | PHI | 25.7 | 1974-76 | 24-26 | 3B | 150 | +55.9 | +1.1 | 112 | 66 |
| Ron Santo | CHC | 25.6 | 1965-67 | 25-27 | 3B | 152 | +43.9 | -1.6 | 94 | 8 |
| Ernie Banks | CHC | 25.5 | 1958-60 | 27-29 | SS | 144 | +70.2 | -2.2 | 133 | 7 |
| Albert Pujols | STL | 25.5 | 2003-05 | 23-25 | 1B | 174 | -23.4 | +15.4 | 130 | 26 |
| Jackie Robinson | BKN | 25.4 | 1949-51 | 30-32 | 2B | 152 | +51.8 | +11.7 | 49 | 74 |
| Wade Boggs | BOS | 25.4 | 1985-87 | 27-29 | 3B | 160 | +26.6 | -3.5 | 40 | 3 |
| Ken Griffey Jr. | SEA | 25.3 | 1996-98 | 26-28 | CF | 148 | +49.3 | +5.7 | 161 | 51 |
| Duke Snider | BKN | 24.8 | 1953-55 | 26-28 | CF | 167 | +10.3 | -0.2 | 124 | 31 |
| Arky Vaughan | PIT | 24.2 | 1934-36 | 22-24 | SS | 167 | +18.3 | +2.9 | 40 | 20 |
| Eddie Mathews | MIL | 24.1 | 1953-55 | 21-23 | 3B | 167 | +14.7 | +0.4 | 128 | 14 |
| Rickey Henderson | NYY/OAK | 24.0 | 1988-90 | 29-31 | LF | 150 | +24.1 | +31.3 | 46 | 235 |
| George Sisler | STL-B | 24.0 | 1920-22 | 27-29 | 1B | 163 | -2.7 | +12.1 | 39 | 128 |
| Cal Ripken Jr. | BAL | 23.6 | 1983-85 | 22-24 | SS | 139 | +60.7 | -2.8 | 80 | 4 |
| Jason Giambi | OAK/NYY | 23.5 | 2000-02 | 29-31 | 1B | 184 | -39.6 | -5.0 | 122 | 6 |
| Charlie Gehringer | DET | 23.5 | 1934-36 | 31-33 | 2B | 141 | +45.1 | -1.6 | 45 | 26 |
| Chase Utley | PHI | 23.4 | 2007-09 | 28-30 | 2B | 141 | +49.6 | +15.7 | 86 | 46 |
| Mel Ott | NYG | 23.4 | 1936-38 | 27-29 | RF | 172 | +5.3 | +1.9 | 100 | 15 |
| Hank Aaron | MIL | 23.3 | 1961-63 | 27-29 | RF | 166 | +8.2 | +5.5 | 123 | 67 |
| Jeff Bagwell | HOU | 22.5 | 1997-99 | 29-31 | 1B | 164 | -12.5 | +3.7 | 119 | 80 |
| Gary Carter | MON | 22.3 | 1982-84 | 28-30 | C | 137 | +73.8 | -2.3 | 73 | 5 |
| Lou Boudreau | CLE | 22.2 | 1946-48 | 28-30 | SS | 138 | +68.1 | -2.3 | 28 | 10 |
| George Brett | KCR | 22.2 | 1978-80 | 25-27 | 3B | 154 | +39.7 | +2.1 | 56 | 55 |
| Mike Piazza | LAD/FLA/NYM | 22.2 | 1996-98 | 27-29 | C | 166 | +12.8 | -0.7 | 108 | 6 |
| Johnny Bench | CIN | 22.1 | 1972-74 | 24-26 | C | 138 | +52.9 | -0.5 | 98 | 15 |
| Rod Carew | MIN | 22.0 | 1975-77 | 29-31 | 2B/1B | 159 | +5.6 | +5.1 | 37 | 107 |
| Dick Allen | PHI | 22.0 | 1964-66 | 22-24 | 3B | 160 | -9.3 | +1.6 | 89 | 28 |
| Hank Greenberg | DET | 22.0 | 1937-39 | 26-28 | 1B | 159 | -14.2 | -1.2 | 131 | 23 |
| Scott Rolen | PHI/STL | 21.9 | 2002-04 | 27-29 | 3B | 140 | +58.3 | +2.0 | 93 | 25 |
| Harry Heilmann | DET | 21.9 | 1923-25 | 28-30 | RF | 163 | -14.1 | +3.4 | 41 | 28 |
| Ralph Kiner | PIT | 21.8 | 1947-49 | 24-26 | LF | 164 | -11.8 | +1.0 | 145 | 8 |
| Tris Speaker^ | CLE | 21.7 | 1921-23 | 33-35 | CF | 167 | -0.6 | +2.1 | 31 | 18 |
| Willie McCovey | SFG | 21.7 | 1968-70 | 30-32 | 1B | 179 | -35.7 | +0.6 | 120 | 4 |
| Frank Robinson | CIN | 21.6 | 1960-62 | 24-26 | RF | 165 | -9.1 | +3.8 | 107 | 53 |
| Roberto Clemente | PIT | 21.5 | 1966-68 | 31-33 | RF | 153 | +21.7 | +1.1 | 70 | 18 |
| Robin Yount | MIL | 21.5 | 1982-84 | 26-28 | SS | 144 | +27.4 | +3.1 | 62 | 40 |
| Joe Gordon | NYY | 21.5 | 1941-43 | 26-28 | 2B | 134 | +64.1 | -4.3 | 59 | 26 |
*Includes 2014 updated ZiPS Projection
^Actual peak occurred 1912-14 (28.5 WAR)
