Mike Trout needs his own thread

because the angels are anything but

he's up to 10.0 rWAR now

i don't know why i chose these particular players, but trout appears to be keeping pace

http://i.imgur.com/OIeBQ6L.png

he's got an outside shot at an 11-win season, at least by baseball-reference. and he probably won't win MVP

in more ways than one, this is sort of albert pujols' fault

albert pujols turned into mid-decline phase ryan howard so quickly

pujols has the same WAR (bbr) as Ichiro this season.

and he probably won't win MVP

You think Betts will win, I take it. I'll stick with what I said a month ago (awards thread)--I think Altuve and Donaldson will cut into Betts' support enough that Trout will win. Trout has sabermetric voters to himself; even if that's still a smaller part of the pool than traditional-stat voters, the latter will split its vote.

Cameron:

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.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-actual-difference-between-mike-trout-and-mookie-betts/

i'm not sensing a lot of betts momentum compared to previous dudes who have won, it feels like a lot of people are saying trout deserves it.

I think that Cameron article makes it clear why Trout will win. You've got the old-school traditional guy (Luddite, if you prefer) who's going to vote for Betts--but even he's putting Trout second. You've got a second guy who's about halfway; prefers the MVP to play for a contender, but doesn't treat that as an absolute--and he's voting for Trout. So if Trout gets some of the halfway voters, plus all of the sabermetric voters, and then you get people like Heyman putting Trout second (or at worst third), I'm sure that'll put him comfortably ahead of a Betts/Altuve/Donaldson/Machado traffic jam.

still think ortiz will siphon off some betts votes too

Definitely, should have mentioned Ortiz--lots of sentimental support, Triple Crown stats, vote-splitting on the same team, etc.

if i understand correctly how bbref's MVP shares works, a trout win would put him 16th all time. after 5 seasons

@BNightengale
The three finalists voted on by the players for their Player of Year Award: Jose Altuve, Mookie Betts and David Ortiz

the trees do not understand the forest

the trees like narrative, which i guess isn't too surprising

maybe he's a real jerk

he doesn't seem like a lot of fun tbh

from everything i've read his makeup and general likablity are beyond reproach, the issue really is just the angels sucking

there is literally no rational reason for not voting for trout this year btw. he leads in every category. leverage-based, situational, etc he's helped his team win more than anyone else

http://mlb.mlb.com/images/9/7/0/95680970/092014_laa_trout_pats_beltre_twitter_pz1uno3t.gif

so likable Beltre doesn't even punch him here

there is literally no rational reason for not voting for trout this year btw. he leads in every category. leverage-based, situational, etc he's helped his team win more than anyone else

― k3vin k., Friday, September 30, 2016 6:14 PM (fifty-three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

didn't get his team to the playoffs

like i get what you're saying but all that stuff doesn't matter to the voters if the issue is no playoffs = team wins don't matter

they shd give the MVP to a team then

*throws up hands, throws up*

this is the players' vote. no one should expect the players to care about leverage-based or situational or basically any stats. when trout hits 40 homers as a 41yo DH i'm sure he'll win it then

ugh awards are the worst

trout is so good

What I've been saying:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2016/09/30/mike-trout-al-mvp-chances/91314092/

there is literally no rational reason for not voting for trout this year btw.

I think that's a bit of an overstatement when you're looking at two guys separated by one WAR on Baseball Reference (if you take the halfway average with the other WAR, it's 1.3). Betts closes the gap defensively, though, and I'm not the person to make the argument for him there.

My prediction--prediction--for A.L. MVP:

1. Trout
2. Betts
3. Altuve
4. Ortiz
5. Donaldson
6. Machado
7. Cano
8. Cabrera
9. Beltre

The 10th spot will either be Kluber in there somewhere, or Edwin.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CtyC4-zXYAArB45.jpg

-- joey votto

Always number one in our hearts, Joey.

