White Sox Interactive Forums
Talking Baseball

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Talking Baseball
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-04-2019, 08:20 AM
ChiTownTrojan ChiTownTrojan is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 1,113
Default Trout passes Jeter in career WAR; Thome and Thomas are up next

Pretty good article from ESPN describing how it's possible for Trout to essentially be twice as good on a per-game basis as Jeter. Trout is only 0.3 back in career WAR from Thome, and 1.3 behind Thomas.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...better-captain
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-04-2019, 09:09 AM
WhiteSox5187 WhiteSox5187 is offline
Winner 2016 WSI Preseason Prediction Contest
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Southside
Posts: 16,366
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiTownTrojan View Post
Pretty good article from ESPN describing how it's possible for Trout to essentially be twice as good on a per-game basis as Jeter. Trout is only 0.3 back in career WAR from Thome, and 1.3 behind Thomas.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...better-captain
I read something awhile ago that pointed out Trout's offensive numbers are about what Thomas' were at his peak. So imagine a Frank Thomas that can play a good defensive center field and steal around 30 bases a year. That's how good Mike Trout is.
__________________

Go Sox!!!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-04-2019, 09:31 AM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is offline
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 58,508
Blog Entries: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteSox5187 View Post
I read something awhile ago that pointed out Trout's offensive numbers are about what Thomas' were at his peak. So imagine a Frank Thomas that can play a good defensive center field and steal around 30 bases a year. That's how good Mike Trout is.
Mike Trout is Willie Mays. He truly is a once a generation player. One of the all time greats already.
__________________

Riding shotgun on the Sox bandwagon since before there was an Internet...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:46 PM
TDog TDog is online now
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 18,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteSox5187 View Post
I read something awhile ago that pointed out Trout's offensive numbers are about what Thomas' were at his peak. So imagine a Frank Thomas that can play a good defensive center field and steal around 30 bases a year. That's how good Mike Trout is.

Can you imagine what Thomas at his peak would be doing offensively in today's game? Thomas wasn't striking out at half Trout's rate because the pitching is so much tougher today. Not that I would have wanted to see Thomas in center field.

Thomas also never had four straight losing seasons with the White Sox, which Trout will accomplish this season with the Angels. I wouldn't suggest that Trout's skills are exaggerated by what can be described as dumbing-down of the professional game leading to exaggerated statistics throughout the majors. Maybe it's that the current offensive stimulus in the game is boosting lesser what lesser players do to the point where Trout's achievements aren't as important to winning (something has nothing to do with the W in WAR and which I keep reading is the only thing that matters) as they would have been even just a couple of decades ago.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-04-2019, 01:38 PM
ChiTownTrojan ChiTownTrojan is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 1,113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
Can you imagine what Thomas at his peak would be doing offensively in today's game? Thomas wasn't striking out at half Trout's rate because the pitching is so much tougher today. Not that I would have wanted to see Thomas in center field.

Thomas also never had four straight losing seasons with the White Sox, which Trout will accomplish this season with the Angels. I wouldn't suggest that Trout's skills are exaggerated by what can be described as dumbing-down of the professional game leading to exaggerated statistics throughout the majors. Maybe it's that the current offensive stimulus in the game is boosting lesser what lesser players do to the point where Trout's achievements aren't as important to winning (something has nothing to do with the W in WAR and which I keep reading is the only thing that matters) as they would have been even just a couple of decades ago.
Are you suggesting that Trout's performance has not been contributing to teams wins, just because his team isn't very good? The Angels are currently 65-74, and Trout has a WAR of 8.7 (per FanGraphs). It's perfectly reasonable to me that the Angels would have 8-9 fewer wins if they didn't have Trout, and instead had Adam Engel (0.4 WAR) patrolling CF.

What's really a shame is that I don't think Trout has the kind of aura about him that some lesser players (like Jeter) had in their careers. Baseball fans know how good he is, but he should be worshiped like the Babe Ruth of our time, and I get the feeling that there are a lot of people in this country who have never even heard of him.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-04-2019, 02:12 PM
HomeFish HomeFish is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 7,211
Default

Trout isn't even the best known player on his own team.
__________________
"Hope...may be indulged in by those who have abundant resources...but its nature is to be extravagant, and those who go so far as to stake their all upon the venture see it in its true colors only when they are ruined."
-- Thucydides
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-04-2019, 02:45 PM
TDog TDog is online now
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 18,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiTownTrojan View Post
Are you suggesting that Trout's performance has not been contributing to teams wins, just because his team isn't very good? The Angels are currently 65-74, and Trout has a WAR of 8.7 (per FanGraphs). It's perfectly reasonable to me that the Angels would have 8-9 fewer wins if they didn't have Trout, and instead had Adam Engel (0.4 WAR) patrolling CF.