Honorable mentions: Andruw Jones (21.5), Johnny Mize (21.5), Bobby Grich (21.4), Evan Longoria (21.3), Joe Cronin (21.3), Mark McGwire (21.2), Mike Trout+ (21.1), Miguel Cabrera (21.1), Joe Medwick (21.1), Sammy Sosa (21.0), Todd Helton (20.9), Craig Biggio (20.8), Darrell Evans (20.8), Willie Stargell (20.7), Snuffy Stirnweiss (20.7), Frank Thomas (20.6), George Foster (20.6), Andrew McCutchen (20.4), Al Rosen (20.4), Chipper Jones (20.4), Jim Edmonds (20.2), Luis Gonzalez (20.2), Ryne Sandberg (20.1), Andre Dawson (20.0), Larry Doby (20.0), David Wright (20.0), Tim Raines (19.9), Carlos Beltran (19.9), Frankie Frisch (19.9), Billy Herman (19.8), Bobby Abreu (19.7), Goose Goslin (19.6), Hanley Ramirez (19.6), Tony Perez (19.5), Luke Appling (19.5), Graig Nettles (19.5), Kenny Lofton (19.4), Don Mattingly (19.4), Ivan Rodriguez (19.4), Ken Boyer (19.4), Eddie Murray (19.3), Brooks Robinson (19.2), Pete Rose (19.1), Jeff Kent (19.1), Rico Petrocelli (19.1), Edgar Martinez (19.0), Robinson Cano (19.0).
+Two seasons.
August used to cover the Indians for MLB and ohio.com, but now he's here and thinks writing these in the third person is weird. So you can reach me on Twitter @AugustFG_ or e-mail at august.fagerstrom@fangraphs.com.
Just-DFA’d Grady Sizemore put up 21.2 WAR 2006-8. That page tells such a sad story.
No doubt. Especially as someone who watched him everyday when he first came up in Cleveland.
There’s definitely going to be a good number of players missing in the honorable mentions section, btw. Just way too many 19+ win three-year peaks to catch them all. The top 50 should be accurate, though.
BBRef has Barry Bonds as Sizemore’s #1 comp through age 26.
June 27, 2002: Traded by the Montreal Expos with Cliff Lee, Brandon Phillips and Lee Stevens to the Cleveland Indians for Bartolo Colon and Tim Drew.
As one-sided as that trade was, it’s almost as amazing that Colon will probably retire after Sizemore.
It’s astonishing now that they gave all that up for a rental. But still: Phillips was awful as an Indian, and Lee only found his Cy Young form right before being traded for a bunch of guys who are still kicking around AAA. What’s crazy is how one-sided that trade COULD have been.
Great article August.
But Mike Trout always tossing his metrics this year.
In April,he had a good month.
In may,not that good
Now pretty awesome.
But how do you know a 22years old guy next month?*
And,of course,projecting system had him steal 30bases ,but now,only nine.
Trout hasn’t steal more bases than before.
Woah…
,woah,
,
Hey,whats up?
Your haiku syllables are a little off, C-. Here, I fixed it for you:
Great writeup August
But Mike Trout always tossing
His metrics this year
In April, a good month
In May, he was not that good
Now, pretty awesome
But how do you know
what a 22 year old
guy does next month, right?
Projecting system
Had him steal 30 bases
But now, only nine.
Trout hasn’t steal more bases than before.
Comment of the year, here
Hey,for American,grammer is not all that important any time!!
. Great article in January
But this year, Mr Mike is always to give up their industrial efforts.
In April, it was a good month.
In May this year, is not great
Table of Contents.
But next month, which is a 22-year-old, you know? *
And, of course, is to increase 30bases routes, but now only nine.
More fish than before.
