Mike Trout, When It’s All Said And Done

The week leading up to Opening Day 2014 turned out to be quite historic, with the clear two best players in the game locked into long-term contracts guaranteeing them nearly a cool half-billion. Obviously, the prognosis for the respective long-term efficacy of the two deals varies dramatically, with Cabrera’s extension locking up his age 33-40 seasons, compared to Trout’s doing the same to his age 23-28 campaigns. This week, let’s take a step back and put these two greats into some sort of historical perspective, then use that perspective to research their aging curves in order make some educated judgments regarding the Tigers’ and Angels’ investments. Today, let’s look at Mike Trout.

As we did in the Cabrera piece, let’s first look at how Mike Trout gets it done offensively. Trout has superior complementary skills, but in both cases, the main driver behind the big payday is the bat. Below is a grid of Trout’s percentile ranks indicating the respective frequency of each of the six key plate appearance outcomes – K’s, BB’s, popups, fly balls, line drives and ground balls – in his first two seasons as a regular. Batted ball authority is not taken into account at all here, but these numbers alone – from 1, indicating lowest in the majors, to 99, indicating the highest – paint a very accurate portrait of a hitter qualitatively. They’re his technical merit scores, if you will.

Trout PCT K PCT BB PCT POP PCT FLY PCT LD PCT GB
2012 73 81 20 42 94 53
2013 60 98 17 68 85 36

It might not be quite Cabrera quality, but it’s still pretty special. The K rate is still high, but it’s trending downward. The BB rate is already at the top of the scale. The line drive percentile ranks of 94 and 85 indicate a true skill – that kind of line drive tendency, combined with his speed, low popup rate and a continued decline in his K rate could put some scary batting average levels within range. Like Cabrera, he combines a high fly ball rate with a low popup rate – these are rare hitters that don’t give away free outs in the pursuit of power. Later, we’ll take a quick look at his batted ball authority and direction data and see why Trout has a chance to become materially better in the near term – an almost unthinkable prospect.

Trout is clearly an elite hitter already, at age 22. There is certainly no reason, on the surface, to question whether he’ll be worth his recent six-year, $144.5M extension that will carry him through his age 28 season. Still, let’s look into the game’s past and try to identify his peer group. Does he even have one? How did they age, when did they peak, and what might the future hold for Mike Trout, and for the Angels’ investment in him?

As we did with Cabrera, we’ll utilize my database of MLB regulars going back to 1901. More specifically, let’s look at the cumulative number of standard deviations above or below league average OBP and SLG for some of these regulars at various stages throughout their careers. For well above average players, it is a useful method of tracking development of on-base and slugging skills, independent of one another. Trout is already 360th on the all-time list in this statistic in just two years as a regular, with 5.28 cumulative standard deviations above league average OBP and 4.27 cumulative standard deviations above league average SLG (9.55 combined). This amazingly already ranks him 34th among active players.

The start to Trout’s career is almost unparalleled in modern baseball history. He ranks fourth on the all-time list of players with the most cumulative standard deviations above league average OBP and SLG in their first two years as a regular, behind Babe Ruth, Joe Jackson and Frank Thomas – who were all three years older and more physically mature than Trout when they completed their second seasons as regulars. Yup, he was younger at the end of his second year as a regular than they all were at the beginning of their first. Their specifics appear below, along with those of a handful of other players who ranked closely behind them, and were no older than 22 in their second season as regulars.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.
1ST 2 YRS YRS AGE REL OBP REL SLG REL TOT 2-YR OPS+
Ruth 18-19 23-24 4.54 7.21 11.75 207
J.Jackson 11-12 23-24 4.95 5.63 10.58 192
F.Thomas 91-92 23-24 6.08 4.42 10.50 177
Trout 12-13 20-21 5.28 4.27 9.55 174
Musial 42-43 21-22 4.07 5.04 9.11 166
Hornsby 16-17 20-21 3.80 4.62 8.42 160
T.Williams 39-40 20-21 3.80 3.97 7.77 160
Foxx 28-29 20-21 3.74 3.68 7.42 162
Speaker 09-10 21-22 3.10 3.99 7.09 161
Cobb 06-07 19-20 2.93 4.14 7.07 154

This is pretty staggering stuff, actually, that pretty much places Trout on a plane unto himself in baseball history. For players at or near his age, he stands on top, by a fairly sizeable margin. It’s also difficult to cite any of the others as clear comps when projecting Trout’s future performance. The two guys at the bottom of the above list – Tris Speaker and Ty Cobb – come closest to matching Trout in age, speed and defensive value, in addition to their fairly similar offensive dominance. Let’s start the comp list with those two, even though their respective “Trout phases” were over a hundred years ago.

