[Fangraphs] The actual difference between Trout and Betts

[Oz27]

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

Hey stat guys, why wouldn't total bases include walks?  Hell I think it should include walks and stolen bases.  

Because it's not a great stat, to put it bluntly. It tells us something but to use it as a complete offensive picture is silly.

[Docwaukee]

6 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

There is some validity to this. 

In 2013, when I had an MVP vote, I did discount Trout's walks because his walk rate doubled the moment Albert Pujols' season ended. They were essentially intentional walks, more than him showing such great plate discipline. 

I don't think that's the case this year because he was walking all year and Pujols was behind him all year. 

the ultimate individual goal of any player in any given at bat is to not make an out.  

that is a skill regardless of who you have in front of you or behind you.  Trout hit 31 solo hrs last year because he didn't have very many guys on in front of him.  This year, he had quite a few more so pitchers were less inclined to give him as much to hit.  So he made that work for him and didn't make outs.   Betts actually saw fewer runner on base this year than Trout, but had Ortiz and others behind him.  So pitchers actually gave him pitches to hit.  

wRC+ is probably the best stat for determining a players offensive value.  Betts was 17th in baseball, 9th in the AL and 36 points below Trout.  Which amounts to 36%.  They are probably equal from a base running standpoint and betts has the edge defensively, but not enough to make up the difference offensively.  So if you are going to make Betts your MVP, it has to be because you placed a ton of value on him playing for a contender.  

 

[Stradling]

You guys are awesome, thank you!  Doc I have more questions but I'll hit you up in a PM or I'll actually look it up myself.  

[Oz27]

To extend the thought a bit, total bases makes players like Mookie Betts appear better than they actually are. It always has the potential to benefit players who hit for a high average and have power but don't walk much, because it rewards them for their average and power without punishing them for their lack of walking. Of course Betts is great and there is big value in someone who hits for a high average with power, but you're getting an incomplete and misleading picture by judging him from his total bases number. To put the stat's flaws in perspective, Barry Bonds led the league in total bases once. His 2004 season (.362/.609/.812) is the best anyone has ever been at hitting I would argue ... and if not it is very damn close. But his total base figure in 2004 was 303, which would rank 25th in the majors this year and was tied for 30th in 2004. Of course the reason for that is total bases gave him no reward for the 232 times he walked, so it suggested he was only pretty good rather than being unfathomably awesome. The difference between Betts and Trout in 2016 can be explained along similar, but less extreme, lines. Trout is getting no reward for his 116 walks from total bases, so it doesn't reflect that he was the best offensive player this season by a very substantial margin.

[Jeff Fletcher]

17 hours ago, ScottT said:

Trout drew the walks himself. He deserves all the credit.  Sure, they pitched around him... still do... but not every player takes those walks.   They pitched around him because he is a great hitter.

You don't drive in runs by yourself most of the time.   You draw walks yourself.  

If he did it all by himself, why did he mysteriously get twice as good at doing it the day Albert Pujols got hurt in 2013?

[Troll Daddy]

Which is a false stat ... RBI's or Walks?

[Stradling]

RBI, also not a false stat, just not a great stat to determine a players value. 

[ScottT]

Walks > R > RBI

Trout was not twice as good the day Pujols got hurt in 2013.  Most players wouldn't have walked that much.  

Discounting a player's walks is ridiculous. 

[Oz27]

It's still hard to believe we had a hitting coach who said walks were a "false stat"? Christ, what a time that was.

[Troll Daddy]

7 hours ago, Stradling said:

RBI, also not a false stat, just not a great stat to determine a players value. 

A walk is something that is given to you ... a RBI is something that is earned.

[Oz27]

Hahahahahahahahaha!

[Oz27]

Just now, hangin n wangin said:

Lol sad thing is I think he's serious.

Yep. This is the best yet.

[Jeff Fletcher]

4 hours ago, ScottT said:

Walks > R > RBI

Trout was not twice as good the day Pujols got hurt in 2013.  Most players wouldn't have walked that much.  

Discounting a player's walks is ridiculous. 

OK, let me refresh your memory. This is Mike Trout's walk rate for 2013

April: 10.3 pct

May: 11.0

June: 11.8

July 1-26: 8.5

July 27-Aug: 24.0

Sept: 23.9

His OBP through July 26 was .400. From July 27 to the end of the season, it was .488.

He had walked two times in the 10 games up through July 26. Starting July 27, he walked 18 times in the next nine games, including at least once every game.