Can you just shut up?
‘But how do you know a 22years old guy next month?*’
Fangraphs is the perfect site to find the answer to your own question.
There is a very, very good chance that Mike Trout’s next month will be July
Sometimes… the words… they are so difficult.
Amazingly, Ted Williams had 3 consecutive seasons (that he actually played in) that added up to 34.4 WAR. He missed 1943-1945 to WWII…
Imagine what that 7 year stretch could have looked like (1941-1947).
Yup. I originally had him in the table for 34.4 until I realized he missed three seasons for the war. Remarkable.
I originally clicked on Ted’s page to see how he produced at such a high level with that low of a HR total (along with negative defense/Bsr). Turns out it’s pretty simple, walk at a 20%+ pace and strike out 7% of the time.
And hit .351!
All it takes!
So where the hell did I go wrong?
Getting on base more than anyone else in history is a good place to start.
If I can get 19.3 WAR during the war, imagine how much war-era WAR Williams would have gotten!
Yo dawg, I herd u like war, so I put some WAR in your war so you can evaluate Ted Williams as if he had never gone to war.
Great chart. Sort by peak year and you get Bonds’ peak as 3 years later than the next latest guy.
And for a less controversial Bonds, he put up 27.9 WAR between 1991-1993, his 26-28 seasons.
That still leaves him 10th.
AND he put up 26.6 WAR between 1996-1998, his age 31-33 seasons.
Barry Bonds was a pretty good baseball player.
Yeah, it’s probably fair to say he wasn’t shabby.
There was also a strike in ’94 fwiw, not that he was on pace for more than about 8 or so WAR
I was wondering if anyone “qualified” (for lack of a better term) more than once.
Also its quite crazy to think that Trout may or may not have peaked yet.
I really hope Trout gets his MVP this year. Too many snubs already. 🙁
Of course, voters will just conveniently ignore defense, baserunning, and ballpark factors and say that Cabrera has “pretty good defense” and is a “heads up runner.”
Or they will just focus on context dependent stats like normal.
Praying that the Angels make the playoffs so the team narrative doesn’t come into play!
Voters should focus on context dependent stats for the MVP. The context actually matters if the “value” in MVP is related to winning baseball games.
It’s a good thing Trout’s leading baseball in WPA this year then.
RE24 is where it’s at in terms of context stats.
“The context actually matters if the “value” in MVP is related to winning baseball games.”
For example, if Miguel Cabrera were as good as Mike Trout, the Tigers would have won more games?
Commenting on my own article: Anyone else as shocked as I am that Scott Rolen cracked the top 50, having a better peak than Frank Robinson and Roberto Clemente?
How high Chase Utley ranks surprised me, too.
Also, I guess I never realized how amazing Joe Morgan was. He carried that same level of production for five seasons, too.
He was as good at baseball as he is bad at color commentating on it. If that puts it in perspective.
Giambi and Rolen surprised me. Utley less so. His five year peak was absolutely bananas, and was criminally overlooked at the time.
And Giambi made it despite the lowest defensive rating of any player in the top-50. Shows how great of a hitter he was during his peak.
The other thing that really shocked me was Pujols’ baserunning value being fifth-highest, ahead of Jackie Robinson and Rod Carew, despite having stolen only 26 bases. I knew he was very athletic in his prime, but he must have been the master of taking the extra base to rack up that type of value without stealing much.
Watching Pujols during his peak was incredible. He’s never been fast, especially now that his legs are held together by duct tape and wishes, but he was always so intelligent when it came to baserunning. Albert was great at taking extra bases and very rarely ran into outs.
The issue with that is that Pujols’ baserunning value includes UBR numbers, which aren’t available for Jackie and Carew.
Pirates fan here, and broadcasters used to rave about Pujols taking the extra base so often. So you’re correct, yes.
Ben Zobrist (18.5 best 3 years) almost made honorable mention, and so I’m not exactly shocked that Rolen and especially Utley made this list due to their high level of Zobristness.
I think the proper term for that is “Zobristicity”, actually.
Rolen was Evan Longoria before Evan Longoria was Evan Longoria.
Criminally underrated player.
Nope. Rolen is/was criminally underrated. Utley is kind of the same. I think the problem with both of them is that a lot of their value comes from their defense while being above average hitters for their position but never really put together truly epic offensive seasons. I didn’t look at every guy on the list, but one thing that jumps out at me is Rolen and Utley each had only one season with a wOBA north of .400. Every other guy I checked (aside from Gary Carter who gets crazy defensive value added) had multiple .400+ wOBA seasons.
Ironic that being the stat geeks, these are the guys we should be ahead of the curve on.
