The Actual Difference Between Mike Trout and Mookie Betts
With postseason awards ballots due in a few days, we’re getting a bunch of writers publishing their hypothetical votes today, including national writers like Ken Rosenthal and Jon Heyman. As has become an annual custom, one of the primary points of contention is whether to give the AL MVP to Mike Trout, far and away the best player in the game.
Rosenthal, who definitely ascribes value to playing on a contender, stumps for Trout anyway.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I prefer my MVP to come from a contender. A preference, though, is not an absolute. Trout has been the best by such a wide margin — his OPS is nearly 100 points higher than Betts’, thanks to his league-leading .441 on-base percentage — it would be foolish to deny him.
Heyman takes the more traditional path, arguing for Mookie Betts because he had better teammates, even though he puts Trout second, ahead of plenty of other good players on winning teams. In support of his belief that it’s close enough to give the edge to the guy was fortunate enough to get drafted by the well-run organization, Heyman puts for this argument.
Some say his age-23 season has been comparable to Joe DiMaggio’s. I’m not sure about that. But it’s good enough to take the AL MVP in a tight, tough, interesting year. He gets the nod over David Ortiz for playing defense (and an outstanding right field), and he gets it over Trout as he was almost as brilliant as Trout (9.5 WAR compared to Trout’s 10.2). That 0.7 extra WAR (based mostly on more walks) isn’t enough to disregard how Betts helped his team win baseball’s best division, and dominated games in the division, especially against the Orioles.
In the blurb on Trout finishing second, he repeats the claim that the difference is just some walks, saying “But his numbers are almost identical to those of Betts, except for the walks.”
Now, sure, that’s one way to look at it. If you just look at the traditional baseball card numbers, they are very similar.
| Player | BA | HR | RBI | R | SB |
| Trout | 0.318 | 29 | 99 | 123 | 27 |
| Betts | 0.320 | 31 | 112 | 119 | 26 |
But just for fun, let’s add another traditional baseball number to the column. It’s not going to be anything scary. It’s not a formula. It’s a counting stat, just like home runs and RBIs.
| Player | Games | Outs |
| Trout | 156 | 386 |
| Betts | 155 | 472 |
Heyman framed the difference as just some walks, and because walks are easy to dismiss — they’re not driving in runners, the guy didn’t really do anything to earn them, it’s just the pitcher being wild, etc… — it’s a good way to pretend that Betts and Trout have had similar offensive seasons. But instead of talking about walks, what if we just called them something else; non-outs. Because we know outs are bad, right? When a guy on the team we’re rooting for makes an out, we’re sad, because that means that our team’s offense has fewer chances to score the rest of the inning.
Mookie Betts has made 86 more outs than Mike Trout this year; in fact, Betts is sixth in the AL in outs made. Now, certainly, some of that is because he’s just hit a lot; his 718 plate appearances are second most in the AL, as the Red Sox offense has turned over the lineup frequently, allowing Mookie to come to the plate 49 more times than Trout, despite playing in the same number of games. But even Trout magically batted 49 more times than Betts this weekend, and made outs in every single one of those plate appearances, he’d still be almost 40 outs behind Betts on the season.
Betts has made three full games — plus a few leftover — worth of outs more than Trout has this season. That is an enormous difference, and can’t just be hand-waved away as “some walks”. And that’s why Trout is crushing Betts in any kind of calculation of offensive runs produced this year.
| Player | wRC | wRAA | BAT | OFF |
| Trout | 135 | 59 | 58 | 67 |
| Betts | 122 | 37 | 31 | 41 |
wRC is closer than the rest because, as a counting stat with a base of zero, it isn’t accounting for opportunities, so Betts’ extra trips to the plate help him rack up some more value. In the other three, where an average hitter is the baseline, Trout pulls away, as he produced more raw offensive value while using many fewer outs to get there.
OFF is the combination of park-adjusted batting and baserunning value, and here, Trout has a 26 run lead. Twenty-six runs is almost three wins. The idea that it’s a close race when you look at their batting lines is simply factually incorrect. The 86 out difference makes it entirely clear that Trout trounced Betts as a hitter this year. That’s nothing against Mookie, who I continue to love; Trout trounced everyone as a hitter this year.
So while I appreciate Heyman looking at WAR in determining his ballot, the reality is that the argument that it’s a close race depends entirely on the acceptance of an enormous gap in defensive value as measured by Defensive Runs Saved, which is the fielding component used in Baseball-Reference’s WAR, which Heyman is citing. DRS gives Betts credit for 32 runs saved — 10 runs more than the next best player, Adam Eaton — which is almost double his +17 UZR.
Betts is clearly a fantastic defensive player, and he deserves credit for his all around game, but the reality is that the argument that Betts and Trout have had similar 2016 seasons is an argument for accepting the validity of single-season DRS at face value. We’ve probably done more to advocate for the acceptance of stats like UZR and DRS as anyone, but even I wouldn’t look at Betts’ 2016 defensive numbers and argue that we should accept that he was the best defender in baseball this year, and far more valuable defensively than Trout, who still plays the more demanding defensive position.
And unlike single-season defensive metrics, which continue to have some noise influencing their results, we can very easily identify the offensive difference between Trout and Betts. It wasn’t just “some walks”; it was 86 outs made. And those 86 outs are why, with all due respect to Betts as a great player who had a great season, it isn’t really all that close this year.
Trout was the best player in baseball, by a lot. If you want to give the award to Betts because he plays on a winning team, we can’t stop you, but let’s not pretend that Betts and Trout had similar offensive seasons. When it comes to offensive production in 2016, it’s Trout, a huge gap, and then everyone else.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
Any argument against Trout is a stretch in logic.
