TC in Mississippi
CCS Staff
- Joined:
- Oct 22, 2014
- Posts:
- 5,305
- Liked Posts:
- 1,816
Here's the thing about this thread though, it's taken 10 pages when the answer is unquestionably "yes".
Mr. Cub
2016 World Series Champs!
- Joined:
- Dec 13, 2010
- Posts:
- 4,854
- Liked Posts:
- 1,036
- Location:
- Earth
Look at it this way, if KB wins MVP, means he's number 1 in the NL. So is there 4 or more players in the AL better than Bryant?
brett05
867-5309
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2009
- Posts:
- 27,226
- Liked Posts:
- 4,579
- Location:
- Hell
Wait, don't compare a single season to overall who's the best in the game.
TL1961
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Apr 24, 2013
- Posts:
- 35,099
- Liked Posts:
- 19,171
- Joined:
- Aug 23, 2012
- Posts:
- 9,995
- Liked Posts:
- 3,624
My favorite teams
TC in Mississippi
CCS Staff
- Joined:
- Oct 22, 2014
- Posts:
- 5,305
- Liked Posts:
- 1,816
Baseball is a "what have you done for me lately sport" so I think when you talk best in the game you are talking about recent history and a single season almost by default. I think it's just the way baseball has this discussion. The career discussion tends to be had separately. I'm not disagreeing with your premise, I actually think you're right, but in the world of baseball broadcasting and writing it is what it is. To start this season the conversation was Trout and Harper and the popular talk was whether Harper would overtake Trout as the games best player. No one is having that discussion anymore and Bryant has been inserted in Harper's place with Seager close behind.
The only time a broader discussion is had is when a set term is discussed like "the last 5 years" or something of the like. Earlier this year there was a piece that was hailing Ben Zobrist as one of the 5 best players in the game since 2008 based on WAR. It was accurate as far as that goes but by limiting parameters the piece was able to set a hypothesis and "prove" it without getting into the broader discussion. I think that top 5 list was Evan Longoria, Zobrist, Joey Votto, Miguel Cabrera and I forget the last name. the only one for me that I would but on a more subjective list with broader parameters would have been Cabrera and yet another piece not long after that called Cabrera "the most overrated player of our time" because of his defense. My point is that baseball chooses it's discussions and when you talk top 5 you're talking about now.
fatbeard
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Dec 25, 2013
- Posts:
- 13,193
- Liked Posts:
- 11,018
The MVP is a single-season performance award.
brett05
867-5309
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2009
- Posts:
- 27,226
- Liked Posts:
- 4,579
- Location:
- Hell
never said it wasn't
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 21,849
- Liked Posts:
- 9,044
That his first two seasons has been better than his last three. Im not sure how else that was supposed to be said.
TC in Mississippi
CCS Staff
- Joined:
- Oct 22, 2014
- Posts:
- 5,305
- Liked Posts:
- 1,816
He's still averaged over 9 WAR in those 5 seasons though and it's not like the drop off has been huge. Plus he just turned 25. As much as I love our guys I think Trout will be by far the best player of his generation and probably has 6 more prime years in him.
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 21,849
- Liked Posts:
- 9,044
I didnt say he had a significant drop. I said that it seams he has peaked. We know where he is going to sit. His first two seasons were unreal. He has dropped back down to Earth like. All I said was Bryant keeps rising. We will see in a couple of years where Bryant sits. Trouts WAR defense is dropping and I would assume his SB's are going to start to decline as well. He hasnt hit over a 9 fWAR is three seasons. So, we can comfortably put him in the 8 range which seems like Bryant is going to sit as well.
DanTown
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Mar 31, 2009
- Posts:
- 2,446
- Liked Posts:
- 509
You cannot measure how good Bryant or Trout are by looking at their WAR's since they don't play the same position. WAR cannot (or rather) should not be used that way.
The reason I have Trout ahead of Bryant is Trout's supremely talented hit tool (.316 BA with a 20.7/16.4 K to BB ratio while still slugging .555) compared to Bryant's. Bryant is the slightly better slugger (37 HR vs 27; .562 vs .555 slg; .267 vs .230 iso) but Trout's ability to take walks and get hits while stealing bases is insanely valuable. A guy who has a OBP of .434 with 25 SB on a 83% success rate is pretty good.
I love Bryant, think he's as good as you can be in this league without being Mike Trout, but I don't see the comparison to him and Trout. The "Trout has peaked" argument also is weird because Trout is literally five months older than Bryant so it's not like they're at different places on an age curve.
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 21,849
- Liked Posts:
- 9,044
I dont buy really into age curves. I find it major league experience. Trout is 5 years in. Bryant is 2. That is a lot more time to learn. If you think Trout is going to hit somewhere around a 11fWAR consistently with a couple more years under his belt. I dont see it. I think Trout is going to sit where he is for a long time. Also, because they dont play the same position doesnt mean you cant use WAR to compare. It is literally why it was created.
DanTown
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Mar 31, 2009
- Posts:
- 2,446
- Liked Posts:
- 509
First off, it's entirely possible that Trout ages similar to ARod and develops power while sacrificing speed. Obviously ARod took steroids but it's also possible that ARod developed power because he moved away from being a SS. ARod's two best offensive seasons in terms of WAR were in 2005 and 2007 when he was 30 and 32. Trout could be similar to that, as could Bryant. I have no idea; I just highly doubt that Mike Trout (or any player this good at age 24) is at the peak of his value. If his value was heavily tied to SB and defense, maybe I could buy that. But what if Trout in two years moves to LF and becomes a true power hitter? Something like Bryce Harper last year?
Secondly, WAR measures value. When guy A has a higher WAR than guy B, it's actually arguing valuableness, not actual ability.
Ian Kinsler
.280/.338/.476
.348 wOBA
117 WRC+
3.0 BSR value
Offensive value: +16.0
Defensive value: +11.7
Anthony Rizzo
.290/.388/.551
.394 wOBA
161 WRC+
-2.3 BSR value
Offensive value: +34.7
Defensive value: -6.7
Kinsler WAR - 5.0
Rizzo WAR - 4.8
What I'm trying to point out is that WAR doesn't say "guy A hits/fields/throws better than guy B" what WAR actually says is "guy A hits/fields/throws better compared to the rest of his position than guy B does". Guys with higher WAR's typically are helping teams win more games than guys with lower WAR's.
And finally, when you get WAR's in the 8+ range, there is no real sense in comparing them for value. Both values are so high/outside the normal range that the difference between the two is mostly in what the stats measure so WAR usually fails at comparing like players (i.e Bryant v Trout).