If not for the Hee-seop Choi collision, Rolen might have been able to put up an even more impressive three-year peak. The guy did not have the best durability to begin with, but the Choi collision derailed him just when he was hitting that peak. Then it was surgery after surgery for Rolen, though he still ended up putting together a quite respectable career and was crucial to the Cardinals’ two pennants and World Series win.
Utley’s massive DEF numbers make me a skeptic.
You might be tired of hearing or reading about Mike Trout…
That’s like getting tired of beer or baseball.
Or, like getting tired of watching Mike Trout.
Here’s what Trout’s career would look like if he followed Bonds’s aging curve:
http://replacementlevel.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/fun-with-aging-curves/
If he follows Bonds’ aging curve, he is not getting in here.
Since everyone else was older, Trout is pretty much a lock for best three-year start of a career, right?
Yeah. I can’t give you a guarantee very quickly (without running a better query with more powerful tools), but this should give you a pretty good idea:
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2014&month=0&season1=1871&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=14,22&filter=&players=0
Notice PAs
Andruw Jones defense LOL
Here is the spreadsheet with everything.
I took the formulas out because of the calculation time, but I left them on the row with the player named Formula (playerid 0).
You can add rows or modify the WAR cell as the years go by.
You can also add columns to your hearts desire. Just be careful of the intensive calculating you may have to wait for.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EULl8sg4smepLB03Tv52KlmI4tTTroxvX1zYkFGkj4M/edit?usp=sharing
So Trout is actually third in for the best 3 year start to a career but only because he had that tiny first year.
I didn’t want to factor in something to address that though because the threshold would be too much of a judgement. Just consider that though, in basically 2 seasons’ time, he had the 3rd best 3 year start.
As for 4 year start, he’s 8th already and on track for 2nd. Only behind Ted Williams. Again, that’s with basically 3 seasons’ time for the first 4 years.
I wasn’t counting his 2011, because he didn’t qualify as a rookie until 2012. Was that wrong?
Am I missing something? Isn’t Ruth’s peak from 1919-21, not 1926-8? Does the first one include his pitching numbers?
Oh wait, I forgot about the 1920 cutoff. Ruth had an awful year in 1922 otherwise he would blow everyone out of the water.
The All-Beef division (those on the list with negative Def and BsR): Ruth, Gehrig, Bonds, Giambi, Foxx, Greenberg, Williams…
The Well-Rounded Meal division (those on the list with +20 Def and +20 BsR): Trout, Morgan, Henderson
arbitrary, yes! but still fun…
I think that’s one reason why people might take Trout’s talent for granted, whereas few people took Bonds’ talent for granted at the turn of the century. Bonds was by far the better hitter, and it was a treat to watch him come to the plate 4 or 5 times a game. No matter how much you needed to pee, you’d hold off if Bonds was coming up to the plate. It’s harder to avoid bathroom breaks when the Angels are in the field though, hoping that Trout makes a nice play in the field. Or once he’s on base, hoping to see him go first to third.
For an Angels fan who watches him every day, it must be sensational seeing every aspect of his game on a daily basis. For a casual baseball fan, or a diehard fan of another team, it’s harder to appreciate.
Bonds is a career .298 hitter And didn’t put up MVP numbers till he was 25.
And Trout already has two offensive seasons better than that MVP season.
Bonds was not a better hitter when he was Trout’s current age. Let’s see what Trout can do in his mid 20s before we compare them as hitters.
He also more or less wasted the time he spent in University – that is to say, he didn’t develop there.
Trout has a top 5 or 10 average HR distance since coming up. He’s doing this at <23. I don't think you can compare the two yet. Although, I'd hypothesize that a lot of the increased power as guys age is they mature more physically. I don't see how Trout could get much more bulky without severely negating a lot of what makes him a threat everywhere. So instead of having the usual power curve, he just might hit 25-35 home runs every year forever.
If Trout makes these projections for 2014, he will be the first player in history to total 30+ WAR over a 3-year period while averaging a 30/30 HR/SB combo.
In other words, Trout = 30/30/30 Club
I understand that FanGraphs and Baseball-Reference calculate WAR differently, but you are usually pretty close. Not so much on Mike Trout’s 2013, when you think Trout was better than 2012, while BR thinks he declined by nearly 2 WAR. Would the reason for the discrepancy be instructive to us, or would be be so technical as to be boring and incomprehensible to most of us?
Pretty sure it comes down to the way the two sites calculate defensive value. Someone much smarter than me certainly knows more on the discrepancy, though.
That is correct. Bref has him at -9 in 2014 and FG has him at +4.4 for a defence difference of 13.4. Simply the variance in how DRS and UZR are calculated.
And DRS had him significantly better than UZR did in 2012.
