Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, August 23, 2019

Is Mike Trout really better than Derek Jeter?

Fools. WAR is famously context neutral but context matters. Any fan of baseball from 1995-2014 (the best era for watching baseball) should know who the Captain is. To see who wins the Jeter-Trout debate, let’s go to the tale of the tape….

Did Mike Trout break Byung-Hyun Kim’s spirit on a chilly autumn night to earn the iconic Mr. November title?

Did Trout partner with a 12-year-old boy, psychically guiding young Jeffrey Maier to stick his glove in the perfect position to stop Tony Tarasco from catching his game-tying home run? Maier was a kid; Jeter and Rich Garcia let the kid play. That’s MLB’s new marketing mantra, and commissioner Rob Manfred has complained about Trout not participating in baseball’s ad campaigns. Advantage, Captain.

Trout has 282 home runs through age 27, and Jeter has 260 for his entire career. But Jeter’s got at least two home runs printed on an overpriced championship VHS.

 

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 23, 2019 at 06:06 AM | 54 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: mike trout

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. My name is RMc and I feel extremely affected Posted: August 23, 2019 at 06:57 AM (#5873681)
Yes. (Trout's probably a better shortstop than Jeter, too.)
   2. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: August 23, 2019 at 07:51 AM (#5873682)
Trout still trails Jeter by about 22 oWAR. So if you think Jetes is merely a replacement level defensive shortstop and not one of the worst butchers ever put out there for long periods of time and there's something hinckey with his dWAR valuation you can make a pretty cogent argument that Trout isn't actually better (career-wise) than Jeter quite yet. Give him another couple years, though, and he will be.

For seasonal value, Trout is insane, already at +55.1 WAA through his career so far. The only other players to pull off 50+ WAA in their first nine seasons are Ted Williams (59.7), Kid Nichols (58.6), Walter Johnson (56.8), Albert Pujols (55.7), Mickey Mantle (51.6), and Cy Young (50.2). Only Johnson and Mantle racked up their totals through the same ages as Trout, everyone else was older.

Trout is now, btw, in his age 27 season, second among active players in WAR behind only Albert Pujols. No one is catching him for the rest of his career.
   3. Fernigal McGunnigle Posted: August 23, 2019 at 07:52 AM (#5873683)
Trout was apparently just passed Jeter in career WAR at BBRef, which is what prompted this piece.

EDIT: As implied by #2, I'd suspect that if we had the knowledge of Angels we'd see that WAR slightly overrated Trout's rookie year defense and underrated Jeter's. So Jetes is probably still ahead in Platonic WAR.
Best TV appearance?

Derek Jeter hosted Saturday Night Live. Mike Trout hosted a segment on the Weather Channel.
I'd say Trout wins that one.
   4. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: August 23, 2019 at 08:07 AM (#5873684)
Also, now that I've RTFA, I'm glad to see this is tongue in cheek. Mike Trout is well below Jetes GAR (giftbaskets above replacement)- hell he married his highschool sweetheart.
   5. Rally Posted: August 23, 2019 at 08:30 AM (#5873685)
I hope every question I see today is this easy.

Jeter's best offensive season was 1999, with a 153 OPS+. His second best was 2006 (132).

Other than his 40 game debut when he was 19, Trout's worst season by OPS+ is 168, a tie between 2012 and 2014. So you've got one season where he put himself on the map as baseball's best player, another year where he won his first MVP while leading his team to the best regular season record in baseball.

And every other full season he's played, he's hit even better.
   6. Rally Posted: August 23, 2019 at 08:39 AM (#5873687)
Trout is now, btw, in his age 27 season, second among active players in WAR behind only Albert Pujols. No one is catching him for the rest of his career.


Outside chance he catches Albert before #5 retires. Trout at 72.5 right now, say he finishes season at 75. Then averages 10.5 for 2020-21 which gets him to 96. They would be tied if Albert plays like he did in 2017 and the team is crazy enough to give him 600+ PA anyway.

If Pujols is borderline acceptable as in 2018-19 and/or doesn't play as much, he'll stick around 100 WAR and Trout will pass him in 2022, the first year after Pujols' contract is finally over.
   7. Tom Nawrocki Posted: August 23, 2019 at 08:51 AM (#5873690)
Did Mike Trout break Byung-Hyun Kim’s spirit on a chilly autumn night to earn the iconic Mr. November title?