Next, let’s look at a list of the 10 players with the most cumulative standard deviations above league average OBP and SLG through age 21 – Trout ranks second on this list.

THRU 21 QUAL YRS REL OBP REL SLG REL TOT OPS+ FINAL RK
Cobb 3 4.63 7.23 11.86 160 4
Trout 2 5.28 4.27 9.55 174 360
Ott 3 4.53 4.20 8.73 153 10
Hornsby 2 3.80 4.62 8.42 160 6
T.Williams 2 3.80 3.97 7.77 160 2
Foxx 2 3.74 3.68 7.42 162 15
Mantle 3 2.57 3.92 6.49 145 8
Griffey 3 2.62 3.46 6.08 135 47
T.Conigliaro 3 1.26 4.61 5.87 130 379
F.Robinson 2 2.39 2.89 5.28 139 11

First, just take a look at the names on this list, and consider that the beginning of Trout’s career likely outshines that of all the others. Half of the players on this list, including Cobb, the one guy ahead of Trout, played an extra season as a regular by age 21. Trout has the highest relative OBP component of the group, and the fourth highest relative SLG component. Seven of the names of this list wound up among the 15 best offensive players in the history of the game. Of course, we can’t overlook the tragic shortening of the career of Tony Conigliaro, who was on his way to an excellent career before the tragic beaning at age 22 that effectively ended it.

Adding to Trout’s core comp list remains a dicey proposition. The only two additional players on the above list who combine comparable offensive performance at the same age with Trout-level speed, athleticism and defensive ability are Ken Griffey, Jr., and Mickey Mantle – who, ironically is the player comp I used for Trout when I scouted him in the Midwest League in his first professional season.

That leaves us with four comps – Speaker, Cobb, Mantle and Griffey. As with Cabrera, no Hank Aaron or Willie Mays on the comp list. As a frame of reference, consider that Aaron didn’t clear Trout’s current 9.55 score until after his fifth full season, at age 24, and Mays didn’t do so until after his fourth full season, at age 25. (Mays did lose two seasons to military service before then.) Trout is running with pretty fast company here. For the four comp players, let’s look closely at their performance between ages 22-28, both on its own merits and in comparison to their final cumulative career total of standard deviations above league average OBP and SLG.

COMPS PEAK AGE 21 OBP 21 SLG 22-28 OBP 22-28 SLG 22-28 OPS+ TOT OBP TOT SLG % THRU 28 LAST QUAL TOT YRS FINAL RK
Speaker 24-26 1.13 1.91 15.53 15.27 173 36.08 32.77 49.2% 39 19 7
Cobb 22-24 4.63 7.23 20.16 20.26 195 47.02 46.03 56.2% 41 22 4
Mantle 24-26 2.57 3.92 14.91 16.88 181 34.55 33.27 56.4% 36 17 8
Griffey 22-24 2.62 3.46 6.61 15.18 157 11.39 25.16 76.3% 39 19 47

All four players put up simply massive numbers between ages 22-28, averaging a 176 OPS+ and almost 4.50 combined standard deviations above league average OBP and SLG per player season. Yes, the AVERAGE season is basically MVP-caliber, and the age range encompasses the entirety of all of these four greats’ three-year peak periods. Yes, it is going to get even better for Mike Trout.

Between ages 22-28, Speaker was a regular black ink guy, even as a peer of a still-in-his-prime Cobb. His lowest OPS+ over this span was 151, and he led the AL in average once, OBP twice, SLG once, hits twice, and doubles twice. He led in OPS+ once, with a 186 mark at age 28 in 1916. He averaged a 173 OPS+ over this seven-year span.

Cobb was arguably as good as any player ever has been between ages 22-28. He basically led the AL in just about everything, every year. He won the Triple Crown at age 22 in 1909, also leading the league in OBP, SLG, OPS+, runs scored, hits and steals that same year. Oh, and he exceeded that season’s OPS+ in each of the next four seasons. Between ages 22-28, he won the batting title every season, led in OBP five times, SLG five times, and in OPS+ all seven seasons. Wow. His average OPS+ figure over this span was 195.

Mantle also won a Triple Crown in his age 22-28 range, at age 24 in 1956. He led in OPS+ in five of those seven years, though he didn’t in 1957, at age 25, when he posted his career best mark of 221. This also encompassed the maximum durability phase of Mantle’s career – he never played less than 144 games in a season between ages 22 and 28. His average OPS+ over this span was 181.