I’d go with “most”, not “any”. Even offensive WAR is not a perfect statistic. I highly value it, but there’s always a valid counterargument to any human-created statistical analysis, because they’re by definition not perfect. One could make arguments about player value in “soft skills” like value as a teammate, leadership skills, etc. Just because we don’t know how to quantify them doesn’t mean they aren’t potentially valid. Based on Fangraphs’ best effort at quantifying (which is tremendous), Trout is clearly superior. But there’s plenty that we haven’t been yet able to quantify that probably has value.
Nobody was making the argument that WAR is perfect. . Rosenthal’s argument was an argument using the same public stats that we all have access to. He wasn’t saying that Betts deserves the mvp because he was a good club house guy with leadership and other ancillary intangibles. He was making an erroneous argument based on WAR and Cameron correctly called him out on it.
The biggest fly in the ointment for the Betts “contender” arguement is the elephant in the room named Josh Donaldson. Betts is 319/364/536 with a 136 WRC+, while Doladson is 286/406/555 with a 157 WRC+. Like Trout, Donaldson gets pitched around a lot. He also plays are far more difficult position at 3rd base, whereas Betts plays arguably the easiest position in RF. Betts and Donaldson’s WAR by Fangraph are 7.7 and 7.6, and the only reason why is because Fangraphs proclaims Betts defense to be overwhelmingly better than Donaldson’s. Somehow, I doubt that – you can find an RF a lot easier than a 3B. Mike Trumbo plays RF, and that provides the “baseline” for Betts’ positional superiority (snort). The bottom line is that the Toronto Blue Jays are a contender, who are making it into the postseason on the barest of margins. It’s obvious they’ve needed Donaldson to provide that margin. It is revealing that many if not most of the writers who push for Mookie Betts try to frame the race without mentioning Doladson – probably because his inclusion would destroy their argument, a fact made obvious by Heyman’s attempt to bury Donaldson behind such players as David Ortiz and Adrian Beltre. Because if the issue really was a matter of a “contender”, then Donaldson would not be cut out of the discussion, because Trout vs Donaldson is the real argument, not Trout vs Betts. But “contender” isn’t really Heyman’s issue, it’s just an excuse. The truth is that he’s decided he wants to make Betts an MVP (I leave it to others to guess the reason), and he’ll use whatever hanky panky rationale to do it.
I agree with the post but to play devil’s advocate, Betts has an O-Swing better than league average just behind Trout’s. So if we’re docking the walks against him, we’re hurting his case mainly because of how he’s pitched rather than his talent as well as the mostly beneficial extra contact he makes might decrease his opportunities to walk. On the other hand it’s just another category Trout wins… Seriously can we please just give the guy the MVP already?
But pitchers (likely – I’m not actually in all pitchers’ heads) pitch away from Trout more than they pitch away from Betts because they’re more afraid of what Trout does to pitches inside the strike zone. Trout gets additional walks because pitchers are wary of his bat, so you’re not docking Betts so much as giving Trout credit for forcing pitchers into a lose-lose situation.
I suspect pitchers are also more willing to pitch away from Trout because there is little else to worry about in the Angels’ lineup.
Yes, it’s obvious who the pitchers fear just by looking at how they pitch Trout and Betts (and Donaldson). This shows up glaringly when there are runners on base. Trout and Donaldson will each see their walk rates skyrocket to 20%, then 30% when they hit with runners on, and with runners in scoring position. 30%! No wonder Trout and Donaldson have fewer RBIs than Betts. Duh! They’ll give nothing to Trout and Donaldson most of the time, and the result is that both will have to hit far more difficult pitches than Betts, who gets walked 9% of the time with runners on, and 10% of the time with RISP. Wouldn’t you say it’s rather obvious that pitchers around the league know who’s better? Between Trout, Donaldson, and Betts, they’d all rather pitch to Betts.
Yeah, this. Betts has been getting softballs all season because the whole Sox lineup is scary, this is also why Trout should be MVP over him: he had a pathetic amount of protection comparatively.
If you normalized Trouts walks to Betts (64 ABs instead of walks). Trout would be expected to have 20 more hits, 3 more HRs, well over 100 RBIs, and a .318/.378/.556 slash line. So his counting stats and rate stats would still be better, but it might hurt enough that Betts defense overtakes him in WAR.
On the other hand, if you’d normalized how Betts was pitched, then he’d have like a billion less homeruns and RBIs because the Orioles wouldn’t have been stupid enough to pitch to him every damn time. 31H, 9 HR, 21 RBI, .408/.477/.816. in 20 games.
Betts may have racked up the same or more counting stats as Trout, but a lot of that was purely Fenway and the Orioles. If Betts walked as much as Trout/pitched around the rest of his stats would take a pretty big hit (although his runs would definitely go up in that lineup).
I’m pretty sure we both agree, but I want to make sure I’m understanding your devil’s-advocate point. Are you saying that perhaps opposing pitchers are just pitching Trout more poorly than they are Betts, therefore Trout’s extra walks may be some byproduct of skill and, more to the point, luck? If so I don’t see it. Several studies have shown that power hitters tend to walk more not necessarily b/c they’re more patient or have better strike zone judgment – it’s because pitchers are afraid to put pitches in the strike zone and suffer the consequences. In other words, pitchers don’t just have worse control when facing power hitters – they’re making a rational decision to try to avoid bad outcomes. So Trout’s walks are very likely a byproduct of skill (his power) much more than luck.
Less about Trout and more about Betts not walking to the rate his discipline suggests he should.
I’m not saying this is correct, but isn’t there an argument to be made that (since they are not making the playoffs) Trout is hurting the Angels?
Right now, they are the 10th worst team in baseball by record. Subtract Trout and plug in a replacement player, and they become the 2nd worst team. That’s a huge difference in terms of draft picks. Now, that’s obviously not Trout’s fault. But I’d be interested to hear some discussion on it.