<3

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8LHQBXVoAEzy7F.jpg:small

Trout is insanely talented, and that’s his foundation. But to be this good and stay this good, players also need to be able to adjust. They need to see weaknesses and work to eliminate them. Trout’s done that! He used to have a high-fastball problem. Been addressed. Relatedly, he used to have a strikeout problem. Been addressed. A couple years back he didn’t do enough on the bases. Been addressed. He used to run below-average arm ratings in the outfield. Been addressed. He’s so good.

Yet I’m a professional digger, in a sense. I’m always on the hunt for unknown strengths or weaknesses, and I’ve stumbled upon something I didn’t realize. There is an area where Mike Trout was bad. Last season, I mean. Who could’ve known? Even the best have their blemishes.

For the Angels team-preview segmenton Effectively Wild some time back, Ben and I talked with Pedro Moura. We did talk about other Angels players — there are other Angels players — but we had to talk about Trout for at least a few minutes. One of the things Moura mentioned is that Trout is still kind of figuring his way out when it comes to starting at-bats. When he first came up, he watched the first pitch almost every single time. As he’s gotten older, he’s become more willing to swing early.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/i-found-a-statistic-where-mike-trout-is-bad/

Legitimately think he might be the best player of all time, barring future injuries/performance drop off.

if he keeps this up for three more years the conversation would definitely start.

in terms of raw ability it's got to be either he or bonds. in terms of production relative to his peers, still got a while to go

i throw Mays in with those two.

even the all time greats from previous eras are in a tough spot comparing to today's players in terms of raw ability. strength, speed, conditioning, nutritional regimens for the average player are just so far above what they were several decades ago

going back to relative to his peers, here is a list of players trout, in his age-25 season, is likely to pass on the career WAR leaderboard this year:

sandy koufax
bernie williams
david wright
joe mauer
justin verlander
torii hunter
orlando cepeda
jason giambi
kirby puckett
mark teixiera
johan santana
mickey cochrane
fred mcgriff
enos slaughter
jeff kent
david ortiz
bill dickey
louis aparico
johnny damon

comparing players across too many generations just kind of gets silly. it's hard to imagine how trout would do in the 30 and 40s, riding around in buses without air conditioning, playing in heavy wool uniforms, getting routinely beaned by gritty pitchers named "bean", etc

xpost probably cano too

xxxp that's true. IMO I think today's players would kick the asses of the 1950's all-star team. mostly because the majority of them are dead, ha ha. but seriously.

from 1989 to 2004, Bonds had one duffer of a season, in 1999 when he hurt his elbow (cuz of all the steroids! say the tabloids). even then he still slugged over 600 and put up 3.3 WAR. granted he wasn't transcendent every one of those years, but his peak with SF is beyond anything that Trout's done, even though I guess it's possible for Trout to kick it up another level, he's still so young. if he puts up 3 or 4 more 9-10 WAR seasons I think a lot of people will be saying just that. then again the conversation started with Pujols too, and we all know how that turned out.

if you ignore era context, today's regulars are better athletes than yesteryear's greats, no doubt. xxp

...merely an all time great at his position and first ballot HOFer lol xp

well, yeah. Pujols is that great. But it seems like "three more seasons like this and he's in the conversation for the best ever" and his sudden decline coincided with each other.

I'm also just being glib. Baseball! ^_^

even the all time greats from previous eras are in a tough spot comparing to today's players in terms of raw ability.

Agree with the things you list after that, but wouldn't raw ability, because it's the most subjective/amorphous/unquantifiable of all those, be the least affected by era? Basically it exists in the realm of legend. To read about Bo Jackson the baseball player, his raw ability dwarfed every player before or since.

maybe "raw ability" is too subjective. by that meant what i listed afterward: strength, speed, conditioning, etc (most importantly, coaching, year-round training) and how that translates to absolute ability

did it again. absolute ability = baseball skills

anyone see the Trout doc on MLBN?

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/7417714/v1251990383/mike-trout-millville-to-mvp