Griffey didn’t record nearly the amount of black ink as the others (led in homers three times, RBI once, SLG once, runs scored once between ages 22-28), for a number of reasons. First, the leagues were much larger, and the respective talent pools much deeper. Second, he never embraced the base on balls, never walking even 100 times in a season, holding his OBP component score much lower than the other players in this group. He also is the only one of the four to miss any length of time due to injury in their age 22-28 window, as he was limited to 72 games by a broken wrist at age 25 in 1995. If you throw out that one injury-shortened season, his lowest OPS+ over that span was 150 – he just lacked the ridiculous upsides above that level possessed by the others due to his relative OBP shortfall. Even with his subpar, injury-shortened 1995 included, his average OPS+ over this span was 157.

There was plenty of damage still to be done by these players following their age 28 seasons. All but Griffey, in fact, had close to half of their career total of cumulative standard deviations above league average OBP and SLG ahead of them. The four of them combined accumulated 59.5% of their total cumulative career scores through age 28. Griffey, however, had only a quarter of his career total ahead of him, due largely to an increasing frequency of nagging injuries and a gradual thickening of his frame. If Trout still has 40.5% of his career offensive value ahead of him after his age 28 season, he might even have a chance to pay off his next huge free agent payday.

Where might Trout go from here? Obviously, the absolute floor is a Conigliaro situation, a sudden, career-ending impact, which really could happen to anyone. Barring that fairly remote possibility, Trout’s floor is about as high as they come. If he performs as Ken Griffey, Jr., did from age 22 through the end of his career – and Griffey is by far his weakest comp – he’ll rack up 21.79 standard deviations between 22 and 28, and then another 23.7% of total career value afterward, for a total career score of 41.07 – good for 36th on the all-time list. That’s his “floor”. If he hits his ceiling, and posts a Cobb-like 40.42 score from 22 to 28, and then ages like Speaker, accumulating 50.8% of his career value from age 29 onward, that would put him in the mix with the top three of Barry Bonds, Ted Williams and Babe Ruth for best hitter of all time honors. If he hits the midpoint of those two tracks, he would rank seventh on the all-time list, behind those three plus Cobb, Stan Musial and Rogers Hornsby. Pretty heady stuff.

Based on the peak-period ages of his peer group, Trout most likely has yet to reach his, but will do so fairly soon. Where on earth is there actually room for improvement in Trout’s repertoire? It’s actually pretty easy to find. Let’s first take a look at Trout’s 2013 production by BIP type as a point of reference.

PROD
Trout AVG OBP SLG REL PRD ADJ PRD
FLY 0.362 1.080 191 187
LD 0.645 0.944 106 121
GB 0.356 0.391 228 126
ALL BIP 0.410 0.711 178 162
ALL PA 0.317 0.423 0.549 183 170

If you read the companion article on Miguel Cabrera earlier this week, you might recall that Cabrera’s actual production on fly balls far outpaced Trout’s figure above – prior to the aggravation of his hip injury last August 28, Cabrera hit .521-1.672 on fly balls, for a 391 ADJ PRD (relative to MLB average, scaled to 100, adjusted for context), that more than doubles Trout’s very solid 187 mark. Trout hit “just” .362-1.080 on fly balls – not even in the same league as Cabrera. The difference between the two is almost solely in their respective abilities at this stage in their careers to selectively turn on the ball and pull it in the air for distance.

In 2013, Cabrera hit 22 fly balls to LF (field split into five sectors – LF-LCF-CF-RCF-RF), and an amazing 18 of them went over the fence. Mike Trout hit only six fly balls to LF all season, three of them for homers. Trout will soon learn to selectively pull in the air for distance more often, most likely without negatively affecting other aspects of his offensive game. There are more homers – lots of them, in fact – coming. In the next few seasons, we will witness the intersection of his capacity to hit for an extremely high average (very high LD rate, low popup rate, overperformance on grounders because of his speed premium – see his 228 actual REL PRD on grounders in 2013) and his capacity to reach his peak power production due to increased fly ball pulling. The result will be a historically prodigious career peak – in fact, I’d bet on a Triple Crown, or even two – if he can pull off the RBI component, which is mostly out of his control – an unprecedented individual achievement.

Mike Trout is a historic talent. As hard as it was to piece together a peer group for Miguel Cabrera, it was significantly harder to do so for Trout. The residual effects of becoming such a highly compensated player at such a young age are impossible to predict – we’re truly in uncharted waters here. If precedent comes even close to holding, however, Trout will go down as an inner, inner circle Hall of Famer. When your “floor” scenario contains references to Ken Griffey, Jr., you’re something else. History says that the Angels should get quite a deal on Trout’s contract extension. He’s good enough, and young enough, that we might able to go through this exercise with his next big contract, and come up with a somewhat similar conclusion.





