"Trout likely out until after All-Star Break"

[Angelsjunky]

Not sure if this has been posted, but from a couple days ago: https://www.cbssports.com/fantasy/baseball/news/angels-mike-trout-likely-out-through-all-star-break/

Not sure how much to read into this, but I guess that puts him on the long-side of the "6-8 weeks", as the ASB is almost exactly 8 weeks from his injury. Bummer.

[Blarg]

Unless he comes back and puts up Ted Williams numbers and lifts the Angels into the playoffs he can forget any chance of an MVP award. 

[Angelsjunky]

I think the MVP was out of consideration as soon as he got injured. Trout will end the season with, at most, about 110 games played, possibly 100. The only guy I can think of who won an MVP playing fewer than 120 games was Brett in 1980, and Brett hit .390 and had just enough PA to qualify.

[tdawg87]

Injury. Prone.

[Angel Oracle]

Seems like everyone who’s been out this season has been out for the high side of the original estimate.

[jsnpritchett]

Yeah, I posted this in a Gameday Thread a couple days ago.  Honestly, I'm not surprised.  I always figured it'd be 8 weeks, given the severity.

[Taylor]

There are some other players on the Angels who I wish were out 6 to 8 weeks.

[WicketMaiden]

17 minutes ago, Taylor said:

There are some other players on the Angels who I wish were out 6 to 8 weeks.

I'm guessing here, but would it be quicker to list the players that you didn't want on the IL?

[Taylor]

2 minutes ago, WicketMaiden said:

I'm guessing here, but would it be quicker to list the players that you didn't want on the IL?

Trout
Ohtani
Rendon
Walsh

Cobb?
Heaney?

Yep, much quicker!

[WicketMaiden]

Add Stassi  and Cishek (kidding) and I'm with you. Maybe Raisel too.

[Jason]

No need to rush him as this team isn't close to being a contender even if Trout was having a career year. 

[tdawg87]

Can Trout pitch?

[Dtwncbad]

2 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

I think the MVP was out of consideration as soon as he got injured. Trout will end the season with, at most, about 110 games played, possibly 100. The only guy I can think of who won an MVP playing fewer than 120 games was Brett in 1980, and Brett hit .390 and had just enough PA to qualify.

If Trout came back and led the team to the playoffs from where they are now, he would win the MVP.

First of all, he would surely be on fire to do so.  Secondly, it would mean many other teammates would also go off. . . And the storyline would be set in stone that Trout brought the best out of his teammates as a true leader.

Kirk Gibson won the MVP in 1988 (in 150 games) with .290/25/76, with an OPS of .860 largely because he was a “leader” for that team.

If Trout came back and led the team to the playoffs, his numbers would very likely be better than that, AND he would have the indisputable storyline that he was the catalyst in winning.

[Taylor]

48 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

Can Trout pitch?

[Angelsjunky]

16 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

If Trout came back and led the team to the playoffs from where they are now, he would win the MVP.

First of all, he would surely be on fire to do so.  Secondly, it would mean many other teammates would also go off. . . And the storyline would be set in stone that Trout brought the best out of his teammates as a true leader.

Kirk Gibson won the MVP in 1988 (in 150 games) with .290/25/76, with an OPS of .860 largely because he was a “leader” for that team.

If Trout came back and led the team to the playoffs, his numbers would very likely be better than that, AND he would have the indisputable storyline that he was the catalyst in winning.

Maybe. There was also no player that stood out above the rest in the NL that year, so Gibson was about as good as a half dozen other players, but had the narrative on top of it.

They didn't have WAR back then, but it gives us a good sense of how good players were relative to each other. Gibson was third in the NL with 6.2, behind Andy Van Slyke (6.4 for the Pirates) and Barry Larkin (6.3 for the Reds), both playing for second place teams. Darryl Strawberry finished a close second, btw, and also played for a 1st place team, the Mets.

