Mike Trout, Four Years In
We are living in a golden age of youthful, historic talent, especially among position players. This was the case even before 2015, when the likes of Kris Bryant, Carlos Correa and Francisco Lindor — all 23 years old or younger — joined the party. Previously, the Cubs had run out a slew of young stud position players on a daily basis, and Manny Machado and Bryce Harper have been around enough to truly be called veterans at this point. All of these greats all reside in the shadow of the best young player of them all, however: some guy named Mike Trout.
With a little luck, or perhaps some better judgment among voters, Trout could very well be celebrating an unprecedented fourth consecutive MVP award right about now. He’s got one of those on the mantle, along with three relatively controversial second place finishes. While I did predict in an ESPN Insider article this past March that Josh Donaldson would win the 2015 AL MVP, there is no doubt that, if I had a ballot, I would have slotted the Blue Jay third sacker on the second line, behind the Angel center fielder.
How great is Trout, and where might all of this be headed? Let’s take a somewhat unorthodox look at his first four seasons relative to some of the game’s all-time inner-circle superstars, and see where he fits in.
As I have occasionally done in the past on these pages, I’m going to tick off some statistical purists. I am fully aware that when you are working with standard deviations, or z-scores, you technically shouldn’t be adding them together. However, summing the number of standard deviations above league average is a pretty informative way of evaluating the elite tier of performers in a given population.
I have gone back to 1901 and measured the number of standard deviations above/below league average in on-base and slugging percentage (OBP and SLG, respective) for each MLB regular. Then, I summed those relative OBP and SLG scores over each player’s career, obtaining an ordered list of the players who have accumulated the most offensive value in the game’s modern era. This is not a good way of measuring the talent of players in the league average range; an average performer, after all, would come up with a score of zero.
There are, however, 359 players who have accumulated 10 or more standard deviations (OBP and SLG) above league average over their careers, from #1 Barry Bonds (54.26 standard deviations above league average OBP plus 48.93 standard deviations above league average SLG = 103.19 total standard deviations above MLB average production) to #359 Don Mincher (5.22 + 4.81 = 10.03). There are no park or positional adjustments; this is just a pure measure of relative offensive production that has the side benefit of splitting a player’s value into its separate OBP and SLG components.
Of those 359 players with a career value above 10, 38 are currently active. Of those 38, 17 have been qualifying MLB regulars for 10 seasons or more. Another 12 have been qualifying regulars for eight or nine seasons. The other nine, in order of current ranking on this list, are as follows.
| Name | YRS | CAR OBP | CAR SLG | CAR PRD | Rank |
| Joey Votto | 7 | 18.7 | 12.1 | 30.8 | 69 |
| Mike Trout | 4 | 9.3 | 9.4 | 18.7 | 161 |
| Andrew McCutchen | 7 | 10.8 | 7.6 | 18.4 | 170 |
| Paul Goldschmidt | 4 | 7.7 | 7.3 | 15.0 | 241 |
| Carlos Gonzalez | 5 | 4.0 | 9.9 | 13.9 | 266 |
| Giancarlo Stanton | 5 | 4.0 | 8.8 | 12.8 | 285 |
| Buster Posey | 5 | 6.4 | 5.4 | 11.8 | 307 |
| Josh Hamilton | 7 | 3.2 | 8.4 | 11.6 | 311 |
| Bryce Harper | 4 | 5.2 | 5.5 | 10.7 | 341 |
Of that group, only Gonzalez, whose numbers are heavily altitude-inflated, is anything resembling a fluke. What stands about Trout is how quickly he has climbed this list, with so little experience, at so tender an age. Think about this for a second: by this measure, he has already accumulated the 13th greatest amount of cumulative offensive value of any active player. In four seasons.
The 12 players ahead of him are (with select numbers): Albert Pujols (15 years., 52.6 CAR PRD, #18 rank), Alex Rodriguez (18, 51.4, #19), David Ortiz (19, 47.4, #24), Miguel Cabrera (13, 46.8, #25), Votto, Matt Holliday (11, 26.3, #80), Fielder, Mark Teixeira (12, 22.7, #110), Joe Mauer (12, 21.9, #117), Braun, Tulowitzki and Jose Bautista (12, 19.0, #156). The biggest takeaway here: Mike Trout played the 2015 season at age 23, while every other active player currently ranked ahead of him was 30 or over in 2015.