I think you’re in the wrong place. This isn’t ESPN.
The name of the award is “Most Valuable” though. It really comes down to if you think all wins are equal, or if certain wins (those that get you into the playoffs) are more valuable. Trout (by a solid margin) is the best player in baseball. But Mookie is going to win the award because he helped push his team into the playoffs (i understand that that is unfair to Trout, but it’s the way it is).
It’s also why the MVP and HoF doesn’t carry the cachet it did when I was a kid… Can we please stop with the “award” coverage? (I’m asking the fans that; publishers will give people what they want.)
Seriously, I’m asking the other FG readers to stop caring about the title of the award. Aren’t we all sick of people splitting the hair between contender or not? Can’t we accept the mainstream otherness and just stop giving a shit about their old fashioned awards?
I think that’s a perfectly defensible attitude to have, but it’s not one I share. I don’t care about award winners in the sense that I don’t grouse and sulk if “my guy” doesn’t win, in much the same way I didn’t grouse and sulk when, say, Million Dollar Baby won Best Picture over Sideways, a movie I liked a lot more. But I DO think that it’s fun to chew over baseball performances – to size up players, to hone arguments, or even just to relive the past season. So yes, I agree, I don’t CARE about the awards in some deeply personal way; they don’t alter my life. But I love debating the awards.
Does he really have that much value for helping the Red Sox into the playoffs, though? Seems to me they probably would have made the playoffs without him. Just stick Chris Young in right field to prop up the pitching staff and still score LOTS of runs.
Question: Say you have the chance of choosing a bag full of cash worth $5000 or a bag full of cash worth $1000. You would, of course, choose the $5000 bag.
However, if you were asked to choose the most valuable SINGLE bill, wouldn’t you pick the $100 bill if all the others were $20’s, regardless of the bag it was in?
You wouldn’t say, “Well, the $100 bill doesn’t make the $1000 bag a $5000 bag, so I’ll pick a $20 bill from the bag with the most money in it.”
The value of the individual is separate from the value of the whole. That’s the way I see it.
This is a great analogy.
The issue as I see it is that for the most part, fans (myself included) only really care about postseason accomplishments. This inherently creates a bias when trying to determine the value someone provided only considering the regular season. I guess that’s the crux of the argument: we need to combat this bias when determining the MVP.
Without any comment on who I think should be MVP, I think we should still make the analogy a little more appropriate:
You are playing a game where the goal of part one is accumulate $5,000 in a bag. If you don’t, you go home. If you do, you get to continue playing in part two, for a prize of $100,000.
At the end of part one, we’re asked to choose the most valuable single bill.
We examine the bags, and the largest bill in any of the $5,000-or-more bags is $90 (I know, just bear with me).
The largest bill overall ($100) was in a bag which had a total of $1,000.
Now which bill is more valuable (in the context of playing this game)? The $90 bill or the $100 bill?
The problem with stretching the definition of value to fit one specific context is that you can make the same argument about any bill. Without the crumpled, soggy $1 bill you found in the inside pocket of your jacket, you’d have $4,999 and would end up with the exact same result as you would have if you had $4,910, so you can make the same argument for that $1 bill. Alternatively, if you ended up with $5,091, then that $90 bill didn’t change anything and no individual bill has any value.
The only internally consistent way to determine value is by disregarding situations where the subject is not involved. So the $100 bill is worth more than $90 because there is nothing you can buy with $90 that you can’t also get with $100. In baseball, this definition leaves room to consider WPA, RBIs, pitching to contact because you have a good defense, and leverage-based value (i.e. clutchness if you’re into that), so it’s not like a complete vacuum is strictly necessary.
You’re failing to take into account his point and instead being dismissive, FYI.
I think you’re on to something! Who do you think they should get with the 2nd pick? Hopefully they can get someone like Mike Trout!
It would be higher picks + the cornucopia of talent they would receive for trading Trout, obviously
The Angels are averaging over 37.000 for their home attendance. Take away Trout and they wouldn’t draw nearly as well. Not to mention the TV viewers who would tune out a Troutless Angels. Also, Trout was picked at the end of the first round if I remember correctly. The value-difference between a top first round pick and a lower first round pick does not come close to the value brought in by Trout this year
I have no idea what the value-differentiation is between a top draft pick and $ added b/c of Trout’s added wins (extra TV viewers, merchandise sales, etc.). I suspect you’re right, but I also think it gets to a larger point that irks me during awards season. People like to claim that Trout’s performance didn’t “matter” b/c he didn’t play “meaningful” games down the stretch, as if Angels fans (or, hell, baseball fans in general) didn’t care whether the Angels won or not, whether or not Trout got hits, didn’t care about the joy he brought to the games, or the excitement he generated in the ballpark. It’s an awfully odd (and dour) way to look at baseball to say what Mike Trout does doesn’t matter merely b/c he wasn’t in a pennant race. (Now, if someone wants to give Betts some tie-breaking points for being in a pennant race, the way it seems Heyman did – that’s a bit more justified.)
Judging by the thousands of Trout jerseys visible at any game in Anaheim, you’re probably right.
“Value” on the ballot is defined as contributions to the team by offense and defense plus intangible like leadership and character. There’s really no criterion that can be used to shoehorn in “value to organization by influencing the draft system”.
If the Angels didn’t have Trout, they wouldn’t even have thought of contending this year or next year, which is something they are trying to do. When you have a star player like him, it is also much easier to lure in top-notch free agents. Without him, the Angels look like the Phillies or Braves, two teams a few years away from serious contention. Then you factor in the awful farm system the Angels have and they actually look much worse than either of those teams. He is valuable to the Angels’ future.
Unfortunately for Mr. Trout, I think the Braves and Phillies will be competitive before the Angels. I mean, they are Mike Trout and then who? They have no young talent to build on. They tried spending a gazillion dollars and that got them to the playoffs once before all the pieces broke.
