A Very Mike Trout Home Run
Last night, Mike Trout went 3-for-6 with a double, a homer, two runs, and an RBI. The Angels won, 8-2, over the Blue Jays, but let’s get back to that home run. Here’s what Mike Trout’s body looked like just moments before making contact with a pitch that went over the left field fence:
We all know what a typical home run swing looks like, and it sure doesn’t look like that. We also know what a normal baseball player looks like, and it sure doesn’t look like Mike Trout.
That’s Marco Estrada on the mound, and over the past two seasons, Estrada’s been among the league’s best pitchers at keeping runs off the board. Estrada works his high-spin fastball up in the zone, and plays a bugs-bunny changeup off that fastball to great success. This year, Estrada’s changeup has graded out as the game’s sixth-most valuable change, right ahead of Chris Sale’s. It’s truly one of the game’s best changeups, particularly when it’s located in the bottom of the zone.
That pitch you see above, that’s Estrada’s elite change. It’s located in the bottom of the zone. It couldn’t be located much better. Before last night, when Estrada put the changeup below the strike zone this year, batters slugged a pitiful .225. When they swung, they whiffed 60% of the time, and when they put it in play, they couldn’t do anything with it. The pitch pictured above might be the single most limiting pitch in Marco Estrada’s arsenal. It’s a success almost every time.
Here it is in video form:
We all know that Trout is among the game’s premier low-ball hitters. He might be the very best low-ball hitter. Even the game’s potentially best low-ball hitter’s never quite hit a pitch like this one out:
That’s every Trout homer on a change in his career. Last night’s stands alone.
It stands alone for Estrada, too. Even the game’s potentially premier changeup pitcher has never quite had a pitch like this one hit out:
It’s the second-lowest home run hit against a changeup all year, by any batter against any pitcher. I know you already knew Mike Trout was a great low-ball hitter. I know you’ve seen Trout homers not too dissimilar from this one before. But nobody’s ever bothered by a reminder that even against the best, Mike Trout is better. Any reason to watch Trout be great is reason enough.
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.
This is another baseball thing that made me think of Fangraghs first. When I watched this home run live yesterday, the first thing I thought of was Jeff’s article, I was like, “Yeah, Trout does that, I read about it.”
What have you done to me Fangraphs? Have I been Incepted?
Deja vu:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/lets-watch-mike-trout-do-something-amazing/
What amazes me is that Trout has the (ignominious) ability to come in second in the MVP every year (save one time he won) while being the very best player in baseball. He may even come in third this year (depending on which teams make the postseason) while being #1 in WAR… Again!
Pretty hard to say Donaldson didn’t deserve the MVP last year. Trout beat him by 0.1 in WAR. Really tired of intelligent baseball minds considering Donaldson an inferior player to Trout. I get Trout is (5-6) years younger but over the last three years he is 2.5 war ahead of Donaldson over 440 games. Donaldson is also an other worldly player. Park factors are imperfect as well so i think that 2.5 is questionable. I love Trout but Donaldson deserves to considered the same as Trout. Better defender at a similar position. Similar hitting. He is unreal.
“Similar”… Trout’s worst year with the bat was worth more than Donaldson’s best.
I agree Donaldson was a reasonable choice for MVP last year. But he’s only been close to Trout the past two seasons, before that it was Trout by a large margin. And Trout has consistently been a more productive hitter, even just over the past two years. Even by wOBA, which does not take into account park factors, the difference is clear.