Baseball Reference has Mike Trout’s DWar at .3. Not -9.
And last year he was at -.9 not -9.
And just to add to the confusion, Baseball Prospectus uses an entirely different system, based on the number of chances the player handles in the field compared to the average player at that position. Last I checked, Trout’s defense on this system ranked him around 140th, about 100 places below that all time wizard with a glove, Miguel Cabrera. This is not a joke.
Bonds’ age 39 season just missed being included, in which he hit .362/.609/.812 – good for a 233 wRC+. Incredible 4 year stretch. I anticipate that you will be making this comparison a year from now with Trout.
I’ve already started making the four-year peak table in anticipation for next year!
Bonds’ 1990-1993 season stretch was funny. 9.9, 9.6, 7.6, 10.5. That’ll make the list for sure.
Is funny the right word?
I loled..
It’s incredible that that was only a 233 wRC+.
That .812 SLG would be the 40th highest OPS this year
Cobb is conspicuously absent.
Omitted due to the post-1920 restriction. He had a 31 WAR peak from 1909-1911. Post-1920 his best peak was 18 WAR.
I don’t think Randall “Tex’ Cobb’s peak lasted three years.
That ‘Def’ next to Gary Carter’s name is pretty unreal. +73.8 over a 3-year period? And +35.6 in 1983? My lord!
He was my favorite player as a kid, although I was too young to appreciate him at his peak in Montreal. In fact, my only real memory of him as an Expo is when I drove to Montreal in 2002 (or was it 2003?) to get his Bobblehead. I’m sure I’ve seen his page a dozen times, but I had forgotten just how dominant he was in the late 70’s and early 80’s.
Mike Trout, at age 22, already has 25.8 career WAR.
By comparison, fellow CF and first-ballot Hall of Famer Kirby Puckett only had 22.3 career WAR by his 29th birthday
Nomar – 21.2 WAR from 98-00, ages 25-27
NOMAR!
(if I could put an SNL Boston teens picture here, I would)
Sal Bando – 19.7 from 69-71
Miguel Cabrera – 21.1 from 11-13
Hypothetical question. How many seasons would Mike Trout have to continue this level of production to get a Koufax like HOF case for having a dominant peak. If he completed this season with 10 WAR and then retired would one of the ten best 3 year spans be enough? How about if he did it a fourth time? Obviously the circumstances of why he retired would effect how HOF voters would feel about it. Personally I think 4 would be enough. If he finished his first four seasons with 40 WAR and hung it up, he’d be a HOFer to me. Just wonder what others think.
I think it would take 5.
Plus winning the World Series or something would help.
One small hitch: you need to play 10 years in the majors to be eligible for the HoF.
As an Angels fan, I will take that.
Interesting question.
I like to look at the career Wins Above Average instead of WAR when looking at possible HOFers. Generally total WAA over 30 gives you a good shot and a WAA over 40 means you should expect to get inducted.
Koufax had a WAA of 30.7 over a truncated career with a high peak value. Trout already has a WAA of 18.8 through 2 1/2 seasons, so if he keeps up this pace for 4 seasons he’d have a career WAA over 30, already in the ballpark of other Hall Of Famers.
So if he has to retire because his arm is falling off or because he gets glaucoma and loses his sight, he just might get in.
30.7 18.8
I’m not saying this is how it should be, but a WS or MVP ring would help sway a lot of writers too. Generally the cutoff is around 60 WAR, right? I’d have to imagine 6 seasons of this level of play, he’d be a dead lock assuming he didn’t just quit baseball because he was bored or something.
With how big a grain of salt should we take the historical defensive and baserunning numbers? If you sort by wRC+ Trout is in the second tier.
The samples seem quite large for the defensive numbers. I would think over three years they would be pretty close to the “accurate” value. The Baserunning values don’t include UBR (which comes from advancing 2 bases on a single and the like), which I think would tend to penalize both fast players and those with good instincts, while benefiting those who were poor in said respects.
But what is the actual historical data? Who recorded an out in the box score?
Sean Forman designed the formulas that are used, and has written about it at length.
pretty huge. we know defense in general substantially improved from the 1900’s to modern day, this is not reflected in babe ruth’s neutral defense. like hell he would
How so? He had a fantastic arm, wasn’t slow (or fast), but also had fantastic instincts and routes – there was an article on Baseball Almanac or something compiling remarks to that effect by quite a number of commentators.
That Ruth was a dominant pitcher early in his career likely means he was also a fantastic athlete, not simply a hitter. You don’t have to be fast to be a good base runner or defender. The movie of Ruth rounding the bases that helps form the image of Ruth was, I think, late in his career, and although he is overweight, he is not lumbering, actually looks still pretty light on his feet.