They still have Calhoun Simmons and some very good young pitchers who have been injured. Also, the best player in baseball is far more valuable than a guy that might make it to the majors someday. Trout is worth 5+ number one picks.
But that’s the wrong way to look at it. It’s not Trout that’s hurting the team, it’s a meddling owner and poor personnel decisions that are hurting them. Arte Moreno is the one who pushed for terrible contracts like Pujols and Hamilton, not Trout. The Angels front office has led to one of the worst farm systems in recent memory, not Trout. It would be one thing to argue that the Angels are in poor shape and thus they need to rebuild, but to characterise it as though Trout is actually harming them is just silly.
(Not to mention that the people who’d be responsible for trading Trout and managing this hypothetical rebuild are the ones who got them in this mess in the first place. In my mind this alone is a pretty big reason to not trade the best player in baseball.)
This is a lot of downvotes for a comment starting with “I’m not saying this is correct” and ending with “But I’d be interested to hear some discussion on it.”
For me, it’s a relatively simple proposal to dismiss, because I actually want the award to go to the “best” player and not the ambiguously-defined “most valuable”, specifically because I think it is good to recognize players that may be stuck on bad teams. However, I think this can serve as an interesting rebuttal to the playoff team requirement. I agree when people point out it is disingenuous to deny Trout the award because he’s on a bad team while simultaneously putting him second. Is a good player on a bad team valuable or not? People should be able to answer that question and stick to it.
“Some walks” really makes Heyman sound like troglodyte who shouldn’t be considered one of top baseball writers in the country.
I think of Jon Heyman as an Adrian Wojnarowski for baseball, I don’t follow them because I want to know what they think about baseball/basketball, but they are great during the trade deadlines and free agency periods because they have the inside information for every transaction. Unfortunately, they have seemingly parlayed that skill into gaining more exposure for their writing.
Remember when he said Arrieta might have passed Kershaw after his no hitter this year? Lol
Is Heyman considered one of the top baseball writers in the country? He used to work some prominent companies but I had no idea about his current employer until Wikipedia told me it was something called the “FanRag Sports network.” I have no idea what the “FanRag Sports network” is. Back in the day the major magazines and websites were where we turned for great coverage and analysis, but that’s no longer really true, so it feels like there aren’t the recognizable media giants that there used to be. Heyman presumably still carries some cachet from his time with SI and CBS, although even then I only really thought of him as a shill for Scott Boras clients. It seems like most of the time when he’s quoted it’s for saying something questionable.
I have often wondered if he was on Scott Boras’ payroll.
heyman’s article was painful to get through
It’s close at BBRef, because according to their defensive metric, Betts has had the third best defensive year of any RF since WWII. Now maybe he really has, but it shows you how much defense he needs even to get close to Trout. The gap in wRC+ between Trout and Betts is considerably greater than the gap between Cabrera and Trout was in 2013, when Trout’s far superior defense (and baserunning) wasn’t enough to persuade the great majority of voters.
It should also be pointed out that all those extra PA Betts gets by being in a stronger lineup, plus all the extra AB he gets because he doesn’t walk as much, means he has many more opportunities to get hits than Trout. Though he has more 2B and HR than Trout, on a per AB basis, he’s actually behind him.
Some might argue that one reason Betts walks less is because he’s in that stronger lineup; he can’t be pitched around, as Trout often is. Fair enough, but it also means he sees better pitches to hit.
The comparison to the 2013 race really does make it seem like it’s just a personal anti-Trout bias, presumably because it’s boring to just give the same guy the award every year (although they had no trouble doing this for Bonds back in the day, even though everyone hated him).
When Bonds won 3 MVPs in 4 years from 1990-1993, he was better than Trout’s 2012-2015 offensively (identical WAR in 9 fewer games for Bonds), and his teams won at least 95 games in each of those seasons…the only one he didn’t make the playoffs for was 1993, when his Giants won 102 games, but missed the playoffs because the Wild Card didn’t exist yet, and he put up a 193 wRC+.
Even pre-steroids, Barry Bonds was a much better hitter than Mike Trout, and he played on better teams to boot.
Of course, Bonds was older than Trout during that time frame (those were Bonds’ age 25 – 29 seasons). Sticking with the 4-year comparison, especially since Bonds didn’t play when he was 20, Trout’s age 21 -24 seasons have seen him put up a 172 OPS+ (his career OPS+ is 170 – he’s been remarkably consistent). Bonds over those same years *only* put up a 124 OPS+.
I have no realistic expectation that Trout will end his career with comparable numbers to Bonds (especially in terms of homeruns and walks), but at this point in his career, Trout has been, by far, the better offensive player to Bonds.
No argument here.
We’re not talking about performance relative to age, though. I was just explaining why Bonds won 3 MVP’s during that 4 year stretch, and Trout only won 1.
Least you made me look at bonds player page for first time in a while. 2004 at 40 he puts up a 37.6bb% and 6.6k% lol.
Early 2000s’ Barry Bonds is my go-to argument both in favor of and against performance enhancing drugs in professional sports.
That wasn’t Bonds. That was the chemical industry.
Might also add that in 2012, one of the arguments for Miggy, other than the TC, was that he hit better in September. Trout is very close to the top of the Sept. leaderboard, well ahead of Betts and all the others who are considered MVP candidates.
There’s really quite a long list of arguments that have been used against Trout in past MVP debates that aren’t used for him when applicable.
Excellent article. A little frustrating to see that, even among the stat-savvy, the (negative) value of an out is still minimized.
