Trout's last 5 years - a historical perspective

[Docwaukee]

There are only a handful of 5 years stretches in the history of baseball that are on par with what Trout has done in his first five full seasons.  What is truly remarkable is how far ahead of the next player Trout is over that span.  

5 yrs spans of 1 player being 10 WAR greater than the next closest:

1902 -1906.  Honus Wagner 45.2 WAR vs. Nap Lajoie 34.0 WAR

1903 -1907.  Wagner 47.0 WAR vs. Lajoie 35.7 WAR

1904 - 1908. Wagner 50.4 vs. Lajoie 35.2

1905 - 1909. Wagner 51.1 vs. Lajoie 32.4

During Cobb's era, there was Eddie Collins, Tris Speaker, Joe Jackson, and Fred Baker

Then Hornsby and Ruth came along.  Along with Sisler.  

1919 - 1923. Ruth 57.9 WAR vs. Hornsby 44.9.  Next closest was Speaker with 35.5

1920 - 1924. Ruth 61.1 v.s Hornsby 51.1.  Next was Speaker at 34.8

1923 - 1927. Ruth 56.1 vs. Hornsby 45.4.  

then came Foxx, Gehrig and Ott to give Ruth some competition.  

then Vaughn and Gehringer.  

Dimaggio and Williams  

Then there was WWII.  

Boudreau and Musial were big time but not head and shoulders above the rest.  

During the late 40's/early 50's, there was Robinson, Doby, Kiner, Campanella, Snider all packed together.  There was so Rosen and Berra in there.  

Then the Mick came along with Eddie Matthews and Mays and Hank and Banks and Kaline to get us through the 50's and early 60's.  

 Frank Robinson got in the mix in the 60's.

1961 - 1965.  Mays 49.8 WAR vs. Aaron 39.8.

1962 - 1966.  Mays 50.0 vs. Aaron 37.8.  Next Robinson 32.7

some Ron Santo and Yaz with the others pretty tightly packed.  

In the early 70's, Bench, Morgan, Rose and Stargell took over.  

1971 - 1975. Morgan 43.2 vs  Bench 33.0.  

1972 - 1976. Morgan 47.3 vs. Bench 33.7.   In this stretch and that above, the Reds had 3 of the top 4.  

Mid to late 70's Schmidt and Carew were in there.  Brett, Foster and Carter as well.  

Then in the early 80's it was Rickey with some Murray and Ripken.  

Boggs took over during the mid to late 80's.  

Then in the early 90's, Bonds came on the scene.  

1989 - 1993.  Bonds 44.8 vs. Henderson 32.7

then Griff jr. and Frank Thomas 

1990 - 1994. Bonds 43.7 vs. Griff 32.5.  

the Steroids.  Bagwell, Piazza, Biggio, etc  

Interestingly, the high WAR totals during this era were down into the high 30's for the most part because of roids leveling the playing field.  

Late 90's and early 2000's the roids really kicked in and Bods, Arod and Sosa wen nuts with some Chipper, Giles, Vlad.

Bonds and Arod topped the list for several years with the others a distant 3rd thru .....

2000 - 2004.  Bonds 54.9 vs. Arod 43.1.  Next is Helton at 34.4.  Edmonds, Rolen and Pujols were toward the top.  

Then Pujols took the lead for several stretches but only by a little.  Utley was in there for bit.  

Post steroid era and the top WAR dropped to the low 30's.  Miggy took over in 2009 followed by guys like Votto, Longoria, Zobrist, Cano

Then came Trout with Donaldson and McCutchen

2012 - 2016.  Trout 46.8 vs. Donaldson 32.0.  

 

So 15 five year stretches of a 10 WAR or greater lead for the top player vs. the rest of the competition.  13 of those stretches at least back to back or in a row.  14 of those stretches by 5 players

Wagner, Ruth, Mays, Morgan, and Bonds.  (didn't expect Morgan to be in with those names)

Trout's 13.8 WAR delta to the next closest player is the highest differential is the highest since Honus Wagner out WAR'd Nap Lajoie by 18.7 WAR from 1905 - 1909.  

BTW, Trout has done this in his first 5 full seasons.  He just turned 25.  ie, he did it from age 20- 24.

The others?