107 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Richard
12 years ago

“Yup, they were all older at the end of their second year as a regular than Trout was at the beginning of his first.”

I’m assuming you mean “third” at the end of this sentence?

Richard
12 years ago
Reply to  Richard

I see the sentence has been edited without acknowledgment.

Aaron (UK)
12 years ago
Reply to  Richard

It would be good if fangraphs could put an “Advise Typo” button at the bottom of their posts, giving users a way to feed back without having to make a comment [typically the first].

Dick Schofield
12 years ago
Reply to  Richard

I acknowledge that you are a special little snowflake.

Bill
12 years ago
Reply to  Richard

The satisfaction that there in now one less error on the internet should be reward enough for you.

Bill
12 years ago
Reply to  Bill

One fewer, but now their isn’t I guess. My apologies.

Aaron (UK)
12 years ago
Reply to  Bill

*there

ghug
12 years ago
Reply to  Bill

One less is actually considered correct too, and arguably moreso. The counting rule works pretty well for distinguishing less and fewer, but the actual grammatical rule observed in usage is a simple singular vs. plural distinction (non countable nouns are given in the singular, e.g. snow).

Obnoxious
12 years ago
Reply to  Richard

Would you like a cookie?

MDLMember since 2021
12 years ago
Reply to  Obnoxious

Are you baking cookies? I’ll take one cookie, please.

Spit Ball
12 years ago
Reply to  Richard

Oh for god sakes what do you want a medal! Rich, Rick, not even Dick would make such a self absorbed comment. Richard almost always will though. I can’t believe you want a virtual pat on the back.

B N
12 years ago
Reply to  Richard

I can find tpyos too! See, there’s one right there! Somebody give me a cookie, afore a tantrum rise up in my grammar-loving soul.

TheWrightStache
12 years ago

Excellent, excellent piece. Both this and the Cabrera breakdown were great. While it’s obvious that both players are other-worldly, it’s so damn interesting to see the real nuts and bolts of what makes them head and shoulders above everyone else. More of these type articles (or perhaps what makes a player bad, quantitatively) please. Pretty please.

With that said, I see you describe Griffey as one who did not embrace walks to the level of the others. I thumbed through his page, and he put up some solid OBPs and BB%s, at least from 1990-2005. I understand that he’s being compared to some all-time greats, so an 11% BB walk would pale in comparison to those dudes. Being a younger guy who really came of age as a baseball fan as the steroid era was waning, do you happen to have any era-adjusted walk rates/plus stats a la the OPS+ you use? Were walk rates through the roof in the 90s, making Trout look better and Griffey worse by comparison? I mean, it’s clear that a .370 OBP does not hold a candle to a Cobb or Mantle, but I’m curious if you’re discounting it further due to era.

Oh Beepy
12 years ago

As I understand things, this is exactly what the ‘standard deviations above the league average’ stuff does quite neatly.

Hurtlockertwo
12 years ago

Yet the Angels continue to lose. Think what the Angels would get for Trout if they continue to suck over the next few years.

Josh
12 years ago
Reply to  Hurtlockertwo

They could easily get the top 4 or 5 prospects from a top-tier farm system (i.e., Red Sox or Pirates). If they offered him to say the Tigers or Brewers, they could ask for literally the entire farm system.

Frank Angelino
12 years ago
Reply to  Josh

They could also force a team to take Pujols & Hamilton.

tz
12 years ago
Reply to  Frank Angelino

THIS is what RAJ should offer to do, if at all possible.

tz
12 years ago
Reply to  Frank Angelino

Actually, this would be a real good fit for the Red Sox, especially after the salary dump with the Dodgers.

Trout, Pujols, and Hamilton for Napoli, a pitcher, JBJ, and a couple prospects without any “X” in their name.

Joe
12 years ago
Reply to  Frank Angelino

Okay, you just read an article comparing Trout’s projected career to Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, and (a floor!) of Ken Griffey, Jr., and now you’re trying to figure out how the Angels might trade him? I have a hard time believing that any farm system in baseball would have enough talent to get Trout. As a Cubs fan, I would GLADLY give up Baez, Soler, Almora, Bryant, and anyone else LA wanted to get Trout. In a heartbeat. Never going to happen. Not to Boston, or anywhere else.