How fast is Trout climbing this list? After the 2013 season, he was not yet among the (at that time) 349 players with 10 or more combined standard deviations above league average OBP and SLG; he ranked #360 overall. In 2014, he jumped 96 spots to #264, and in 2015, vaulted another 103 spots to #161. He is, plain and simple, a freight train. If he were to post the equivalent of his 2015 season again in 2016, Trout would be banging on the door of the all time Top 100, in only five seasons. Of the top 100 players, 96 have recorded at least 10 qualifying seasons, none of them fewer than seven.
Basically, what all of this is saying is, obviously, that Mike Trout is a truly historic talent. How historic? Using this statistic, let’s take a look at the most comparable 23-year-olds and four-year regulars to Trout in the game’s history.
| Name | AGE | YRS | CAR OBP | CAR SLG | CAR PRD | CAR OPS+ |
| Ty Cobb | 23 | 5 | 10.8 | 13.8 | 24.6 | 176 |
| Ted Williams | 23 | 4 | 11.6 | 11.4 | 23.0 | 190 |
| Mike Trout | 23 | 4 | 9.3 | 9.4 | 18.7 | 173 |
| Mel Ott | 23 | 5 | 7.9 | 8.2 | 16.1 | 157 |
| Mickey Mantle | 23 | 5 | 5.8 | 8.5 | 14.3 | 155 |
Pretty heady company. Ty Cobb, Ted Williams, Mel Ott and Mickey Mantle, by any measure, are clear inner-circle Hall of Famers. Not only did they accumulate the most career offensive value using this metric through age 23 of any major leaguers ever, they all also went on to finish in the top-10 in career value. Williams is #2, and Cobb, Mantle and Ott follow at #4, #8 and #10, respectively.
It’s also instructive to look at each player’s three-year peak period using this metric. All of Trout’s retired brethren reached further heights after their age 23 seasons. Cobb’s peak came earliest, at ages 22-24, and was the #5 peak period (8.6 + 9.6 = 18.2) of all time. Next came Mantle, in ages 24-26, the #6 peak period (8.7 + 8.8 = 17.5) of all time. Williams and Ott both peaked at ages 28-30; Williams had the #3 (10.4 + 10.8 = 21.20), and Ott the #38 (6.9 + 6.6 = 13.5) peak period of all time.
As we speak, Trout’s three-year peak period runs from 2013 to 15 (i.e. ages 21-23) and stands as the #27 peak period (7.2 + 7.4 = 14.6) of all time. History tells us that this ranking is likely to move higher, but even if it doesn’t, Trout has an excellent chance of eventually outdistancing every currently active player on this list, including the Pujolses and A-Rods. As funny as this might sound, those guys just aren’t in Trout’s league.
It’s interesting to note that the OBP and SLG components on both a career and peak basis through age 23 are almost equal parts OBP and SLG-based. Williams is the most OBP-focused, Mantle the most SLG-focused. Well-rounded offensive dominance takes an awful long time to wane. It’s also notable that 60 years elapsed between Mantle and Trout without any 23-year-old accumulating so much offensive value. And a third observation: besides Trout, the others are left-handed or switch-hitters. We’re talking about the most accomplished 23-year-old righty hitter of all time. A rare talent, indeed.