Wagner - ages 28-32, 29-33, 30-34, 31-35.  

Ruth - ages 24-28, 25-29, 28-32

Mays - 30-34 and 31-35

Morgan - 27-31, and 28-32

Bonds - 24-28, 25-29, and 35-39

Trout - 20-24.  

 

It's difficult to even put that into perspective.  Trout is actually doing something relative to his peers that no one has even come close to.  And to sell it even further, consider this:

Here are the top eleven next closest to him and their age:

1. Trout - 46.8 WAR, age 24 (season.  he just turned 25 in August)

2. Donaldson - 32.0 WAR, Age 30

3. McCutchen - 29.1 WAR, Age 29

4. Miggy Cabrera - 28.1 WAR, Age 33

5. Adrian Beltre - 27.8 WAR, Age 37

6. Buster Posey - 27.5 WAR, Age 29

7. Robinson Cano - 26.4 WAR, Age 33

8. Paul Goldschmidt - 25.6 WAR, Age 28 (just turned 29)

9. Joey Votto - 24.9 WAR, Age 32 (just turned 33)

10.  Manny Machado - 22.9, Age 23 (just turned 24)

11. Bryce Harper - 22.8, Age 23 ( will be 24 in mid october)

 

So there it is.  Some serious Trout pron.  

 

[Angels_Make_Me_Drink]

Did you write that yourself? If so, I hope @Chuckster70 is paying you Pujols type money. 

[Angelsjunky]

Doc, I appreciate your dedication--it must have taken an hour or more to re-set Fangraphs from "1901-05" to "1902-06," all the way to "2012-16."

Oh yeah, I need a paper towel.

[Docwaukee]

6 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Doc, I appreciate your dedication--it must have taken an hour or more to re-set Fangraphs from "1901-05" to "1902-06," all the way to "2012-16."

Oh yeah, I need a paper towel.

about a half hour.  it went quicker than I expected.  thought there would be more data sets.   not including fap time.  

[Amazing Larry]

fap > fip 

[Amazing Larry]

BTW great post Doc. Fun read. 

[Oz27]

Good stuff as always, Doc.

One of my favorite bits of Trout porn at the moment was pointed out by Sam Miller the other day. He pointed out that 50 per cent of players to accumulate 40.5 WAR through their age 35 season make the hall of fame. Trout is already ahead of that - and way ahead of it (he is at 48.5). This is more a fun hypothetical than anything legitimate, but that tells us that if he chose not to play competitive baseball for a decade but did something to remain in condition so as to not lose his skill, he could come back after those 10 years and follow the path of a typical 35-year-old from there and have a really good shot at making the hall of fame.

Another good one - he is second all time in highest WAR through a player's first six seasons, trailing only Ted Williams. That's despite his first season consisting of 123 at bats at age 19.

Also, Trout already has the 8th highest WAR for a player up to the end of their age 26 season ... even though he is still in his age 24 season. He's also 56th for players through their age 30 season, ahead of some really good players who are either in or should eventually be in the hall of fame (Tim Raines, Vlad Guerrero, Robinson Cano, Roberto Clemente, Mike Piazza and many more). In other words, he has already produced more than any of those guys did by the time they were six years older than he is now.

[Docwaukee]

One of the interesting things about Trout is whether he will actually get better.  It's hard to imagine that he would, but history says that players peak between age 27 to 31.  He is in the midst of a season where he has his highest bb rate and second lowest k rate.  Will he couple that with with the almost .600 slg% he had last year at some point?  Old baseball was wrought with greater opportunity because of a thinner pop of players.  The truly elite had a much easier time being above and beyond their peers.  Is Trout really that good or are his peers not truly elite?  

Personally, I think we see him have some seasons in the middle of career where he walks more than he k's.  His adaptation to the high pitch this season is truly remarkable.  I was actually concerned that advanced metrics helped to 'figure him out' and then he goes and does what he did this year.  With all the scouting on him now, it makes this year that much more impressive.  Even if he play at a level that is pretty much even for the next 6 years, he will be at 100 WAR by age 30.  

If the Angels haven't started to initiate conversations about an extension then I would be disappointed.   