Asmo
12 years ago
Reply to  Frank Angelino

And then you’d have Mike Trout on a team that would lose 90 games for the next 5 years.

RC
12 years ago
Reply to  Frank Angelino

“Actually, this would be a real good fit for the Red Sox, especially after the salary dump with the Dodgers.

Trout, Pujols, and Hamilton for Napoli, a pitcher, JBJ, and a couple prospects without any “X” in their name.”

Not so much. The Red Sox just cleared a bunch of shitty contracts, and won a world series because of the flexibility that gave them. Why the hell would they get back in that situation?

Trout is fantastic, but not when you’re paying an additional 50M a year for the next decade for two below average players, and giving up a good player on a short term deal and a bunch of prospects.

Hurtlockertwo
12 years ago
Reply to  Hurtlockertwo

Before you haters get too carried away with the down votes, remember that the Marlins dumped Cabrera to the Tigers for literally nothing in the long run.

TheGrandslamwichMember since 2020
12 years ago
Reply to  Hurtlockertwo

At the time, it was two consensus top 15 prospects. Even Tigers fans were not comfortable with it then. Trades should not be evaluated for the long run.

Bubba
12 years ago
Reply to  Hurtlockertwo

And Cabrera is no Trout. Not now, and especially not then.

olethros
12 years ago
Reply to  Hurtlockertwo

“The Marlins did it” is not an argument in favor of any course of action.

Dayton Moore
12 years ago
Reply to  Hurtlockertwo

The possibilities are staggering! I could get a pitcher for THREE years!

Spit Ball
12 years ago
Reply to  Dayton Moore

It best be vintage Pedro at a discount.

TheGrandslamwichMember since 2020
12 years ago

Holy Jesus Christ monkey balls. From a sincere fan of a different AL West team, please never point out how Trout could actually be better. He’s already way too awesome.

tz
12 years ago

Mantle(#2) and Griffey(#9) both also appear on the BBRef similarity score top ten (through age 21):

http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/scomp_bat.cgi?I=troutmi01:Mike+Trout&st=age&age=-22&compage=21

And take a look at the average of what these top 10 comps did from age 22 on. Even factoring in Conigliaro, these comps are mind-blowing.

tz
12 years ago

And, he’s already been worth $2 million in 2014:

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=10155&position=OF

vivalajeter
12 years ago

Why was he picked at the tail end of the first round, rather than being a top pick? I remember seeing the reasoning by Keith Law, but can’t remember what it was. I think it had to do with his location and how a lot of scouts didn’t go there just to see him – but as great as he’s been, it doesn’t make sense that so many teams passed on it.

tz
12 years ago
Reply to  vivalajeter

Maybe scouts’ fear of New Jersey is the new market inefficiency.

Everyone else in the other 49 states
12 years ago
Reply to  tz

…it’s not just scouts.

ankle explosion hr celebration
12 years ago

I don’t know if it’s fear so much as disgust, and the rather fervent belief that nothing good could come from the steaming garbage-scape that is NJ. Although Trout goes along way towards disproving said belief.

Tony Soprano
12 years ago

There’s nothing wrong with New Jersey. Some things just get broken occasionally.

Spit Ball
12 years ago

Uh Chris Christie is awesome. He can block bridges and stuff.

Westside guy
12 years ago

Parts of southern New Jersey are actually quite picturesque – I went through there a few times on my way to McGuire AFB a couple decades ago.

But the possibility of finding oneself in the proximity of Snooki would induce night terrors in any reasonable human being.

Dick Schofield
12 years ago
Reply to  tz

The scouts got stuck on bridge traffic and never saw him play?

zmiko
12 years ago
Reply to  vivalajeter

I believe it was partially Billy Rowell, a recent top pick from that area that flopped, and the fact that the NJ kids don’t face the same caliber of competition and don’t play as many games a kids in the warmer states. He was seen as more of a risk.

Plucky
12 years ago
Reply to  zmiko

From what I’ve read, in addition to worries about competition level, they were just unfortunate in having a really rainy spring that washed out like half the games. As a consequence, scouts had a much smaller number of looks at him, and some didn’t get to see him at all

Feeding the Abscess
12 years ago
Reply to  vivalajeter

Part of it may have been his age. He didn’t turn 18 until a couple months after he graduated. Many kids turn 18 shortly after their senior year starts, and many kids who are placed in schools for athletic purposes turn 19 at the end of their senior years. Can’t remember which site had an article about prospects who were young for their class (Hardball Times?), but it was interesting.

tyke
12 years ago

reading this gave me goosebumps

Jon L.
12 years ago

In this article were easily the most grandiose “bold predictions” yet.