What's really a shame is that I don't think Trout has the kind of aura about him that some lesser players (like Jeter) had in their careers. Baseball fans know how good he is, but he should be worshiped like the Babe Ruth of our time, and I get the feeling that there are a lot of people in this country who have never even heard of him.
First of all, WAR is a statistical construct that is parallel, but not necessarily related to winning. It doesn't, as has been notoriously derided in this forum, disgard the home runs in the eighth or ninth inning when down by double digits and doesn't throw out the garbage-time at bats against the left-fielder brought in to pitch in the ninth with his team down by eight runs. A player's WAR is not a measure of how good a player is in situations that can lead to winning games and the frequency of such success. It doesn't look at game situations and really shouldn't begin with a W.

But I'm not calling Trout a bum or a slacker. I'm just saying that WAR can be a deceptive measure of a player's success and what he means to a winning team. It exits because there are people who believe such a statistical measure is necessary. As you artificially inflate the offense, as baseball is obviously doing, you are going to inflate WAR. This isn't isn't a 19th century whaling ship where you divide up the spoils based upon each crew members contribution to the voyage. You don't have to win games games to produce WAR.

What I'm saying is that as you artificially inflate the offense, it diminishes the value of great offensive players.

If you want to compare Trout's WAR to Frank Thomas WAR, you are cheapening the legacy of Frank Thomas while the current baseball environment is cheapening home run legacies for hitters and strikeout legacies for pitchers..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-04-2019, 04:18 PM
kobo kobo is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Lake in the Hills
Posts: 5,804
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
First of all, WAR is a statistical construct that is parallel, but not necessarily related to winning. It doesn't, as has been notoriously derided in this forum, disgard the home runs in the eighth or ninth inning when down by double digits and doesn't throw out the garbage-time at bats against the left-fielder brought in to pitch in the ninth with his team down by eight runs. A player's WAR is not a measure of how good a player is in situations that can lead to winning games and the frequency of such success. It doesn't look at game situations and really shouldn't begin with a W.

But I'm not calling Trout a bum or a slacker. I'm just saying that WAR can be a deceptive measure of a player's success and what he means to a winning team. It exits because there are people who believe such a statistical measure is necessary. As you artificially inflate the offense, as baseball is obviously doing, you are going to inflate WAR. This isn't isn't a 19th century whaling ship where you divide up the spoils based upon each crew members contribution to the voyage. You don't have to win games games to produce WAR.

What I'm saying is that as you artificially inflate the offense, it diminishes the value of great offensive players.

If you want to compare Trout's WAR to Frank Thomas WAR, you are cheapening the legacy of Frank Thomas while the current baseball environment is cheapening home run legacies for hitters and strikeout legacies for pitchers..
I honestly do not understand what point you are trying to make when you say things like artificially inflating offense diminishes the value of great offensive players. Wouldn't the opposite be true? If offense is being artificially inflated (whatever that means, I guess that means juicing the ball?) then great offensive players should have an even higher WAR as WAR takes into account all aspects of hitting.


And sorry, disagree about Thomas' legacy being cheapened by using WAR to compare his legacy to that of someone playing the game today. What Thomas did is not cheapened at all by using WAR. It shows he was one of the all time greats and it shows Trout is also in that same category.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-04-2019, 05:17 PM
DumpJerry's Avatar
DumpJerry DumpJerry is offline
Tom Feargal Hagen
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The hearts and minds of Sox fans on 10-26-05
Posts: 28,278
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HomeFish View Post
Trout isn't even the best known player on his own team.
??????

Who is it?

Maybe in California they talk about someone else, but outside California, Trout is the only name you really hear when the conversation turns to the Angels.
__________________


2020....2020.....2020....2020....2020.....
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-04-2019, 05:28 PM
TDog TDog is online now
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 18,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kobo View Post
I honestly do not understand what point you are trying to make when you say things like artificially inflating offense diminishes the value of great offensive players. Wouldn't the opposite be true? If offense is being artificially inflated (whatever that means, I guess that means juicing the ball?) then great offensive players should have an even higher WAR as WAR takes into account all aspects of hitting.