[Oz27]

6 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

One of the interesting things about Trout is whether he will actually get better.  It's hard to imagine that he would, but history says that players peak between age 27 to 31.  He is in the midst of a season where he has his highest bb rate and second lowest k rate.  Will he couple that with with the almost .600 slg% he had last year at some point?  Old baseball was wrought with greater opportunity because of a thinner pop of players.  The truly elite had a much easier time being above and beyond their peers.  Is Trout really that good or are his peers not truly elite?  

Personally, I think we see him have some seasons in the middle of career where he walks more than he k's.  His adaptation to the high pitch this season is truly remarkable.  I was actually concerned that advanced metrics helped to 'figure him out' and then he goes and does what he did this year.  With all the scouting on him now, it makes this year that much more impressive.  Even if he play at a level that is pretty much even for the next 6 years, he will be at 100 WAR by age 30.  

If the Angels haven't started to initiate conversations about an extension then I would be disappointed.   

Surely they have, even if it was just the most preliminary "we want you" type discussion. Managing to lock up Trout beyond 2020 would dramatically alter my hopes and expectations for this team going forward. Trout's next contract is going to be long-term. Very few players want to hit free agency at 38, they want it to last until the end of their playing days. So, theoretically, if we extended Trout now it would probably have to be a 12-13 year extension beyond what he is already contracted to. That would mean he would be signed to us for 16 or 17 more seasons. Working on a pretty conservative AAV of $34 million, that would become something like a 16-year, $544 million contract.

Crazy to think about, huh? If the Trout camp said "he'll sign for 16/$544 million", would you do it? I think you would have to. It sounds totally ridiculous but he has already provided somewhere between $388 million and $485 million of value, depending on which dollar per win calculation you buy into.

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

3 hours ago, Dochalo said:

Trout - 46.8 WAR,

Trout - 48.5 WAR if you subtract the .7 from his very brief first cup of coffee in 2011 that's still 47.8.

[ten ocho recon scout]

I think the pending teout contract is the biggest driving force behind arte being gunshy with spending, personally. Doesmt mean it will happen, but i think they know trout will shatter the bank, and are trying to plan ahead for it.

[arch stanton]

I'm all for getting the ball rolling on the extension but it's hard to believe either side wants to commit to anything before the results are in on the CBA this off season and the big FA class of the next off season.

[ELEVEN]

Great read Doc! One question I have is WAR relative to other eras when Replacement level players where less plentiful due to fewer teams. How does that affect the given value of R in WAR in terms of dillution?

[Oz27]

New favorite Trout stat - Trout's 67 offensive runs above average this year is more than Miguel Cabrera and David Ortiz COMBINED.

[Oz27]

22 minutes ago, ELEVEN said:

Great read Doc! One question I have is WAR relative to other eras when Replacement level players where less plentiful due to fewer teams. How does that affect the given value of R in WAR in terms of dillution?

If I can make a poor attempt at answering, there is no deliberate effort to do that but some measures have a similar effect. Replacement level is set to a point where a whole team of them would be expected to produce a .297 winning percentage, that is win about 47 games. So replacement level changes each year; it was very different in 2001 to what it was in the 60s or in the deadball era.

But the difficulty of finding a replace my level player hasn't changed much over time. It's not like the gap between the high minors and the worst MLB players has widened, they tend to move hand in hand. So as, say, the standard of hitters has improved so has that of replacement level hitters. Things like the introduction of more teams or the widening of the talent pool through integration have a natural impact on replacement level, I suppose, as they change average player levels and so on too.

[Slegnaac]

8 hours ago, Oz27 said:

Surely they have, even if it was just the most preliminary "we want you" type discussion. Managing to lock up Trout beyond 2020 would dramatically alter my hopes and expectations for this team going forward. Trout's next contract is going to be long-term. Very few players want to hit free agency at 38, they want it to last until the end of their playing days. So, theoretically, if we extended Trout now it would probably have to be a 12-13 year extension beyond what he is already contracted to. That would mean he would be signed to us for 16 or 17 more seasons. Working on a pretty conservative AAV of $34 million, that would become something like a 16-year, $544 million contract.

Crazy to think about, huh? If the Trout camp said "he'll sign for 16/$544 million", would you do it? I think you would have to. It sounds totally ridiculous but he has already provided somewhere between $388 million and $485 million of value, depending on which dollar per win calculation you buy into.