Josh B
12 years ago
Reply to  Jon L.

Agreed, I suggest everyone go take a glance at Babe Ruth’s statistics and then hop the next shuttle to realityville.

Jon L.
12 years ago
Reply to  Josh B

I just meant in the sense of “grand in scale.”

Sobieski
12 years ago

Why do people insist on comparing Trout to players like Ruth and Mantle? They played in different eras, under a different set of circumstances. Trout is likely better than they were, although I don’t think he’ll ever have Bonds’ consistency.

Plucky
12 years ago
Reply to  Sobieski

Because his first 2 seasons have been almost entirely unprecedented. He has a legitimate chance at GOAT. When you’re in that stratosphere, that’s who you get compared to. That’s the point of this article (and of several others like it)- it’s not hype to compare him to those players; the numbers back it up. If that rubs you the wrong way, enjoy complaining about it for the next 15 years

Sobieski
12 years ago
Reply to  Plucky

You must have missed the part where I said Trout is probably better than than players like Mantle and Ruth.

Plucky
12 years ago
Reply to  Sobieski

No, I did catch that part. Comparing players to each other is the core of both baseball analysis and baseball fandom. Comparing current players to players past is the entire reason we keep records, and huge parts of sabermetrics are devoted precisely to adjusting for era and circumstance so we can do it more intelligently. In Trout’s case, he’s been so good that great players of the past are is only comps. To attack it as useless or invalid is to gut a huge portion of what it is to be a fan. Baseball is fairly unique in the way it lionizes the past versus the present, and every generation of baseball fans wants to know or prove that the great players they grew up watching are the peers of the great players their fathers and grandfathers grew up watching. It’s the same reason we all deeply care so much about the HOF (even when we fake like we don’t). That’s the reason the comps for Trout (assuming he stays healthy) will always be Mantle, Ruth, and Cobb rather than Bonds (altough I agree he should be included, even though he also played in an era that was pretty different when you get down to it). To have the chance to watch a young player with the potential to stand in their company is a pretty rare and special thing, one of the chief joys of being a baseball fan, and the comparison to the past is part of what makes it so special. It’s been basically 20 years since we’ve had anyone like that (Bonds/Griffey/Thomas a generation ago)

RC
12 years ago
Reply to  Sobieski

The problem is that the great players of the past (like Babe Ruth) were playing against guys who, for example, worked full time as groundskeepers while not playing baseball, didn’t play against minorities, didn’t play against foreign players, etc.

The very early major leaguers were essentially ringers for YMCA teams.

There are highschool kids today who if you put them in a timemachine and dropped them on a team in 1920 would be all-stars.

it makes the comparisons just plain silly.

a eskpert
12 years ago
Reply to  Sobieski

Plucky’s comment is amazing.

sigh
12 years ago
Reply to  Sobieski

And I’m sure that if you brought all the greats of yesteryear to the modern era and afforded them ~10 years of modern training and coaching, they’d be more than adequate against current players.

Groundskeeper Willie
12 years ago
Reply to  Sobieski

Think of it this way: Mike Trout does not equal Babe Ruth, BUT Mike Trout is so good he makes the rest of the league look like said groundskeepers that played against Babe Ruth. That’s why we need these comps. He is relatively that much better than all of his peers (in terms of standard deviations above league average).

Dead Horse Arguments
12 years ago
Reply to  Sobieski

Babe Ruth never had to face the Satchel Paiges or the Smokey Joe Williams’ of his day either.

John Elway
12 years ago

Though I’d rather see Ty Cobb bat against those guys.

Just neighing.

Westside guy
12 years ago
Reply to  John Elway

I suspect so would they!

sigh
12 years ago

how good do you REALLY think those guys were, that they would seriously impact what babe ruth did?

Bravos4evr
12 years ago

he never had to face #4 or #5 starters in a 30 team league either. or hyper-analyzed and developed players pumped out by baseball camps either. there are arguments to be made in many ways about the vast differences. I love metrics, but I’m not so sure they can every give us accurate comps between the early days of the live ball era and now. too many differing variables at play.

GobiasInd
12 years ago

Ruth didn’t have to face Paige or Williams – true.

But when the Yankees went to Philly, say, for a 4 game series, he’d have to face Lefty Grove twice.

So he was probably still pretty good, despite not having to face those two pitchers.

Stan Gable
12 years ago
Reply to  GobiasInd

Yea, it’s probably fair to say that Ruth was pretty decent.