What do you think happened on July 26, 2013?

[mulwin444]

12 hours ago, hangin n wangin said:

Yo Troll Dad, how about when a player walks and gets an RBI. Is that given too?? Must be, since it's a walk right? 

Forever known from now on as the "TrollDaddy Paradox"

 

[Troll Daddy]

16 hours ago, hangin n wangin said:

Lol sad thing is I think he's serious.

Yo Troll Dad, how about when a player walks and gets an RBI. Is that given too?? Must be, since it's a walk right? 

Please explain because now I'm very confused.

No need to be confused.  I'm not saying there isn't value in walking. Players like Trout and Harper ususally lead baseball in walks for a reason. 

Pitchers issue the walks ... hitters are looking to hit not walk. Most hitters have to be aggressive at the plate for a reason. 

Pitch recognition is a skill ... but hitting is the real skill. The better hitter you become the better your chance of walking. 

You guys need to forgive me ... I still live in the Stone Age when it comes to baseball . You're all much smarter with the new stuff. 

[Lou]

On October 5, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Jeff Fletcher said:

OK, let me refresh your memory. This is Mike Trout's walk rate for 2013

April: 10.3 pct

May: 11.0

June: 11.8

July 1-26: 8.5

July 27-Aug: 24.0

Sept: 23.9

His OBP through July 26 was .400. From July 27 to the end of the season, it was .488.

He had walked two times in the 10 games up through July 26. Starting July 27, he walked 18 times in the next nine games, including at least once every game.

What do you think happened on July 26, 2013?

[Troll Daddy]

"The ultimate individual goal of any player in any given at bat is not to make a out"

That's the result you hope for but not the goal at the plate IMO. The ultimate goal for a batter is to put the ball in play for a hit. If the pitcher gives you a walk you take it. There's also situational hitting to consider. 

By putting the ball in play you can't control outs. You hit the ball and hope for the best. Players are taught to hit the ball starting from little league. They are also taught not to swing at balls (good eye) ... which is a lot tougher to do at the ML level. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

On 10/4/2016 at 7:44 AM, arch stanton said:

I was looking at all their numbers and really the big difference between their offensive numbers boils down to walk totals. That's what drives the differences in all the more recently developed formulas and the obp. So, if one was forced to make an argument for Betts he could simply point out that, even though it's not his fault, teams were able to neutralize Trout by pitching around him and thus the extra hits and total bases amassed by Betts, coupled with his huge dWAR advantage in BR, made his contributions more valuable. I wouldn't buy it but for those who had predetermined their position and were looking to justify it, that's one way to do it.

On 10/4/2016 at 6:32 PM, Jeff Fletcher said:

It's the same argument with RBIs.

One guy gets a lot more RBIs than another guy because he has better hitters in front of him, so it's not an even comparison. 

One guy walks more than another guy because he has worse hitters behind him, so it's not an even comparison. 

Again, I'm not talking about this year because Trout had Pujols hitting behind him all year. I'm talking about 2013. 

That is a logical fallacy. If Trout could be 'neutralized' by being walked then every batter should be walked. Trout is walked because his expected run value when pitched to is HIGHER than the run value of a walk in many situations. Just like with Bonds when he was intentionally walked with the bases loaded, he was far from being 'neutralized.'

[AngelsLakersFan]

On 10/5/2016 at 10:32 PM, Jeff Fletcher said:

OK, let me refresh your memory. This is Mike Trout's walk rate for 2013

April: 10.3 pct

May: 11.0

June: 11.8

July 1-26: 8.5

July 27-Aug: 24.0

Sept: 23.9

His OBP through July 26 was .400. From July 27 to the end of the season, it was .488.

He had walked two times in the 10 games up through July 26. Starting July 27, he walked 18 times in the next nine games, including at least once every game.

What do you think happened on July 26, 2013?

Let's look at it another way: Total offensive performance by month as measured by wRC+, Runs scored and RBI's (wRC+ / R / RBI)

Apr:  115 / 15 / 16
May: 198 / 27 / 21
Jun:  173 / 15 / 15
Jul:   209 / 16 / 14
Aug: 208 / 19 / 16
Spt:  166 / 17 / 15

Aside from his slow start in April his overall offensive performance was pretty similar month to month. The lineup Trout is in effects the ways pitchers approach his at bats but it is Trout who is driving the results. When the value of pitching to Trout decreases because there is no one around him he sees more walks and makes less outs. When the value of pitching to Trout increases because guys are on base or there are threats behind him, then teams walk him less, and he hits more doubles and homeruns while making more outs. In the end though, the values are roughly the same.