You’ll note that Williams and Trout only required four seasons to accumulate so much offensive value above league average, while it took the other three a fifth season. Let’s change the dynamic just a little and measure Trout against all other four-year regulars, regardless of age:
| Name | AGE | YRS | CAR OBP | CAR SLG | CAR PRD | CAR OPS+ |
| Babe Ruth | 26 | 4 | 11.5 | 16.8 | 28.3 | 231 |
| Ted Williams | 23 | 4 | 11.6 | 11.4 | 23.0 | 190 |
| Frank Thomas | 26 | 4 | 11.3 | 10.4 | 21.7 | 184 |
| Nap Lajoie | 29 | 4 | 8.9 | 12.2 | 21.1 | 188 |
| Joe Jackson | 26 | 4 | 9.2 | 10.4 | 19.6 | 185 |
| Stan Musial | 25 | 4 | 8.5 | 10.5 | 19.0 | 173 |
| Johnny Mize | 26 | 4 | 7.9 | 10.9 | 18.8 | 173 |
| Mike Trout | 23 | 4 | 9.3 | 9.4 | 18.7 | 173 |
| Ty Cobb | 22 | 4 | 7.5 | 10.4 | 17.9 | 168 |
Trout’s a little farther down this list (eighth), but the company is just as exclusive. Nap Lajoie’s inclusion is a little misleading: it includes his first four seasons in the modern era, beginning in 1901, rather than his first four years as a regular, from 1897 to 1900, which weren’t nearly as stellar as a whole. Yup, another inner-circle Hall of Famer who, upon further review, doesn’t belong in Trout’s class.
Most of the players on this list are at least two years older than Trout, a key two years in which additional power tends to develop. I honestly don’t think that Frank Thomas, Joe Jackson, Stan Musial or Johnny Mize would have dominated the major leagues from ages 20 to 23 the way Mike Trout has. Babe Ruth is a different story. He was busy pitching at a near elite level at Trout’s age, a fact that is truly difficult to process, no matter how many times I try.
Again, notice the uncanny balance between the OBP and SLG components on the above list. True offensive greatness occurs when you master both distinct facets of creating runs: getting on base and advancing runners, including one’s self, around the bases.
Going into 2015, I actually saw some potential for near-term offensive trouble for Trout. His K rate spiked dramatically in 2014, as did his fly ball rate. In recent seasons, players who hit more fly balls than grounders have seen their overall performance decline the next season. The 15 AL players with the largest fly ball/grounder disparity saw their cumulative OPS+ plunge from 118 in 2013 to 92 in 2014.
The 22 MLB players with the largest disparity saw their OPS+ drop from 114 in 2014 to 104 in 2015. Players driving that 2014-15 decline included Rene Rivera, Adam LaRoche, Mike Zunino, Brandon Moss, Chris Carter, Yan Gomes and Steve Pearce. Mike Trout was part of this group, and he bucked the trend, with his OPS+ increasing from 167 to 176. He was not in the excess fly ball group in 2015. In addition, his strikeout rate declined, and his opposite field rate increased. All systems would appear to be go heading into 2016, with no red or even orange flags in place.
Let’s step back for a second and survey the landscape. Throughout this article, we have focused solely on Trout’s raw offensive output relative to the league. The guy plays in a pitcher’s park — we didn’t give him extra credit for that, nor for the fact that he plays a bunch of games each year in Seattle and Oakland, two other hitter graveyards. We didn’t take into account his significant defensive value. We only took his speed into account to the extent it affects his batting output. Despite all of that, the few player comps we came up with were invariably names like Cobb, Williams, Ruth, Mantle, etc.: near-unanimous Hall of Famers one and all.
You can come at the force of nature that is Mike Trout from a number of angles; I did so one way today, August Fagerstrom in another yesterday. All roads lead to the same conclusion, however: we are all fortunate to be witnessing the peak stages of what is likely to go down as one of the truly greatest position player careers in baseball history.
No offense, but isn’t this something like the 4th “Hey, Trout is really, really good. No, seriously, really good. Like historically good. Really good.” article in the last couple weeks?
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
Mike Trout isn’t going to play baseball forever. Let’s celebrate that he’s playing while we can.
I just tweeted the same. Good grief.
Yeah, let’s have more articles about lesser players on teams that don’t really matter.
Geez. People complain about Mike Trout articles. People complain if there’s too many cubs, Cards, Red Sox, Yankee, Blue Jay, Royals, articles.
Or maybe it’s just people like to complain about everything.
Either that or they really do want to see more articles about players no one really knows about because there’s nothing unique or special about their performance.
Aren’t the rash of Mike Trout articles as a direct result of him not winning what could/should have been his 4th straight MVP award? Seriously, the guy could have won his 4 straight MVP award to start his career. That is nuckin futz! There’s really not enough words to describe how awesome that is … so, we get multiple articles trying to use numbers to get us to understand it.
