Most overrated baseball stats????

[Peter_Spaeth]

I like Mike Trout, but it is very very very hard for me to believe that on a per plate appearance basis he is at this point the second best hitter of all time or anywhere close. What is driving his WAR to be so high, he has some nice counting numbers but they don't seem particularly overwhelming? Maybe a small part of it is that he hasn't yet obviously had the usual end of career decline, but that doesn't seem enough to explain it.

[nat]

"Maybe a small part of it is that he hasn't yet obviously had the usual end of career decline,"

That's a lot of it. It also helps that Trout is good at everything. He's a great hitter, a great base runner, and, well, an average-ish fielder.

Trout has been in the big league for four full seasons.

Year All-time WAR rank (position players only)
2012 22nd
2013 100th
2014 292nd
2015 87th
2016 212th (so far)

If he keeps up his current pace his 2016 season will be worth 9.8 WAR, tied with Ty Cobb (1909), Nap Lajoie (1910), Ron Santo (1967), Larry Walker 1997), and George Sisler (1920), for 63rd best position player season of all time. That's really, really impressive.

This will be fun. Some hall of famers and where their best season ranks all-time among position players:

Ruth 1
Yastrzemski 3
Hornsby 5
Gehrig 7
Ripken 11 (tie)
Wagner 11 (tie)
Cobb 14 (tie)
Mantle 14 (tie)
Mays 16
Musial 18
Morgan 19
Williams 21

That's all of the hall of fame position players who have had a season better than Trout's best. The only non-HOF player with a season better than Trout is Bonds. Let's keep the list going a bit (and add non-HOF players).

Collins 30
Foxx 30
Yount 30
Boudreau 37
ARod 37
Sosa 41
Banks 44
Rosen 48
Speaker 48
Petrocelli 52
Harper 56
Henderson 56

Trout's best season is better than any season Jimmie Foxx, or anybody else on this list, ever put up. Let's skip down a few spots.

Carew 68
Griffey 68
Pujols 68
J. Robinson 68
Schmidt 68
Jackson 76
Beltre 82

If Trout keeps up his current pace for the rest of the year he'll have two seasons worth more WAR than these guys.

Aaron 87
Biggio 87
Brett 87
Turner 87

As it stands he's already got two seasons better than any season these guys put together. It'll be three if keeps up his present pace for the rest of the year.

Baker 100
Heilmann 100
Snider 100
Cash 107
Frisch 107
Giambi 107
Rolen 107
Vaughn 107

He's already got three seasons as good or better than these guys' best. It'll be four if he keeps up his present pace. And remember after this season he'll only have five full years in the big leagues.

And that one season from Trout that's not turning up on these lists? That's the year that he won the MVP award.

He hasn't had his decline phase yet, and that will pull his rates down. But Trout is really super historically good. He is often compared to Mantle, but by WAR Trout leads Mantle in age 20, 21, and 22. They were basically tied at age 23. It's not until Mantle's age 24 season that he posted a WAR more than marginally higher than Trout will at the same age (this is Trout's age 24 season).

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I like Mike Trout, but it is very very very hard for me to believe that on a per plate appearance basis he is at this point the second best hitter of all time or anywhere close. What is driving his WAR to be so high, he has some nice counting numbers but they don't seem particularly overwhelming? Maybe a small part of it is that he hasn't yet obviously had the usual end of career decline, but that doesn't seem enough to explain it.

Well, first off, his WAR says he is the 2nd best OVERALL PLAYER of all time, not just hitter. His elite baserunning and above avg defense combine with his elite bat to make him such a great player. Just hitting alone (using wRC+) he is 7th all time. But, as you said, much of this is because he hasn't hit his decline phase yet. If he stayed capable enough to play until say age 38-40, his overall wRC+ and other batting metrics would be expected to decline. (I'm guessing into the high teens all time, which is still damn good)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

Well, first off, his WAR says he is the 2nd best OVERALL PLAYER of all time, not just hitter. His elite baserunning and above avg defense combine with his elite bat to make him such a great player. Just hitting alone (using wRC+) he is 7th all time. But, as you said, much of this is because he hasn't hit his decline phase yet. If he stayed capable enough to play until say age 38-40, his overall wRC+ and other batting metrics would be expected to decline. (I'm guessing into the high teens all time, which is still damn good)

Jason said his numbers showing Trout second were offensive only. In any event call me stubborn but I just cannot believe Trout legitimately ranks anywhere near second by any measure.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Jason said his numbers showing Trout second were offensive only. In any event call me stubborn but I just cannot believe Trout legitimately ranks anywhere near second by any measure.