My guess is that Ruth was probably pretty good at anything baseball.
Way too aggressive though.
He’s still 15th by wRC+, and let’s not forget he’s the youngest player on that list. Bot unthinkable that he has better years ahead of him.
Not
The same grain of salt you should be taking wRC+ with that far back, given segregation, the draft, fewer teams, minor leagues, specialized relievers, etc., etc.
Chuck Knoblauch – 20.7 from 95-97
Cesar Cedeno from ’72-74 put up 20.5 WAR, good enough for Others Receiving Votes.
Al Simmons had 23.4 I think, from 1929-1931 for the A’s.
Big Hurt had 20.5 in his peak.
We’ll put Andruw Jones and Bobby Grich in the honorable mention category too.
I’m surprised that Ernie Banks’ defense during his 3-year peak is evaluated so high. Second highest defensive peak, behind Gary Carter, among those on the table. I never hear his defense praised and he moved from SS to 1B mid-career, so I didn’t know that. Do we think the defensive metric is right about Banks’ defense?
The Def score for older players is the only thing giving me pause on this table. It drives a lot of the value for some of them (like Rolen) but to me is very unreliable. This gets back to vivalajeter’s comment – was Gary Carter really that exceptional at catcher defense? How can we claim to measure it accurately?
Carter’s arm was terrific, and he played in an era where teams ran far more than they do now. In 1983, for example, he led the league with a 47% caught stealing percentage, and he picked off 10 baserunners. By comparison, Yadier Molina has never picked off more than 9 baserunners in a season. Carter also seldom took a day off, which presumably affects the weight of his defensive value.
I think Bench and Molina were/are better defensively than Carter, but not by a wide margin.
Rolen was sick at third base.
Banks moved to 1B because he tore up his knee, so it’s quite possible that his defense was top-notch before that.
Pre-2000 Bonds would also make the list with 27.8 WAR from 91-93
Is there a way/stat to smooth out the ridiculous base running a defensive WARs above a certain threshold? Or does WAR already do that? There must be some sort of diminished returns when a guy like Gary Carter had a +79 defensive WAR to Trout’s +22. I mean, over the course of a year, the difference must be only a handful of plays as opposed to 600+ at bats. Also, I think Thomas and Cabrera should get more, not less, credit for amassing their WARs while being otherwise limited by their size. You can’t teach every 6-4 260+ guy to be fast.
So do thin,short guys get “extra credit” for hitting for power?
I think the diminishing returns to defense only apply on a team basis, not an individual basis.
August, what is your confidence in the defensive value assigned to players pre-UZR? e.g. Mays is in the top 5 partly because of +44 runs on defense in CF. Does that seem high to you?
‘Hmmm’ and I thinking along the same lines I guess
He has 25.0 WAR right now for the stretch beginning in 2012, which puts him in 22d place. Notice also that no on on this list was as young as Trout is, with Matthews the only player whose age period even overlaps with Tout’s.
25.1. And 24.0 on BBRef, 23.80 on BBPro.
Charlie Keller – 21.7 from 41-43
Willie Mays was in the top four in WAR in MLB for 13 straight years. Eight of those years he was #1 in MLB. Trout is great, but we will see in 13 years
how he stacks up.
That should give you plenty of time to come up with another arbitrary standard he hasn’t met yet.
I’ve followed Trout pretty much since the day he was called up. I’ve taken every opportunity to watch him play and I’ve followed his stats when I couldn’t. I’ve been saying since his first month that he’d be the best player of his generation, with a chance to end up an all-time great.
Of course, that doesn’t make me an expert on all matters Trout, and I’m not looking for a cookie for jumping on the bandwagon so early. I say all this because, as much as it pains me to acknowledge, it looks for all the world like he’s on steroids. His profile as a player has changed pretty dramatically since his rookie year, and his head has grown (literally) quite a bit.
I feel like this is probably an unpopular sentiment around these parts, but I’m curious whether anyone else who’s watched Trout the past three years has come to similar conclusions. I’m not saying there’s enough evidence to warrant a suspension or anything of that sort, but I think at this point, you have to presume that everyone’s guilty. That’s just the reality of baseball and of sports in general. I for one would not be the least bit surprised if he fails a test in the near future.
He is young enough that growth for him is perfectly normal. Certainly there should be no steroid suspicions just based on bodily changes from years 20-22.
1. Can we stop pretending that being muscular means your on steroids? There were plenty of fat middle relievers and skinny infielders on the mitchell report. It wasn’t all bulky home run hitters.