John C
12 years ago

The Angels could never recoup Trout’s value in a trade…especially if it’s just for prospects. Trout is already proven elite. How many top tier prospects have come and gone through the entire MLB in, let’s say the last 10 years before Trout came along?

Even if the Angels hypothetically raided the Red Sox farm system right now including Bogaerts and 4 top prospects would they receive fair value? If they committed to rebuilding, it may be worthwhile.

Anyway, Trout is incredibly special. Cobb, Speaker, Mantle & Griffey…his comps say all we need to know.

Excellent article, TB. I also enjoyed the Cabrera article.

Padraic
12 years ago

Agree with the goosebumps. I mean not to hype the point anymore, but the upside is a player as good a hitter as Bonds, Ruth, and Williams…who happens to play an elite defensive position well and with way more effectiveness of the basepaths than the above except early Bonds.

The (reasonable) upside is the best player in the history of the sport. I would suggest not worrying about trade value, War per $, or arguing about the contract. I just want to watch the guy play after reading this.

Andrew McCutchen
12 years ago

Consensus two best players my ass.

68FCMember since 2020
12 years ago

They are the consensus two best players. There is no case that McCutchen is a better hitter than Cabrera, and no case that McCutchen in a better overall baseball player than Trout. Considering that there is a strong debate over which of Cabrera or Trout is better (between some), there is no case for McCutchen over either of them.

Steven
12 years ago
Reply to  68FC

Your logic is incoherent. There is absolutely a case that McCutchen is the 2nd best player overall in the majors today. He bests Cabrera in WAR over the past two years and Cabrera is more likely to be worse now than his past two years given his age.

John C
12 years ago
Reply to  68FC

If you gave the choice of McCutchen or Cabrera going forward, I’d take McCutchen. And I have a feeling I wouldn’t be the only one who would. The only reason you’d rate Cabrera over McCutchen is because Cabrera has been doing what he does for several years, and McCutchen’s only been at that level for two.

As for Trout, he’s really in a class all to himself.

Josh B
12 years ago

I shall stroke my neckbeard and consider this article. Was the fact that Trout’s batted ball distances are roughly equal to those of an elderly grandmother considered in this analysis? #notroutmvpever

a eskpert
12 years ago
Reply to  Josh B

That’s what I always come back to, given that he’s already the size of a phone booth (~250 lbs) and his fly ball distance is in the 280s. Maybe that’s a result of his swing profile more than anything else, but still, I don’t see as much power upside as I do with Harper, for instance. I see his ceiling as being a very high average OBP machine with a maximum ISO of maybe 260-270.

Twm
12 years ago
Reply to  a eskpert

If you are going to pick nits, maybe pick bigger ones. 260-270 ISO? So you think his ceiling is mid-30s to low-40s HR power? Man, what a slouch.

Andrew
12 years ago
Reply to  Twm

Yeah, that sucks. Miguel Cabrera but with speed and defense? Bench him.

a eskpert
12 years ago
Reply to  Twm

I didn’t necessarily say I think he is a slouch, just more likely to post a 475 OBP, say, than hit 45 home runs. I could believe him posting on over 500 OBP if anyone could do it. But I don’t think he has the power of Harper, Stanton, or even Cabrera.

jim
12 years ago
Reply to  Twm

stanton, he of the career ISO of… .270

a eskpert
12 years ago
Reply to  Twm

But Stanton who is widely thought to be able to far surpass his existing rate production in the near future.

Rob
12 years ago
Reply to  Twm

Um, Trout had the longest HR distance in the Majors last year. He just has a very low FB percentage.
http://www.hittrackeronline.com/golden_sledgehammer.php

a eskpert
12 years ago
Reply to  Twm

http://www.baseballheatmaps.com/graph/distanceleader.php The distance he hits his home runs doesn’t matter. I’m more concerned with his power in general. For example, if he hit in Texas, he’d hit more home runs, but his average distance would be shorter.

jim
12 years ago
Reply to  a eskpert

the same range of ISOs including noted slap hitters as mickey mantle, alex rodriguez, mike schmidt, david ortiz, and manny ramirez. what a joker!

a eskpert
12 years ago
Reply to  jim

That is what I think his MAXIMUM is. Not his career average, a la pujols or mantle or whoever else. Also, where did you guys get the idea that I think Mike Trout has any shred of mediocrity about him?

arc
12 years ago
Reply to  jim

Where did you get the idea that anyone gives a shit about his great but non-elite power? At his current rate, *with* non-elite power, he would be the GOAT.

No one gives a shit.

Sobieski
12 years ago
Reply to  Josh B

He’s hit 57 home runs in two seasons.