This is just one of the many balance points in the game, like the tradeoff between offensive and defense, power and speed, or contact and power. To discount Trout's walks because it became a more effective way of facing him is like discounting Shaq's free throws during the days of hack-a-shaq. Either way the other team is still losing.

[Docwaukee]

11 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

"The ultimate individual goal of any player in any given at bat is not to make a out"

That's the result you hope for but not the goal at the plate IMO. The ultimate goal for a batter is to put the ball in play for a hit. If the pitcher gives you a walk you take it. There's also situational hitting to consider. 

By putting the ball in play you can't control outs. You hit the ball and hope for the best. Players are taught to hit the ball starting from little league. They are also taught not to swing at balls (good eye) ... which is a lot tougher to do at the ML level. 

WTF?  

Read the statement again.  Let me say it a different way - 'the primary goal is to not make an out' .  Whether by hit or walk or error or hbp.  Yes, there is situational hitting and you want to move a runner over or get a guy in from third with less than two outs, but the primary goal is still not making an out.  

Giving a hitter similar credit for the skill of driving in a run vs. that of being able to draw a walk is insane.  The guy walking to the box has absolutely zero influence on whether he'll be doing so with an opportunity for an rbi.  

Implying what Trout did in 2013 after Pujols was out somehow lacked skill is difficult for me to stomach.  In fact, it takes even more skill in my opinion.  It's not like they were putting out four fingers every time.  Trout still has to decide whether or not to swing and in most cases, hitters would press (see Bryce Harper circa 2016).  Trout's obp went up by 100 points but his avg and slugging % were still about on par with the rest.  

Albert Pujols had more RBI than Mookie Betts.  I think that tells you all you need to know about RBI.  

Hey, I get it.  Walks are boring as shit.  RBI are exciting because a run is crossing the plate.  I would much rather watch a guy hit a seeing eye single to score the man from second than to watch that same guy get a free pass.  But that's in part why Albert Pujols has a .268 avg with a .323 obp and a .260 babip for 0.9 WAR while driving in 119 runs and why Mike Trout has 9.4 WAR from a .371 BABIP and a .441 obp with 100 RBI.  

Walks are skill more than circumstance.  RBI are circumstance more than skill.  

 

[Troll Daddy]

3 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

WTF?  

Read the statement again.  Let me say it a different way - 'the primary goal is to not make an out' .  Whether by hit or walk or error or hbp.  Yes, there is situational hitting and you want to move a runner over or get a guy in from third with less than two outs, but the primary goal is still not making an out.  

Giving a hitter similar credit for the skill of driving in a run vs. that of being able to draw a walk is insane.  The guy walking to the box has absolutely zero influence on whether he'll be doing so with an opportunity for an rbi.  

Implying what Trout did in 2013 after Pujols was out somehow lacked skill is difficult for me to stomach.  In fact, it takes even more skill in my opinion.  It's not like they were putting out four fingers every time.  Trout still has to decide whether or not to swing and in most cases, hitters would press (see Bryce Harper circa 2016).  Trout's obp went up by 100 points but his avg and slugging % were still about on par with the rest.  

Albert Pujols had more RBI than Mookie Betts.  I think that tells you all you need to know about RBI.  

Hey, I get it.  Walks are boring as shit.  RBI are exciting because a run is crossing the plate.  I would much rather watch a guy hit a seeing eye single to score the man from second than to watch that same guy get a free pass.  But that's in part why Albert Pujols has a .268 avg with a .323 obp and a .260 babip for 0.9 WAR while driving in 119 runs and why Mike Trout has 9.4 WAR from a .371 BABIP and a .441 obp with 100 RBI.  

Walks are skill more than circumstance.  RBI are circumstance more than skill.  

 

Good post ... but I believe the opposite is true. 

Go figure

[Docwaukee]

8 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

Good post ... but I believe the opposite is true. 

Go figure

so you think Pujols is one of the most valuable players in baseball.  Let me ask you this, if the Halos ended up in the playoffs this year, do you think Pujols is a stronger MVP candidate than Trout?  

[Oz27]

2 hours ago, hangin n wangin said:

You make great points in this post.

Sadly, he won't understand any of it and it was a colossal waste of your time because he isn't willing to even put an ounce of effort into learning what any of it means.