It’d be like complaining that there’s too many Golden State Warrior or Steph Curry articles in the NBA right now. Wanna know why that is? Greatness.
Everyone and their sister knows how great he is. There are other really good players in the game. We get it. He’s great. Future hall of famer.
Look at what the articles are about ….
– How Mike Trout could end his career as the WAR leader?
Ok, who else could such an article be written about?
At this point, Mike Trout isn’t a real baseball player …. he’s an idea. An idea that allows us to entertain the possibilities of human limitations in baseball performance.
To be flippant about it, he’s baseball’s version of chuck norris. Chuck Norris can divide by zero. Chuck Norris has counted to infinity … twice. Chuck Norris doesn’t read books … he stares them down unti9l he gets the information he wants. and on and on. Chuck Norris is no longer Chuck Norris.
The articles are basically about just how good a baseball player could be during their career, and Mike Trout’s name gets used because well, Mike Trout has had the best 4-year start of a career ever … in history.
So, for those of us that grew up hearing about Willie mays and Mickey Mantle as if they weren’t really humans, but gods reincarnated into baseball players … and not having a player like that during the 70s/80s … until Griffey Jr … Trout provides an opportunity to compare to those guys and he’s actually better, earlier. I think it is worth pointing out.
I would ask, “What other interesting players and/or aspects would you like to read about?” and “Is anyone else interested in that?”
Yeah, I don’t always agree with Circle, but I’m with him on this one… I feel the same way about Kershaw. There can never be too many articles about either.
I asked my sister if she knew how great Mike Trout was. This is her response: “I don’t know who that is.”
Imagine discovering baseball and becoming an avid fan in the late-30s and 40s. You are just at that perfect era to realize the historic nature of Ruth… just after he stopped being historic. You ask your parents if they ever did anything *other* than watch Ruth play, and they have to answer that question.
When Trout retires, we (and the next generation of fans) will have to ask ourselves why we *didn’t* spend more time goggling over his performance, putting together Trout highlight reels, or moving heaven and earth to get tickets when the Angels play the local team. It’s not like this is the 4th “hey guys, Hector Rondon is an unappreciated talent” post. It’s not even the 4th “Troy Tulowitzki is a pretty good infielder” post. Trout is a name that will be spoken along side Ruth for as long as baseball endures. And he’s entering his prime in front of our eyes. As far as I’m concerned, ALL the posts on fangraphs could be about him and it wouldn’t do him justice.
Sadly I didn’t watch that much of 2001-2004 Bonds, despite ample opportunities to do so.
I for one approve of Troutgraphs.
Yeah, let’s get more articles about Ryan Flaherty please.
Actually, a great Notgraphs post would be getting Flaherty to be the career WAR leader.
Damn Frank Thomas was a fckin BEAST
“a golden age of youthful, historic talent”
That’s a pretty naive spin.
You could also say we’re living in a Dark Age of arbitrary drug policies that prevent players from staying on the field past age 30.
Fuck off shitsnaps.
He’s right, though.
Hh’h rtige, sthgou.
Hot Damn, Mike Trout and Paul Goldschmidt are really good at hitting.
Too bad Trout doesn’t play for the Red Sox.
You’re right, it’s important that he stays classy.
He does. His name is Mookie.
Mookie is the best playa eva!
Trout is not really improving. Isn’t the typical implication that a 23 year old is just scratching the surface? Trout is only improving his HR production and everything else is in reverse. Shouldn’t this temper our enthusiasm when thinking about his potential career value? He is maxed out physically, there is simply no physical upside to his game. Given how much of his game is speed-based, you could say he is over the hill. I loves me some Trout, but the idea that he is going to end up in Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle territory is a fantasy. As others have suggested, let’s celebrate what we are seeing, but the best career WARs don’t belong to those who peak at 20. Trout is Trout because he stole 49 bases, not because he hit 41 HR. The further down the power path he goes, the more he becomes like everyone else.
I would say his game isn’t even speed based anymore and hasn’t been for a couple years. His speed game peaked his first year.
