History, Peaks, and Mike Trout: The Year Four Update

We’ve gone exactly one day without baseball, so it’s probably time to write another post about Mike Trout.

The framing device I used the first time I wrote this post was LeBron James. I’m a Cavaliers fan, and when I’d written the post, LeBron James played for the Miami Heat and I didn’t think I’d ever see him play for Cleveland again. When LeBron first left for Miami, I was sad, of course, but the initial sadness was simply “my favorite team is bad again.” The later sadness, the sadness that stuck, was the crippling fear that I’d taken James’ time in Cleveland, his truly historic time, for granted. That I hadn’t appreciated him enough. That I’d gotten too used to how incredible he was, rather than being thankful each and every day that he existed, and that I could watch him do the things he does, feeling pride that he represented my city. The thing about realizing you took something special for granted is, you almost never get another chance to re-do it. I got lucky with LeBron.

Mike Trout just posted another nine-win season, and he’s likely to finish as runner-up MVP yet again. Another indisputably historic season that won’t be recognized as such at year’s end. It’s not anyone’s fault, really. The first year, Miguel Cabrera won a freaking Triple Crown. The next year, he had an even better season. Then Trout had his “worst” year yet and finally got his MVP. This year, Josh Donaldson will absolutely deserve the MVP he most likely wins. More than one person can, and usually does, deserve it, after all.

It feels like Bryce Harper helped take some of the shine away from Trout this season. Perhaps rightfully so. But there should be enough shine to go around for the both of them. Not to say Trout goes unappreciated. Fans of the game recognize that he’s special. They recognize Harper is special. But do we appreciate them enough? Is it possible to appreciate them enough? Baseball hasn’t seen a pairing like Trout and Harper since Mays and Mantle in the mid-50’s and, no, that’s not an exaggeration. Maybe I’m overstating it, but I guess I’m just terrified that, down the road, once the inevitable darkness that is Father Time has shown up and done his bidding on Trout and Harper, that too many people will look back at what we once had the same way I’d looked back on LeBron before I was lucky enough to be given a second chance. Wondering why they didn’t go to more games, wondering why they took something so special for granted. See Mike Trout play as often as you can. Watch a few Angels games on television, even if you’re not a fan. Drive an hour or two to a ballpark, if you have to.

One of the great things about modern baseball statistics is the ability to compare across generations. It’s what makes wRC+ so invaluable. Fifty percent better than league average will always be fifty percent better than league average. Nine Wins Above Replacement now is worth the same as Nine Wins Above Replacement in 1940. The greats of years past have a legacy. The players of our age don’t yet have that and, on the fly, it can be hard to contextualize what the accomplishments of today’s players mean. Where they stand in the bigger picture, and what their eventual legacy may become.

Mike Trout has now played four full seasons, and he’s accumulated more than 37 WAR. Only nine players in Major League history have done that in any four-year stretch. Trout’s done it to begin a career. Trout’s already been one of the greatest players the game has ever seen. He might go on to be more than that.

The table that follows these words is about more than Mike Trout, though. It’s about the most special players in baseball history, none of which should be taken for granted. It’s about learning something new of the game you love and the great players who paved the way for the ones we have today. It’s about gaining a sense of context, to allow you to better appreciate what’s before us now. We should cherish the present. Just as important, we should never forget the past.

The columns in this table are all sortable, and there’s so many fun little nuggets within it, so please, play around with it. I promise you’ll learn something new. After the jump, I’ll share some assorted notes that I find interesting. I encourage you to do the same in the comments.

• In Mike Trout’s first four full seasons, he’s had peak Willie Mays’ batting average, peak Tony Gwynn’s on-base percentage, peak Mel Ott’s slugging percentage, peak Albert Pujols’ wRC+, more homers than peak Stan Musial and more steals than peak Jackie Robinson.
• Barry Bonds had a four-year stretch where his slugging percentage started with an 8.
• The Hall of Fame peaks that never were: Bobby Grich, Dick Allen, Ken Boyer, Charlie Keller, Sal Bando, George Foster, Ken Williams and Donnie Baseball.
• Position player Hall of Famers elected by the BBWAA without top-100 peaks: Pie Traynor, Gabby Hartnett, Mickey Cochrane, Paul Waner, Bill Dickey, Luke Appling, Yogi Berra, Roy Campanella, Harmon Killebrew, Luis Aparicio, Billy Williams, Lou Brock, Tony Perez, Carlton Fisk, Dave Winfield, Jim Rice, Paul Molitor, Kirby Puckett, Barry Larkin, Roberto Alomar
• Chase Utley’s peak is comparable to Ernie Banks and Jackie Robinson. Get the man in the Hall of Fame.
• Ozzie Smith hit five home runs in four years and had a top-100 four-year peak
• Eras be damned, Rogers Hornsby hit .400 over a four-year stretch
• The only players in this table with 3+ WAR of both baserunning and defensive value are: Joe Morgan, Chase Utley and… Grady Sizemore. What could have been 🙁
• On a similar note, the only players in this table with at least 100 homers and 100 steals are: Trout, Sizemore and… Jeff Bagwell. Speaking of guys who need to be in the Hall of Fame.
• Good lord, Andruw Jones’ defense
• There’s something I love about Miggy, McCutchen and Cano having the exact same peak WAR
• Ben Zobrist was the most valuable player in baseball between 2009-12
• Chuck Knoblauch, at his best, was better than a lot of people probably give him credit for. Chuck Knoblauch, at his worst, is probably the reason why.