On an unrelated note, in the several articles addressing Trout’s AL MVP chances, I don’t believe anyone has noted that Trout is DESTROYING everyone in WPA, and by a much bigger margin than he is by WAR. Trout’s WPA sits at 6.96, second place is Donaldson, at 4.80. For perspective, Trout (1st) leads Donaldson (2nd) by the same amount that Donaldson (2nd) leads Jean Segura (34th!!!). Mookie is 21st, with a WPA of 3.27, less than half of Trout. Trout also kills everyone else in RE24, if that’s your preferred cup of context-driven tea.
So, bringing it all back and reinforcing Dave here, there seems to be, quite literally, no credible way to argue Mookie has been better than Trout, even adjusting for context. The line in the article saying “the guy was fortunate enough to get drafted by the well-run organization,” which sounds like an absurd criteria to use to vote for MVP, is made even more absurd when you realize you have to go to something like two-out doubles in the bottom of the 4th inning at Kauffman Stadium* to find a way for Mookie to beat Trout, quantitatively.
(*for all I know, Trout leads in this category too. I didn’t check, for fear of not being able to find any way Trout doesn’t win.)
I hear that Betts is also a kick ass bowler. So if we’re giving credit for things that don’t actually matter ANYWAY, then I think we should count his two sport awesomeness in our collective MVP vote.
But Trout is unequivocally the best meteorologist/baseball player to have ever existed!
I have a feeling that the first time Mike Trout picks up a bowling ball he’d bowl a 250+. And while doing it, he would say things like “must be beginner’s luck” to be polite. But really he knows, it’s not luck, bowling for him, just like everything else, is just …easy.
I guess it’s a positive Heyman at least cited WAR? That’s…a start?
Using the wrong version though. But he’ll learn some day, maybe
Betts played a bunch of CF last year and put up similar numbers to Trout’s this year. They’re probably pretty close in terms of defensive value even if Bett’s is slightly ahead.
Trout should be MVP. That said, I feel like the fact that Trout walks way more often can be at least partly attributed to the way pitchers pitch to him, which is influenced by the offense around him. I’m willing to bet Betts came to the plate with a runner on first way more often than Trout, and a stronger line-up behind him, so pitchers may be less inclined to pitch around him. On the one hand, this could be construed as another argument for Trout, that his counting stats are comparable to Betts’ despite probably being pitched around more often, but on the other hand punishing Betts for not walking feels like going to the other extreme of penalizing having good teammates.
Have you seen studies on whether a better offense around a guy affects how he’s pitched?
It sounds an awful lot like the “lineup protection” of having a True Run Producer hit behind a guy… in actuality, the evidence shows the better the OBP of the hitter before you has a much larger effect on the players results.
I don’t think its a lineup protection thing, its just common sense. Look at their lineups– against Boston, putting someone on base is a lot more likely to cost you than walking Trout and letting the rest of that crummy lineup try and bring him around. Trout is absolutely being pitched around.
Yes, there are studies. They basically [citation needed] say that if you’re “protected”, you’re more likely to produce batting value in the form of hits, and if you’re not, it’s in the form of walks — but the run value is about the same.
Pitchers can choose a “pitch around” approach, but it’s not free, it costs walks.
On one hand, your argument is supported by each hitter’s zone percent (42 for Trout and 48 for Mookie). However, I am not sure how this benefits Trout overall. I feel that getting more pitches in the zone is ultimately beneficial to most hitters. Trout takes the walks because of how he is pitched, but I am sure he would be happy to trade those for a bunch more pitches that he could mash.
“I’m willing to bet Betts came to the plate with a runner on first way more often than Trout”
Without looking, I can’t see how this would be possible with Ortiz batting in front of him for the last two months.
Ortiz’s OBP is just over .400. Yes, his SLG is excellent as well, but he ends up on first a lot.
Also, when Betts was in the lead-off slot, he frequently had a (then) very hot Bradley Jr (OBP of almost .500 at the time) batting ahead of him.
Good point.
137 PA for Trout with a runner on first and 131 for Betts. And Betts has had 36 games batting 4th. Interestingly, Betts slg% has regressed battibg 4th to .493, but his OBP has improved by 45 points from his OBP batting leadoff. He’s actually walked more times than he has steuckout, 16 to 12. Compared to 31 walks and 65 Ks leading off. Of course 35 games is a small sample size though.
Has Fangraphs ever done an article on the most undeserved MVP awards in history? I’d be interested in that
Not sure if FG ever did an article on it, but I think the leader in the clubhouse (at least of the last 25ish years) is Juan Gonzalez in ’96. 3.5 WAR, AL MVP. Griffey and A-Rod both put up 9+ WAR seasons. Woof.
At least in ’96 Gonzalez hit 47 HRs. At least that’s something you could point at and say, “Oh everyone must have gotten caught up in that”.
Look at Morneau’s 2006 MVP. It hurts my brain trying to figure out what happened. He wasn’t even the most valuable player on his own team.
Justin Morneau’s season in 2006 might be the most “pretty good” season in the history of baseball.
I just checked out the AL WAR figures from 2006. You weren’t joking.
The second most important thing I learned: Grady Sizemore’s best year (8 WAR) was wasted by giving it to Morneau, which kind of breaks my heart.
The most important thing I learned going through the WAR rankings was, not only was Mauer significantly better than Morneau (5.8 to 3.8), but another Twin was only 0.2 WAR behind at 3.6. Who, you ask?
Nick Punto. And he did it in 22 fewer games.
Put differently, Morneau won AL MVP in a year where he was worse, on a per game basis, than Nick Punto.
This will now be the first thing I think of whenever Nick Punto’s name is spoken.
Nah I’ll still think of the Punto trade that bailed out the Red Sox.
Willie Stargell would prefer that FG write no such article.
By fWAR, Stargell won his only MVP in his 11th best season.
Check back in 2022, when we’ll be pointing out that Trout won his only MVP in his 11th best season.