2. A 20-22 year old kid’s body is naturally producing huge amounts of testosterone, and naturally growing larger.
3. A change in his approach (an attempt to hit for more power) has nothing to do with steroids.
4. Who cares? There are rules in place and a very good testing program. If he is cheating he will get caught eventually and be punished accordingly. There is no sense prognosticating and moralizing before the fact (actually there isn’t a reason to moralize after the fact).
“If he is cheating he will get caught eventually and be punished accordingly. ”
Sure, if there just happens to be another Biogenesis, and MLB acts aggressively to go after their documents.
“it looks for all the world like he’s on steroids. His profile as a player has changed pretty dramatically since his rookie year, and his head has grown (literally) quite a bit.”
Any data on this and any context against which to compare it? It’s only an unpopular sentiment because typically a *sentiment* is all it is. Unthoughtful, hollow suspicion.
Scouts often comment on a players ability to grow into their frame. I think this is definitely the case with Trout. From the days as a prospect people were excited for what he was actually doing. But what really got them excited was his frame. They saw the potential for a guy to hit 40 HR’s and steal 40 bases all while playing elite level defense in CF.
As far as actual evidence of a change in his batting profile, there was an article on fangraphs a few weeks ago that talked a bit about that (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/forcing-a-reason-to-worry-about-mike-trout/). He’s hitting a lot more FBs, pulling the ball more, and making a bit less contact.
As far as ‘growing into his frame’, certainly that’s a possibility. But people’s heads normally don’t grow, and Trout’s has. And he’s not nearly as much of a threat on the bases as he was when he first came up.
Now, it’s possible that I’m wrong about this, and as a Trout fan I hope that’s the case. Certainly none of this is definitive proof. He’s made an adjustment at the plate – trying to hit for more power as he’s bulked up – and it’s possible that he’s deciding to reduce risk of an injury by toning it down on the bases. But I think those changes, combined with the growth of his head, are enough to be suspicious.
How do you know Mike Trout’s head circumference has increased? Are you his hatter? If Trout’s head circumference has increased since the age of about 10, then he is in big trouble. It would almost certainly be caused by a tumor.
Anabolic steroids do not cause an increase in head size. HGH does not cause an increase in head size. Body builders and other muscular athletes can give the impression of having a large head. But that is due to hypertrophy of the neck and trapezius muscles. It’s an illusion.
If you think Mike Trout’s physique is suspicious, look no further than genetics. Trout resembles his father, although Trout is much taller. Trout’s father is built like a blacksmith. It isn’t unusual for men, even athletes, to fill out in their early twenties. Even the presumably clean Ken Griffey Junior put on about 25 pounds in his early 20’s. And it wasn’t fat. Cal Ripken Junior actually grew an inch in height and put on about 30 pounds after the age of 21.
The diminished number of stolen bases seems largely due to Albert’s inability to hit when someone has the green light.
I agree with the above post. Trout is 9 for 9 in steal attempts this year. There’s no change in his frequency of hitting triples either.
I don’t see the evidence for him becoming slower, nor am I sure that’s consistent with using anabolic steroids.
Trout stole a base the other night where he thought the ball was fouled off so he stopped running. He walked into second base and still beat the throw.
@Belloc:
HGH does cause bone growth. In adult males, since the growth plates have been fused, this results in deformities with prolonged and heavy use. This is why most pro bodybuilders have pronounced brows, huge jaws, and generally look like neandertals.
Griffey also gained weight, I suspect, not from working out and gaining muscle, but from simply gaining weight from eating and not working out. I use as evidence the appearance of a gut and double chin by the end of his time in Seattle. If you’re an extremely athletic person, and you develop a gut by your late 20s, you’re either eating terribly or not working out. Or both.
@Erik: That steal was amazing.
Oh, steroids don’t make your head bigger? Go ahead and take a look at Barry Bonds’ cranial expansion through the years, or maybe some of the other notorious fatheads like Canseco and McGwire. A-Rod too, of course. Pumpkin heads, every one of them, and hardly a facial feature to split amongst them.
Doug Flynn – -5.3 77-79
fuck the live ball era
It’s remarkable to me that Griffey had nearly as many homeruns in his three year peak as Bonds three year peak on this list, the 3-year period that included that 73 homerun explosion.
I miss watching Ken Griffey, Jr. playing baseball. Mike Trout is my current favorite player, and he is better than Griffey at this age, and projects to have a better career than Griffey, but there was nothing like watching Griffey growing up. He was the definition of cool when he was a Mariner. I miss that swing.
It’s funny to see Trout’s and Morgan’s numbers line up so nicely- batting, fielding and baserunning. The OBP/slugging mix was, of course, different, but otherwise it does capture something.