Basmati
12 years ago
Reply to  Josh B

Trout’s batted ball distance on home runs was tops in the majors last year. I think the power is legit.

a eskpert
12 years ago
Reply to  Basmati

selection bias much? The fences being so far away in the big A defines his Home Run distance.

Rob
12 years ago
Reply to  a eskpert

No, Basmati is right. Trout had the longest “True Distance” HR average

chuckb
12 years ago

I guess his only major flaw, then, is that his teammates aren’t as good as Miguel Cabrera’s. If he improves his teammates — the way Cabrera did with Verlander, Scherzer, etc. — then he’ll truly be a star.

Brandon Matics
12 years ago
Reply to  chuckb

He made Scherzer and Verlander better? How so?

Stan Gable
12 years ago
Reply to  Brandon Matics

Woooooosh…

Westside guy
12 years ago
Reply to  Stan Gable

Chuck probably should’ve posted that as “Joe Morgan” – it seems to have flown under the radar.

Andrew
12 years ago
Reply to  chuckb

Very productive and enlightening snark. Thanks for inter-netting with us today.

jpg
12 years ago
Reply to  chuckb

Wow whoever down voted this needs to get their sarcasm detector recalibrated.

Radivel
12 years ago

I have this weird desire to see Trout kill it every year and win the MVP every year, but like Steve Carlton in 1972, surrounded by a team of old and expensive players that will never amount to anything.

Andrew
12 years ago

*fap fap fap fap*

jim
12 years ago

…holy crap

Joe
12 years ago

I don’t think you can just add together standard deviations like this.

a eskpert
12 years ago
Reply to  Joe

It’s cumulative, so he adds the number from each season. Like adding single season wrc+ – 100s together.

Accounting is not Statistics
12 years ago
Reply to  Joe

I agree. It is bogus.

Gyre
12 years ago

Sheesh, the BS Bus startin early. Some1 is worried about how bad the LAAAAofAAA are going to be this year. Best player on one of the worst teams absolutely DOESN’T deserve the MVP. Without him, nothing changes. WINNERS need an MVP

Mike Francesa
12 years ago
Reply to  Gyre

Folks, finally someone ‘roun here who gets it. Back afta this.

Captain Tenneal
12 years ago
Reply to  Gyre

Yeah, what a joke, a bunch of people who love baseball talking about the consensus best player in baseball. Losers!

GobiasInd
12 years ago

As a Red Sox fan, I see Tony Conigiliaro’s name on the second graph and weep.

Jay Stevens
12 years ago

…and this just posits his value as a hitter. No base running or defense.

Accounting is not Statistics
12 years ago

Don’t you think it’s weird to turn rate stats into counting stats (cumulative standard deviations) that aren’t weighted by number of data points (AB, PA, IP, BF, etc)? It seems weird to me.

For instance, in Felix Hernandez’s age 22 season, he was like 34 cumulative standard deviations above average for his batting wOBA (1HR in 1 PA). If you add the std devs for each season separately you get like +9 cumulative standard deviations for his career, but if you take his career total wOBA (.190), you get like -2 or -3 std devs for his career.

In other words, adding z-scores (std dev) is not a linear operation.

If you are comparing, say, the age 21 to 23 seasons of all players (and if you are really committed to using z-scores to do so), shouldn’t you just be comparing a given player’s total performance over those 3 years to the mean and std dev of all players in that era (over that same 3 year period)? Wouldn’t that make more sense? (Yes)

a eskpert
12 years ago

But they’re over full seasons (500-700 pa), so random variation is minimized. Also, summing 3 years performance to get a mean is not a good idea, given how much the league environment can change from year to year; he is using standard deviations from the mean in the year that each actually played.

Accounting is not Statistics
12 years ago
Reply to  a eskpert

No reason you can’t sum the league environment over three years also.

I’m not saying the results are wrong (Trout is good). Just that the math is not correct– you cannot linearly combine z-scores to create a composite z-score. It might happen to approximately work in this case, but you can do pretty much anything and come to the conclusion that Mike Trout is great.

If you are going to the effort of generating z-scores, you might as well use them properly.

ricker
12 years ago

Welcome to Troutgraphs.

ricker
12 years ago
Reply to  ricker

which is huge improvement. Made the saber fanboys forget about Ben Zobrist.

nikky
11 years ago

alright, here you go, read it, like it.
Harper is no Abreu,
Abreu is no Cabrera,
Cabrera is no Trout.
Mike Trout is and will be the best baseball player in MLB history.

#Trout_is_a_beast!!!