He could improve his plate discipline.
You could have made the same assertion about Willie Mays, age 23, after his first MVP season in 1954. You could have made the same assertion about Hank Aaron, age 23, after his first MVP season in 1957. Did those players become like everyone else?
These articles are great in the fact they remind us how unbelievable Frank Thomas was.
Yes, Ted Williams’s peak was from age 28-30. But that’s likely because he lost his age 24-26 seasons to WWII. Coming off of back-to-back seasons at age 22 and 23 where he led the league in BA, OBP AND SLG. It kind of staggers the imagination where he might have ended up without the war. And that’s not counting the fact that he lost most of his age 33 and 34 seasons flying combat in Korea.
Holy crap, Teddy Ballgame was good.
And not only that, he came back and was extremely good after Korea, too, so it wasn’t like those later years missed should be viewed as afterthoughts.
It kind of saddens me that Williams will not be a big part of the Trout discussion for the next few years, at least when discussing the start of his career.
The reason these articles are written about Trout is because he is the most extreme baseball player. I’d love to see an article about how much you’d have to pay a player if his salary were going to be the same each year from now to age 50. It would be funny to see how much you could pay Trout and that still seem like maybe a good deal. $1 billion dollars? I don’t know, but it would seem silly to use a player with a result that is much lower when you can look at Trout. In the end, many of these articles are just about what seems like at least the outer bounds of a possible modern baseball player. Trout just happens to be the living version of that.
Yes, he’s really good. Legendary good. No, he isn’t Bonds or Ruth. Yet. He’s just the first player to like this to start his career in the era of advanced metrics, so the statheads love him. They feel they own a part of him. Let’s give him a few more years before we start statistically fellating him.
No, he’s the first player to start his career like this, SINCE MANTLE. Not just in the last 10 or 15 years. The first in 50.
That means something.
I have a theory that we are all so spoiled/ruined by the PED numbers of the late 1990s that some of us look at Trout’s .304/.397/.559 career line and say “meh, that’s like Bernie Williams in 2000, 29th best in the league in offensive runs above average.” Bernie was .307/.391/.566 that year.
The reality is that if Trout were playing then taking PEDs, he’d probably be putting up Bondsian .330/.450/.630 seasons.
I think Trout is just along at the wrong time, when PEDs are (mostly) gone and we don’t realize that he is so much better than his era and peers.
He’s putting up about a 170 wRC+ every year in age 20-23. That’s almost as good as Manny Ramirez’s age 27-30 peak but with good outfield defense. I mean, that’s nuts.
You seem fun. I would like to extend to you an invitation to the pants party. The… party. With the… with the pants. Party with pants?
You could just go by Offensive Runs created, Trout is already no. 175 all-time. Or batting runs, he’s number 222. Among active players, I believe he is no. 13 and 16, respectively.
Sorry, he’s 12th among active players in batting runs, 15th in offensive runs.
Sorry again, got that reversed, 12th in offensive runs, 15th in batting runs.
Thanks for the great article. I really enjoyed it.
I still think his greatest modern comp is Griffey.
Trout actually has a higher wRC+ than Griffey did at the same age (or any age, actually), but the overall idea is the same.
Very good average, very good OBP, high K rate (for the era), very good power.
Griffey’s defense seems to have actually become much stronger in the age that Trout is just about to enter. Can you imagine if Trout suddenly starts putting up +20 run defensive seasons every, like Griffey did from 1994 to 1997?
It’s possibly not relevant to this particular conversation, but what no one has mentioned is that Trout seems like a genuinely good guy, too. Modest, even. This is a guy being compared to the very best hitters in baseball history. How is that even possible? Maybe he’s Joe Hardy come to life?
When I read about “normal aging curves”, “peak seasons (age 27)” and then outliers like Trout – I’m wishing there was a study of peak vs pre-peak seasons for typical players (what underlying factors drive their peak-year perf) vs the same for the Trouts of the world – do the Trout’s achieve peak-level-underlying stats just that much faster and so peak earlier? And how do their aging curves look after an earlier peak?
A monstrously scary, scary monster! All hail Trout!