Strictly by the numbers, it’s probably one of the closer seasons – Eck, Willie Hernandez in 84, Jim Konstanty in 1950.
Setting those aside, it has to be Juan Gone but Dante Bichette would get the award for “Worst Season for a 2nd Place Finisher” with 1.8 fWAR in 1995 (0.6 WAR on b-ref)
Though I didn’t think he deserved it at the time, Willie Hernandez may have had the most worthy MVP case ever for a reliever. Logging 140 IP as a true “fireman”, he registered an 8.58 WPA, which not only led the AL by more than a full win, but was also one of the top 10 WPA seasons of all time (#2 for pitchers).
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1005714&position=P
“the reality is that the argument that Betts and Trout have had similar 2016 seasons is an argument for accepting the validity of single-season DRS at face value. We’ve probably done more to advocate for the acceptance of stats like UZR and DRS as anyone, but even I wouldn’t look at Betts’ 2016 defensive numbers and argue that we should accept that he was the best defender in baseball this year.”
If you take DRS at face value, you are not concluding that Betts was the best defender in baseball. You are merely concluding that his performance (through a combination of skill, opportunity, and luck) was most valuable.
One thought about the “Trout only draws more walks because people pitch around him” thing: this is undoubtedly true. However, it’s also true that Trout and Betts have virtually identical traditional counting stats of things like HRs and such. Trout has put up those numbers while seeing far fewer pitches to hit. As this website has been observing all year, pitchers kept stupidly challenging Betts, and this was allowing him to go nuts and hit a bunch of home runs. Nobody challenges Trout; he still hits a bunch of home runs. And also draws a ton of walks.
The defense side of this debate seems a lot like when the Cy Young debate comes down to stats like FIP and xFIP vs actual runs allowed.
Betts has absolutely been monstrously good on defense this year having watched him for at least 100+ games. I have no doubt that he has been fortunate to receive so many opportunities to throw runners out and catch 50/50 balls that happen to be hit in spots he’s better at stretching his range to.
The defensive excellence and the throwing putouts really have happened and have had serious run value. That it is likely unsustainable seems rather irrelevant if we are talking about value added this year.
It’s tough to know where the line should be drawn between “measurement error” and a valid but unsustainably high number of defensive runs saved being accrued. While his true talent may be ~15 runs off his performance this year the performance has happened.
That all being said I still support Trout for MVP. Betts is not an indefensible choice by bbref’s #’s though.
Dave, race is a human construct created to divide us. I cheer both these men’s careers and maybe one day Mookie can be as great as Mike, but it’s unlikely as Trout is a generational talent and Mookie is merely a very good player on a higher-profile team.
Kiermaier is as good as Mookie
Another problem that Trout has in MVP discussions that often gets overlooked – his home ballpark. People will hash the numbers this way or that way, but unless one looks at the “+” stats (which this article does, not saying that), everyone just kind of glosses over that Trout plays in a terrible hitter’s park. Fenway is the 2nd best hitter’s park in baseball. Anaheim is 4th worst. Just comparing raw numbers between Betts and Trout just misses this.
Using b-ref’s “Neutralized Batting” tool, Trout’s OPS would go up by 78 points in Fenway. Tack on another 4 doubles, 4 HR, 26 runs and 21 more RBI in Fenway per the tool. He’d be leading the league in BA at .346. His already league leading OBP would shoot up to .472 which would be 66 points ahead of 2nd. He would still trail Papi in SLG (because Papi is AWESOME – how can that guy retire?) but he would now be 47 points ahead of 3rd.
Since “+” stats don’t drive home the differences as well as raw numbers, let’s post Trout’s stats adjusted for Fenway (at least per the b-ref tool) next to Mookie’s:
Adjusted Trout: 346/472/603, 149 runs, 195 hits, 36 2b, 5 3b, 33 HR, 120 RBI
Mookie: 320/365/538, 119 runs, 211 hits, 41 2b, 5 3b, 31 HR, 112 RBI
How do the “numbers” look now?
As a Red Sox fan, I think the only fair thing to do here, is to have the Angels trade Mike Trout to Boston, let him play side-by-side with Mookie next year and see how his stats are impacted by playing in Fenway for 82 games. It’d be a terrible sacrifice for Sox fans to make, but, it seems the only fair thing to do 🙂 (my MVP vote, if I had one, would go to Trout this year)
82 games? Are you anticipating the Sox having to play a playoff game to get in despite having Trout AND Betts? 🙂
Adding Trout would be like adding 86 free plate appearances over a whole season, or 43 for just Fenway. That works out to about one extra game. Looks like SoxWatcher was right.
Why not just use the outs statistic as a %?
The formula would be number of outs created over plate appearances. So a player with 600 plate appearances who has 150 hits, 40 walks and 10 on base because of errors or hit by pitch but also hit into 10 double plays and had 15 sacrifice hits would have a score of .708.
Another player with 600 PAs and 150 hits, 100 walks and 10 on base because of errors or hit by pitch with just 5 DPs and 10 sacrifices would have a score of .591, 117 points better than player A.
The notion is, of course, that making outs is a bad thing, and if you do it less often than another player, it may not conclusively mean you had a better year, but it is a significant mark in your favor
This is basically what wOBA does, except it also gives you extra credit for extra bases. If you just want pure out%, you can use 1 – OBP.
Yes, that gets close although it doesn’t account for DPs as extra outs. In any case, if the object is to focus on the negative impact of outs, it might help to frame the stat in terms of how often a batter creates outs rather than how often he gets on base.
In terms of Trout and Betts, Betts out % is .662 while Trout’s is just .575. Actually, it is just hair splitting I guess, and since baseball is used to higher numbers being better for hitters, it might actually confuse people. Still, I like Dave’s focus on outs as a measure of how well a batter did, and thought a stat that focused that way would make it clearer if it were publicized that way regularly. How often do you hear analysts on TV talk about “outs created”, even those who are using WAR or other more advanced metrics?