And sorry, disagree about Thomas' legacy being cheapened by using WAR to compare his legacy to that of someone playing the game today. What Thomas did is not cheapened at all by using WAR. It shows he was one of the all time greats and it shows Trout is also in that same category.
Hypothetically, if you move Thomas' career into Trout's offensive environment and Thomas' WAR would increase. Unless you base WAR on a player's actual contribution to winning actual games, as long as you base it on statistics that you analyze lead to winning games it doesn't tell you what it alleges to tell you. It is a raw statistical measure affected by the same variables that have the current Minnesota Twins outslugging the 1927 Yankees.

The fact that Trout will probably only be 30 when he passes up Thomas on the all-time strikeout list tells you more about their relative hitting than WAR does, even if you believe it doesn't tell you much.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-04-2019, 06:52 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 12,108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
Hypothetically, if you move Thomas' career into Trout's offensive environment and Thomas' WAR would increase. Unless you base WAR on a player's actual contribution to winning actual games, as long as you base it on statistics that you analyze lead to winning games it doesn't tell you what it alleges to tell you. It is a raw statistical measure affected by the same variables that have the current Minnesota Twins outslugging the 1927 Yankees.

The fact that Trout will probably only be 30 when he passes up Thomas on the all-time strikeout list tells you more about their relative hitting than WAR does, even if you believe it doesn't tell you much.
Yes. WAR would not be the best context to compare Trout and Thomas as hitters. For that, you would be much better off using batting RAA, and peak Frank has peak Trout beat. Frankís seven best batting RAA seasons totaled 441 runs above average. Troutís seven best seasons totaled 420. This gap will shrink by a few runs, since 2019 is included among his seven best seasons, but that is like an extra two months of superlative offensive production over that time frame.

This discussion literally is defending Frank against an argument that no one, stat-head or otherwise, is making.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horsemaster Fred
This is the major leagues so get it how you live and letís fight tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-04-2019, 08:01 PM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is offline
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 58,508
Blog Entries: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
Yes. WAR would not be the best context to compare Trout and Thomas as hitters. For that, you would be much better off using batting RAA, and peak Frank has peak Trout beat. Frank’s seven best batting RAA seasons totaled 441 runs above average. Trout’s seven best seasons totaled 420. This gap will shrink by a few runs, since 2019 is included among his seven best seasons, but that is like an extra two months of superlative offensive production over that time frame.

This discussion literally is defending Frank against an argument that no one, stat-head or otherwise, is making.
And just to commit total blasphemy and risk the wrath of his hurtness it's really not that over the top to note that a great defensive CF who hits like Trout and steals bases too is worth more on paper than a 1B/DH who hits like Frank. There just aren't that many CF who have ever played the game like Trout. I mean you can put him in the same category as Willie Mays and right now he might be the starting CF on the all time team if you had to pick. By the time he retires the discussion might be moot...

Edit: And I want to be clear about something. My comments in NO WAY diminish Frank Thomas. Trout is just in a different class of player. He's one of the top 10-15 players to ever play the game.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-04-2019, 09:07 PM
WhiteSox5187 WhiteSox5187 is offline
Winner 2016 WSI Preseason Prediction Contest
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Southside
Posts: 16,366
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DumpJerry View Post
??????

Who is it?

Maybe in California they talk about someone else, but outside California, Trout is the only name you really hear when the conversation turns to the Angels.
Baseball fans know Trout more than anyone but if you ask the general public writ large I wouldnít be stunned if more people recognize Pujols than Trout.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-04-2019, 10:19 PM
MISoxfan MISoxfan is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,319
Default

Trout is easily the best player of my lifetime with the caveat that it's hard to compare him to Bonds.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-04-2019, 10:53 PM
hoosiersoxfan hoosiersoxfan is offline
Co-Winner WSI 2018 NFL Pick'em Contest
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,933
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MISoxfan View Post
Trout is easily the best player of my lifetime with the caveat that it's hard to compare him to Bonds.
Trout is without a doubt the best player I've ever seen. Only other 5 tool guy with the power and defense I can think of in his class are Griffey Jr. and Bonds. Not sure when Barry started on the PEDs but he was incredible early in his career even before his head doubled in size.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:17 PM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.