Highlights in the past couple of weeks have included "I don't even know what WAR is" and "I don't know what peripherals means". Of course his lack of understanding won't stop him from bashing any advanced statistic or even any slightly advanced way of thinking, however. Criticizing things you don't have any understanding of is apparently fun.

The "walks aren't a skill" argument is just so ridiculous. Rougned Odor had the worst walk rate in the league at 3 per cent, even though he has significant power and you could understand pitchers wanting to be careful with him. His ISO is .231. At the top of the walk percentage leaderboard is Bryce Harper (17.2 per cent), who showed considerably less power (.198 ISO). Eighth on the walk rate leaderboard is Ben Zobrist, who had a .174 ISO, with Dexter Fowler (.171 ISO) and Joe Mauer (.128 ISO) not far behind. There is of course no reason pitchers should be more careful with Joe Mauer than Rougned Odor, because Odor has done much more damage with the ball when he makes contact. But that hasn't stopped Mauer from walking over 400 per cent more than Odor does.

Also, Trout had the second best walk rate in baseball at 17.2 per cent. Using the Troll Daddy logic, that is because pitchers aren't throwing him strikes. But if you actually look at the numbers, 33 players saw a lower percentage of pitches in the strike zone than Trout did and 32 of those walked at a lower rate than Trout did. Gregory Polanco, for example, received 4.5 per cent more pitches outside the strike zone than Trout did but walked at roughly half the rate. In 2013, which we were debating earlier, Trout had the 60th lowest zone percentage (meaning 59 hitters received a higher rate of pitches outside the strike zone) but he had the third highest walk percentage. Clearly Trout doesn't walk at the rate he does because of pitchers being careful with him, because for whatever reason they give other players a higher rate of pitchers outside the strike zone than they do him. Trout walks a lot because he is extremely good at it and it is a very valuable skill.

If hitters walk a lot, it's because they have that skill. If they don't, it's because they lack that skill. There is overwhelming evidence to back that up, beyond what I have mentioned here.

[Oz27]

On 06/10/2016 at 1:32 PM, Jeff Fletcher said:

OK, let me refresh your memory. This is Mike Trout's walk rate for 2013

April: 10.3 pct

May: 11.0

June: 11.8

July 1-26: 8.5

July 27-Aug: 24.0

Sept: 23.9

His OBP through July 26 was .400. From July 27 to the end of the season, it was .488.

He had walked two times in the 10 games up through July 26. Starting July 27, he walked 18 times in the next nine games, including at least once every game.

What do you think happened on July 26, 2013?

Trout's zone percentage (the percentage of pitches he saw inside the strike zone), by month, for 2013...

March/April - 46.2

May - 43.2 per cent

June - 43.7 per cent

July - 42.1 per cent

August - 43.3 per cent

September/October - 40.9 per cent

His zone percentage in the first half was 43.7, or the 67th lowest in the majors. For the second half it was 42.7 per cent, or the 63rd lowest in the league. So he saw more pitches outside the strikezone once Pujols went down, but the difference is very small and doesn't come close to accounting for his spike in walk rate. What does come closer to explaining it is that his O-swing rate (how often he swung at pitches outside the strike zone) improved a lot as the season went on. He had the third lowest O-swing mark in the second half (20.3 per cent), a big improvement on his 55th ranking in the first half (26.5 per cent). Basically, he walked a lot more later in that season because he was swinging at fewer bad pitches.

[Jeff Fletcher]

That is surprising to me that his pitches in the strike zone were relatively constant because of the way the walk rate changed so dramatically so quickly. It wasn't gradual. It seems odd to me that a player's skill could change so quickly. I am wondering if the numbers aren't somehow misleading based on the situations, so he was seeing more strikes in low leverage spots and less strikes in high leverage spots and it evened out. 

In general though, it is common sense that hitters are going to be pitched around  more depending who is around them in the lineup. Yes, a hitter still has to be disciplined enough to take the pitches, which is a skill. And yes, a hitter has to have proved he's a good enough hitter to be pitched around, which is also a skill. 

But you can argue the same is true about RBI. No, it takes no skill to generate runners on base in front of you but it does take proven skill to be considered a good enough hitter to be put in a lineup spot where you have those opportunities. And you have to prove that you have the skill to not tense up and fail too much in those situations. 

The bottom line is that both walks and RBIs are a combination of skill and external factors.