There are no offensive numbers that show Trout 2nd all time. IDK where he got that from, but right now his wOBA is top10 wRC+ is top 10...etc WAR he's not close because of the length of his career. BUT, when you consider he is in his prime right now and yet to decline, it really isn't right to even put him in the discussion of "all time" players need to start declining before we can really get a glimpse of A- what their peak was and B- how long their career lasts. Some guys have a steep decline, others a long shallow one.

edit to add: Trout has had the 2nd best start to his career all time, but that doesn't mean he will end that way, using WAR ratio to games played or PA's says 2nd, but.... the guy is like 25, let's wait until he's 35 before making these claims as truths

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

There are no offensive numbers that show Trout 2nd all time. IDK where he got that from, but right now his wOBA is top10 wRC+ is top 10...etc WAR he's not close because of the length of his career. BUT, when you consider he is in his prime right now and yet to decline, it really isn't right to even put him in the discussion of "all time" players need to start declining before we can really get a glimpse of A- what their peak was and B- how long their career lasts. Some guys have a steep decline, others a long shallow one.

edit to add: Trout has had the 2nd best start to his career all time, but that doesn't mean he will end that way, using WAR ratio to games played or PA's says 2nd, but.... the guy is like 25, let's wait until he's 35 before making these claims as truths

Well, as of right now it's true, but it's obviously a little skewed since Trout only has 3,427 PAs compared to Babe Ruth's 10,623.

Like I said before, WAR is a counting stat just like Home Runs or RBI. So using WAR to compare which players are "better" can only be used when the length of time is similar. Mike Trout's average plate appearance brought as much value as every TWO plate appearances by Carl Yastrzemski (if you believe in WAR). This isn't even including external adjustments for time period.

Trout is great, but Babe Ruth player at an even more dominant level on average through his entire career. Pretty amazing.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Well, as of right now it's true, but it's obviously a little skewed since Trout only has 3,427 PAs compared to Babe Ruth's 10,623.

Like I said before, WAR is a counting stat just like Home Runs or RBI. So using WAR to compare which players are "better" can only be used when the length of time is similar. Mike Trout's average plate appearance brought as much value as every TWO plate appearances by Carl Yastrzemski (if you believe in WAR). This isn't even including external adjustments for time period.

Trout is great, but Babe Ruth player at an even more dominant level on average through his entire career. Pretty amazing.

absolutely. Though, we must put a little * on WAR before the advent of UZR and DRS, range factor and total zone stats just aren't very good and thus it's pretty well agreed that the defensive value of players before the 90's is harder to determine (and the more you go back, the harder it gets).

But WAR, isn't meant to be perfect, it's there to be a handy number of comparison. Think of it as the difference between looking something up on google maps and buying a geographical survey map. The latter is the peripheral stats that give you the more accurate picture (but requires deeper digging and effort) and the former is the convenience of WAR.

[the 'stache]

Agree with the bolded part completely. I see that Roberto Clemente's defense in right was worth only 12.1 wins over 17 seasons, and I laugh myself silly. Then I look at somebody like Andruw Jones, who was a fine center fielder, no doubt. But you'll never convince me that, for his career, his defensive contribution was twice as good as Clemente's. Jones had 24.1 dWAR to Clemente's 12.1. The argument has always been "Clemente made 140 errors in 17 seasons". How many of those errors came on balls that no other right fielder in baseball could have even gotten to? If you get a glove on the ball, but don't catch it, the official scorer is going to give the fielder an error. The point being that any other fielder in right is going to let the ball drop in for a double. Clemente's range in right was unrivaled, and his gun might be the best the game has ever seen. Of course, he's going to have more errors, because he's going to also attempt to throw out more runners than the average outfielder. When you're throwing the ball from the warning track in right field all the way to third base, some balls are going to skip away because the third baseman can't handle it, or it hits the runner.

Please. I've watched a ton of footage from Clemente's defense over the years. The man was a god in the outfield, and some stupid metric trying to convince us that his defense didn't even net 1 win in 162 games a season is utter bullcrap.

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

absolutely. Though, we must put a little * on WAR before the advent of UZR and DRS, range factor and total zone stats just aren't very good and thus it's pretty well agreed that the defensive value of players before the 90's is harder to determine (and the more you go back, the harder it gets).