Trout is projected to finish the year with 10 total WAR (ZiPS). If we say screw the projections (sorry Dave) and just extrapolate Trout’s current performance, that puts him at 11.6 WAR if he plays every game the rest of the year. That’d move him up to fourth at 32 WAR.
Bonds is even more of an anomaly for age than Trout. While Trout (20-22) has 4 players with 5 overlap years (21-23; 22-24 3 times), Bonds (36-38) has none, just one player within 1 year (33-35) and a second player within 2 years (32-34). While Bonds amassed 35.0 WAR at age 36-38, Willie Mays totaled 13.7 WAR at the same age.
There are a few young players somewhat close to Trout’s performance; there are no old players close to Bond’s performance.
Mike you awesome, but you playing for second place.
This is awesome. Happy birthday.
I want someone smarter than me to make the argument that Trout’s numbers are even more impressive considering that the level of competition is somehow way better than it was back in the “good old days.” Like no one will be able to put up 15 WAR because replacement level is better now than back then. Has this already been covered, statted-out?
I just feel like, say, today’s Mets would destroy an elite team from the ’50s. This is a thing I imagine for fun and it makes thinking about today’s Mets not such a bad thing.
Great article August.
But Mike Trout always tossing his metrics this year.
In April,he had a good month.
In may,not that good
Now pretty awesome.
But how do you know a 22years old guy next month?*
And,of course,projecting system had him steal 30bases ,but now,only nine.
Trout hasn’t steal more bases than before.
What we need to do is at least get an adjustment for guys who only played against whites.
Maybe have a formula for how much worse they’d be. Calculate it based on how many white players wouldn’t have been in the league to drill HRs off and how much adding other elite athletes would increase what replacement level is.
I think someone has looked into this, and for the most part the exclusion of non-whites from the pool of players roughly offsets the smaller number of major league teams, so its about a wash.
I guess the period between Jackie Robinson and the first expansion in 1961 would have a peak level of “average talent”. We might be moving into that direction again with all the extra Latin and Asian players coming in since the last expansion 16 years ago.
How does the WAR calculation account for the variance in number on teams in the league? In the 60’s there was 20 teams compared to 30 now. So a replacement player was better in the 60’s compared to now. Is it like trying to compare batting average of a .300 hitter in ’61 to a .300 hitter in 2013, when the league average is 2013 is .010 higher?
I still think – I dunno – conditioning and other science-y things outweigh the smaller talent pool arguments.
It absolutely does not follow that, because there were 20 teams in 1960 and 30 teams now, a replacement player was better in 1960. As a matter of fact, it is much more likely that a replacement player is better now, for reasons that Nick cites, among others.
The talent pool thins out immediately following every expansion,for obvious reasons, but there is more than enough athletic talent to go around, and once a bunch more players are scouted and developed the talent pool returns to essentially where it was before. Add to that general improvements in conditioning, training and development, baseball’s expanded reach into other countries/continents, etc, and if anything the talent pool relative to the number of teams is probably much larger now.
Your point of players being better today, make the comparison of WAR from different periods even less relevant. It that your believe, this whole comparison is an apples to orange exercise.
In other fun thought experiments: A game consisting of only five at-bats between Trout and Kershaw.
I’d pay to watch that on HBO Sports. And it would obviously have the cool boxing-max-style posters.
Another interesting thing to look at is how many of these three in a row guys were better than all their peers for each of the 3 years, in others words, winning the WAR title over everyone else in MLB.
PLAYER Season Consecutive Seasons
Honus Wagner 1908 7
Hughie Jennings 1898 4
Willie Mays 1965 4
Barry Bonds 2004 4
Ross Barnes 1873 3
Babe Ruth 1921 3
Babe Ruth 1928 3
Mickey Mantle 1957 3
Wade Boggs 1988 3
Mike Trout 2014 3
And Ross Barnes is here strictly because of the original rules that made a ball fair if it landed in fair territory, even if it rolled foul before passing 1B or 3B. Barnes made his living on bunting the ball with English on it so it would roll into foul territory after landing fair.
If not for the rule change he inspired, we’d probably be looking at Rod Carew as the G.O.A.T. right now.
Probably not going to be read by anyone at this point BUT
I took a look at this list and decided to figure out how many of them belonged to the hall of fame.
Here are the players on that list not in the HOF –
Barry Bonds – On ballot
Mike Trout* – Active player
Alex Rodriguez – Active player
Albert Pujols – Active player
Ken Griffey Jr. – Not eligible for voting yet
Jason Giambi – Active player
Chase Utley – Active player
Jeff Bagwell – On ballot
Mike Piazza – On ballot
Dick Allen – The only player on this list that is outright not a part of the hall of fame.
Scott Rolen – Not yet eligible