Even if what you say comes to pass--say, Trout comes back and plays really well and leads the Angels to the postseason, he's still finishing with (at most) 110 games, and probably no more than 6-7 WAR, and in these days WAR does matter. So it also depends upon how other players perform, perhaps especially Vlad Jr and Bogaerts.

[Taylor]

18 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Maybe. There was also no player that stood out above the rest in the NL that year, so Gibson was about as good as a half dozen other players, but had the narrative on top of it.

AJ channeling AO.

[T.G.]

It's funny to see you guys talking about MVP awards and playoffs. 

I guess, one can hope.

I'm usually pretty optimistic, but I'm not feeling it.  Hoping for the best and taking it one game at a time - but some of you are buttercuping yourselves, IMO.

[Jeff Fletcher]

1 hour ago, Dtwncbad said:

If Trout came back and led the team to the playoffs from where they are now, he would win the MVP.

First of all, he would surely be on fire to do so.  Secondly, it would mean many other teammates would also go off. . . And the storyline would be set in stone that Trout brought the best out of his teammates as a true leader.

Kirk Gibson won the MVP in 1988 (in 150 games) with .290/25/76, with an OPS of .860 largely because he was a “leader” for that team.

If Trout came back and led the team to the playoffs, his numbers would very likely be better than that, AND he would have the indisputable storyline that he was the catalyst in winning.

I don’t think the “narrative” counts anywhere near as much with 2021 voters as it did with 1988 voters.

Honestly I think the voting is totally different now from even 10 years ago. 

[Dtwncbad]

5 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I don’t think the “narrative” counts anywhere near as much with 2021 voters as it did with 1988 voters.

Honestly I think the voting is totally different now from even 10 years ago. 

Personally I think the best way to pick the MVP would be the following:

If you had the benefit of hindsight at the end of the regular season knowing exactly what every player was going to do, and you could go back to opening day this year and could choose any one player to be on your team this year, who would it be?

That’s the MVP.

Maybe you choose the guy that put up Barry Bonds numbers on a terrible team (not his fault they have no pitching) or maybe you witnessed such great leadership that you choose someone else from a winning team who had numbers not quite so fantastic.

Just my opinion.

 

Edited June 7, 2021 by Dtwncbad

[Dtwncbad]

9 minutes ago, True Grich said:

It's funny to see you guys talking about MVP awards and playoffs. 

I guess, one can hope.

I'm usually pretty optimistic, but I'm not feeling it.  Hoping for the best and taking it one game at a time - but some of you are buttercuping yourselves, IMO.

Make no mistake, I am not optimistic about wins and losses this year.

[jsnpritchett]

4 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I don’t think the “narrative” counts anywhere near as much with 2021 voters as it did with 1988 voters.

Honestly I think the voting is totally different now from even 10 years ago. 

But there's still some amount of "narrative" factored into people's votes, right?  Or at least it counts among certain voters?  If not, and more/most voters are now basically just picking whoever had the highest WAR, then it sounds like we're moving towards a time when we don't even need voting to happen, since MVP ~= "highest WAR."   Or is it a more a case of voters generally choosing between the top 3 or 4 WAR (or other advanced metrics) and there are some shifts within that group based on some degree of "narrative"?

[fan_since79]

2 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

Can Trout pitch?

He pitched a no-hitter in high school.

But I don't want him to blow out his elbow and be out for another year or two. 

[tdawg87]

2 minutes ago, fan_since79 said:

He pitched a no-hitter in high school.

But I don't want him to blow out his elbow and be out for another year or two. 

True.

If he ever came in to pitch an inning in a blowout, he'd need Double Secret TJ Surgery and be out for 48 months.

[Dtwncbad]

15 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

True.

If he ever came in to pitch an inning in a blowout, he'd need Double Secret TJ Surgery and be out for 48 months.

If he ever came in to pitch an inning, Maddon is the one that would end up needing Double Secret Surgery and he would be out for 48 years.

[WicketMaiden]

38 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

True.

If he ever came in to pitch an inning in a blowout, he'd need Double Secret TJ Surgery and be out for 48 months.

I was thinking more a career ending blister.