A contract of that length is going to have multiple opt-outs on both sides, which will be the difficult part of the agreement. 

[Kevin]

For Tdawg's reading enjoyment.

[Chuck]

I'm promoting this to the Blog. 

Nice work, @Dochalo

[disarcina]

Angels goal for the final three games should be this:

Get Trout the one HR so he gets to 30 HR.

1 more RBI (preferably with the HR) so he gets to 100.

steals 3 more bases to get to 27.

as a 30 HR/ 30 SBs/ 100 RBI and about 185 hits (impressive hit total considering the number of IBB he gets) -- he would have to be the odds on fav for MVP.

then, just for good measure, add in his five year stat performance as Chuck has highlighted.........

contender or no -- 30/30/ 100 ribbies and 185 hits are very impressive individual stats.......

 

[disarcina]

actually , stats as pointed out by DocHalo and shared with Chuck's post.

[Angelsjunky]

10 hours ago, Dochalo said:

One of the interesting things about Trout is whether he will actually get better.  It's hard to imagine that he would, but history says that players peak between age 27 to 31.  He is in the midst of a season where he has his highest bb rate and second lowest k rate.  Will he couple that with with the almost .600 slg% he had last year at some point?  Old baseball was wrought with greater opportunity because of a thinner pop of players.  The truly elite had a much easier time being above and beyond their peers.  Is Trout really that good or are his peers not truly elite?  

Personally, I think we see him have some seasons in the middle of career where he walks more than he k's.  His adaptation to the high pitch this season is truly remarkable.  I was actually concerned that advanced metrics helped to 'figure him out' and then he goes and does what he did this year.  With all the scouting on him now, it makes this year that much more impressive.  Even if he play at a level that is pretty much even for the next 6 years, he will be at 100 WAR by age 30.  

If the Angels haven't started to initiate conversations about an extension then I would be disappointed.   

Trout's been extremely consistent, which is mainly a good thing but also means that he might not get any better. Consider his wOBA and wRC+ over the last five years:

wOBA: .409, .423, .402, .415, .420

wRC+: .167, 176, 167, 172, 172

Now the good news is that he's on an upward trajectory with the bat, from his worst season in 2014 to now. The upward curve is slight, but there. He's also stealing more bases again, and expect that we'll see four or five more years of 20-30ish SB, rather than the odd 16 and 11 he stole in 2014-15. It is now looking like 2014 was an outlier, which is ironic considering he won the MVP.

I personally don't think we'll ever see the ridiculous numbers that might have been projected from an improvement curve from 2012-13, but we might see micro improvements that, over a few years, leads to one or two seasons in which he combines the best of his 2015 season (40+ HR power) with the best of 2016 (.320 BA, 110+ BB, 30 SB), and maybe hits .320-.330, 40+ HR, 120+ BB or so. That might be around age 27-28. Then I think he'll decline with the BA and settle into a .290-.300, 40 HR, 120 BB groove during his early 30s--not unlike 2015, but with more walks.

 

[fan_since79]

I really want to see him finish the season with a 1.000 OPS. 

He's at .997. A good weekend and he could do it.

I hope Scioscia doesn't "rest" him because Houston is eliminated.

 

[Angel Oracle]

I could see resting him, if he reaches 1.000 OPS at some point this weekend.

[Angelsjunky]

31 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

I could see resting him, if he reaches 1.000 OPS at some point this weekend.

Huh? Do we follow the same manager? Scioscia's decision on whether to rest him or not will have nothing to do with his OPS or any other stat. If anything, Scioscia might want to give him every chance he can get to get that 30th HR and 100th RBI, and maybe 30 SB. But OPS? Does Scioscia know what that is?

Olive and Prosciutto Sauce?

[eaterfan]

6 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Huh? Do we follow the same manager? Scioscia's decision on whether to rest him or not will have nothing to do with his OPS or any other stat. If anything, Scioscia might want to give him every chance he can get to get that 30th HR and 100th RBI, and maybe 30 SB. But OPS? Does Scioscia know what that is?

Olive and Prosciutto Sauce?

Come on man, it's 2016, of course he knows what OPS is! It's not like it's 2007.