Great article, would read again. But, the title should have been “Trout 86’s Mookie for MVP”. You missed a great opportunity Dave.
I don’t think this would solve anything between Trout vs. Betts, but I’m curious how much the park effects influence the WAR ratings they get. What would it look like if Trout and Mookie switched teams and ballparks, but still had the exact same stats? How much would Trout’s numbers go down? How much would Mookie’s go up? What would the difference look like?
Again, I’m not saying this would mean much of anything, but it would be interesting to see what the difference would be, and how much the park effects are shaping their value and the discussion between the two of them.
if mvp should be based on the team and whether the player helped their team get into the playoffs, they should call it “MVP of playoff teams” and make a rule you can only give it to a player on a playoff team. Otherwise the voting rules should explicitly say that you should evaluate the player on his own merits. The fact that the voters have different ideas about what exactly it is that they are voting for is crazy.
Mookie leads in the most important stat – mookiliciousness!
Pound for pound best ball player? Or does Altuve edge him out there?
Mookie – always a bridesmaid. Like Trout. Irony.
Even thinking of it as ~90 extra outs undersells the difference psychologically. Translate that to “About 130 plate appearances his teammates would have had with Trout, but didn’t with Betts”.
Even league average hitters can do a lot of damage in 130 extra plate appearances; the opportunity cost is even higher if you play for the Red Sox.
If you had told me a couple of years ago that folks would be trying to justify giving a less deserving corner OF the AL MVP over Mike Trout because of his gaudy traditional stats, I wouldn’t have given it a second thought.
If you had told me that corner outfielder would be Mookie Betts, I would have asked you to check into rehab.
Unfortunately, at least given the past ten years of voting, I suspect this will ultimately be decided on the basis of RBI.
Betts: 112
Trout: 99
Donaldson: 98
Altuve: 96
Machado: 95
I really want Trout to win the MVP. He deserves it by any sane measurement. But I don’t think he’s going to get it.
Heyman has also simply laughed off WAR results impacted by defense when it suits his preconceived ideas too.
Basically, if Trout and Betts magically switched teams, Trout scores 150 runs, drives in 150 runs, hits 40 bombs, and this isn’t even close to a discussion….
If we’re just estimating/guessing, what kind of defensive value do we think Trout would put up in a corner OF position? As it stands he’s an average-ish CF, right? Dos anyone think his value would significantly increase, a la Eaton or Betts?
On a related note, move Andrew McCutchen to LF.
Nah because trouts arm sucks. Eatons done a ton with the arm for his defensive numbers. Trout would rely more on range.
Yeah, that’s sort of what I suspected.
The only case that can be made for Betts over Trout is on a $/WAR basis, and nobody uses the “Valuable” in “Most Valuable Player” that way. Not sure why, it’s at least as useful as incorporating goodness-of-team.
Has anybody looked for coastal bias in awards races? I.e., a lot of the voters aren’t staying up to watch West Coast games, but they’ve seen Mookie do some amazing stuff. That could bias the thought processes if the stats are even remotely close.
Mike Trout is an amaaaaazing baseball player and to suggest otherwise is foolhardy. That said the same argument Cameron uses about how arbitrary it is to credit Betts for having better teammates it’s similarly arbitrary to write an article praising Trout’s making so many fewer outs when the reality is there’s no reason NOT to walk the scariest offensive player in the game when he has the “luck” of his teammates being so bad.
I’m not as knowledgeable as most of you with advanced stat work. But is it fair to say that a strikeout is worse than a ground out or fly out? That, given the fact that it offers no value in pushing runners, and also is an out that can be placed squarely on the batter, that it’s the worst type of out, barring double/triple plays? If so, does it merit any mention that Trout has struck out 54 more times than Betts entering tonight, in fewer plate appearances? It doesn’t mitigate the overall out figures, but it does at least deserve mention, I think. Anyway, just a question.
I am sorry your question has been voted down and ignored. The difference in value between different types of outs is very small. The voters, being more traditional, most likely do punish Trout year after year for being a high strikeout player. Even though the already small amount of value of tending to make outs in play vs. making outs via striking out is already reflected in other stats (i.e. sac RBIs, OBP for reaching by error, etc.)
Thanks. I think I got a few downvotes because 1) people love to do that, and 2) maybe because they think every comment comes with an agenda. Mine didn’t. Betts and Trout are legitimately two of my favorite players and I think either is a viable MVP. I know the stat community thinks the difference between strikeouts and other outs is minimal, but I also know the basic idea behind the three true outcomes and sure, Betts is far worse at walking, but he’s also much better at not striking out. You’d think it would be mentioned in this article. And that it would count for something.
It was weird. When Heyman closed his argument with how Betts “dominated games in the division,” he didn’t mention his .663 OPS vs, the Yankees or his .518 OPS vs. the Jays. I don’t even think that was malice on his part – I actually think it’s just that he can’t even be bothered to do the work.
I’m curious as to how much credit you think should be given to defense each season, concerning the MVP vote. If it’s ignored completely, doesn’t this just become the best of the Silver Slugger awards? We know single season samples are considered small when it comes to defensive metrics, but how else could you measure defensive value when trying to see if defense closes an offensive gap in value?
Also (and his may be me being tired and cranky at this moment), please have articles edited. Missing words and the like kill the flow of a great article!
For me, the best argument for definitions of MVP that aren’t actually based on the performance of the player is that the award would be redundant. How many MVPs should Bonds have won as best player in the league during his career? 10? 12? A-Rod should have had six or more, I’m sure. Trout might well end up in the double digits as well. ( How could he not, by any objective standard?)
Boring.
I’m a huge Betts fan, and correctly predicted his power and overall success early on, but the 86 outs confirms my suspicion that he is just not in Trout’s class yet, if ever. Pretty sure Mookie would diminish considerably switching teams with Trout. And what would Trout’s numbers be in Boston?
But the award is most valuable, not best. Nobody is terribly valuable on the Angels, or can be. Damn shame for Trout.
I don’t think you could argue Betts being better than, or even as good as, Trout. This article pretty much sums that up.
The question is, and what many disagree on, is what exactly is the MVP? Is it an award that simply goes to the best player? Is that the defineition of valuable? If so, Trout wins without a doubt and theres no real argument for any other player.
Some don’t value the award that way, however, which is why Mookie might be the frontrunner, and is why Bonds didn’t win 10+ MVP’s.
When you think of “valuable” you think of winning, because thats the goal of every organization no? So you could argue (and many argue) that Betts’ 8 wins above replacement (or 9 if using br) is more valuable to the Redsox than Trouts 10 to the Angels. Why? Because, without Betts, the Redsox probably don’t win the division, and might not make the playoffs. They’re still probably a good team, but your looking at more of an 85 win team that just misses the payoffs than a division winner. Take away Trouts 10 wins are the Angels are what a 60 win team? Obviously 70 wins is better than 60, but theres much more value from improving a 85 win team to a 93/4 win team than a 60 win team to a 70.
I can understand both sides argument.
Not saying Betts should win but the whole Betts over Trout argument is getting so much more heat than Cabrera over Trout and Donaldson over Trout. I feel like Cabrera/Donaldson winning over Trout angered some, but generally didn’t seem criminal and a lot ageed that, there was at least a decent argument for Cabrera/Donaldson given how great their seasons where and that there teams where playoff contenders.
MVP years:
2015 Donaldson: 8.7 fWAR / 8.8 bWAR
2013 Migg y 7.5 fWAR / 7.3bWAR
2016 Betts 7.7fWAR / 9.4bWAR
2016 Betts is really no worse than either 15 Donaldson/13 Cabrera when you combine both fWAR and bWAR, but it generally seems like there are more people against him winning the award over Trout than there was for Cabrera and Donaldson
Oh, no, if you don’t remember Trout-Cabrera being a huge thing then it must be because all of the greatest soldiers of that war died in battle and there is no one left to tell their stories.
Seriously, that felt like litigating whether sabermetrics is even a real thing. Comparatively, this feels like a just an argument with an uncle at thanksgiving about which defensive stat he prefers. Obviously the dumb “MVP must be on a playoff team” thing is still around but that is tiny compared with having to defend the existence of WAR.
The MVP should come from a contender, only if that player was integral to the team contending. I honestly do not believe the Cubs would miss the playoffs if they had a replacement level player instead of Kris Bryant, but I do believe the Dodgers would have missed them had Corey Seager not been on the team. In these “murderers row” lineups of offense (and in the Cubs+Red Sox cases, defense too) one player isn’t going to have too big an effect, I view Bryant’s MVP case the same as Betts for this reason.
In Trouts case, he’s been outstanding no matter if his team contends or not, he’s going to put up legendary, HOF-worthy numbers, no matter what. I believe he should be the MVP of the AL, and Seager the MVP+ROY in the NL.
This is obviously a silly argument… it makes the MVP ever more context based. Why have an award that assesses a broad context of league-wide balance… which is wildly out of one player’s control.
But I like it if you’re kidding/mocking. Arguing that a player is unworthy of the MVP because his team is super awesome does shade the argument AGAINST Trout like greatness on super crap teams.
I really think if Mike Trout gets to 30 HR it will be hard for the voters to not give hi the award. That number triggers some switch and all of a sudden validates the player as a legit power hitter. For me, Mike Trout looks a lot better on paper than he does with the eye test– scouts of course say different but for the common fan it’s otherwise. Unfortunately many of these voters are closer to common fans than scouts so you can see why they end up picking the people with the sexier counting stats (on good teams).
Trout has had the better season, no argument here. But, “valuable” has more than one definition, and if I’m looking from a GM’s perspective, Mookie is far more valuable *this year*. Why? Because he cost $600k whereas Trout cost $15.2M.
The ROI on Betts is insane. Trout is not more valuable than Betts + whatever player(s) $14.6M can fetch. If WAR can be applied directly to W/L, then removing Betts’s WAR and replacing with another league minimum salary player likely knocks the Red Sox out of the playoffs (they are six games up on the second Wild Card team).
To be fair, if the Angels had that extra $35M on Boston’s payroll then Trout might be playoff bound too, or at least might have had the lineup quality/protection to separate himself more in the counting stats.
Just another way to approach it. I’m completely content with anyone who prefers to judge by on-the-field production only, as well.
If you go by ROI, then Shelby Miller has a great chance to be MVP in 2019 or 2020.
Listing number of outs [Cameron] is easily as dumb as comparing the number of walks [Heyman]. This entire article could have been a single tweet.
Normally, if its close, I give it to the guy who made more of a difference to his teams post season chances. Trout is just so far and away better than Betts it has to go to him.
Plus Betts might not even be the most valuable player on his team the way Pedoria and Ortiz played, not to mention Hanley Ramirez in September
Also, if Trout played at Fenway and the AL East with the support Betts had in the batting order, his numbers would just be sick. I am not sure park factors address the whole story here
It feels to me like Trout is forced to continue having to outdo himself every year to get the type of media hype that someone like Betts has gotten seemingly due to his sudden ascension to an MVP level.
The novelty of Trout for the main stream media wore out a while ago and it’s almost like he needs to have some sort of month or game or regular stat category to get the attention that his steady, amazing end of season metrics aren’t able to attain.
The Heyman statement about walks shows that we are still a long way from everyone recognizing that a walk gets you the same number of bases as a single no matter how unexciting it might seem.