I had forgotten that after Kim gave up the game-tying two-run homer in the bottom of the ninth, plus allowed two more baserunners after that, all in his second inning of work, Bob Brenly left him in the game to pitch the tenth inning. Oof.
   8. Ithaca2323 Posted: August 23, 2019 at 10:12 AM (#5873708)
This debate has been going on Twitter for a few days, and it's just the same old noise.

The Jeter fans, predictably, are yakking about "clutchness" and counting the rings. Everyone else is countering with, well, everything else.

I do have to say though, in general, Trout support has seemingly become like the Simpsons episode where Poochie the Dog is introduced, and Homer gives his suggestions, and he goes "Whenever Poochie's not onscreen, all the other characters should be asking 'Where's Poochie?'” Trout very well may become the GOAT, and he certainly should win MVP this year, but it seems like (again, on Twitter) that there's just this daily pounding of how great Trout is, and who he's passed in career WAR this week, and mentions of anyone else in the AL having a great season is immediately flooded with "LOL, he's not even close to Trout." Which, even if it's 100% true, it's just kind of tiresome.

As an example, last week, someone tweeted this:

"Bo Bichette is having this otherworldly start to his career right? Can't imagine a baseball player having a better stretch than him right? But no baseball player sustains this kind of play right? His OPS is now lower than Mike Trout's SEASON OPS. (Bichette - 1.075, Trout - 1.110)"

Which is probably just a sign I should get off Twitter, but, IDK, I feel this "Trout GOAT" fatigue.
   9. Red Voodooin Posted: August 23, 2019 at 10:15 AM (#5873710)
And then brought him back out to be humiliated again less tham 24 hours later...
   10. PreservedFish Posted: August 23, 2019 at 10:15 AM (#5873711)
Monkey's paw bargain for the Yankees fans here:

1. You get to draft Mike Trout.
2. You have to go back in time and disappear Derek Jeter. We have no idea who the Yankees would have had a shortstop in 1996-2000 and beyond, and have no idea how it would have affected results.

Would you take it?
   11. Howie Menckel Posted: August 23, 2019 at 10:19 AM (#5873714)
it's not about getting off Twitter - it's about following and unfollowing the right people.

as I've noted before, everyone is the producer of their own Twitter feed. if your feed sucks, well - a mirror is a good start.

I don't think I've ever seen a single tweet about Mike Trout.

there's liable to be a "Patient Zero" or two in your feed who keeps pounding RTs on the subject at you. if you eradicate the source(s), suddenly your feed will be a lot more palatable.
   12. rconn23 Posted: August 23, 2019 at 10:23 AM (#5873716)
"Also, now that I've RTFA, I'm glad to see this is tongue in cheek"

Could you tell that to every one else in this thread?
   13. Lassus Posted: August 23, 2019 at 10:25 AM (#5873717)
Would you take it?

I find the whole Yankee thing as tiresome as anyone, but nah. Jeter was talented, entertaining, and valuable to the game. Trout might have stepped off a curb wrong in the Bronx one day, so not really worth it.
   14. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: August 23, 2019 at 10:30 AM (#5873718)
Both are obvious Hall of Famers, but if I only could vote for 1 and Mike Trout’s career ended today, I’d vote for Trout and it would not be a tough choice.
   15. Infinite Yost (Voxter) Posted: August 23, 2019 at 10:41 AM (#5873727)
You have to go back in time and disappear Derek Jeter. We have no idea who the Yankees would have had a shortstop in 1996-2000 and beyond, and have no idea how it would have affected results.


I would, because you have to assume that A-Rod becomes a Yankee after 2000 instead of a few years later, thus making Jeter redundant anyway. There's a brief period in the late 90s (granted, the heart of the last dynasty) in which they would have had to go with flavor of the month, so that's something to think about. But I suspect they would have come up with somebody, and in some of those years they were so much better than the competition that losing Jeter would have made minimal difference.

I, personally, found him extremely tiresome, both as a personality (or lack thereof) and as a player (mostly because of the outsized praise he received for doing things other players also did, just not on TV). But I'm not a Yankees fan, so that's probably not a fair evaluation.
   16. Baldrick Posted: August 23, 2019 at 10:48 AM (#5873733)
I do have to say though, in general, Trout support has seemingly become like the Simpsons episode where Poochie the Dog is introduced, and Homer gives his suggestions, and he goes "Whenever Poochie's not onscreen, all the other characters should be asking 'Where's Poochie?'” Trout very well may become the GOAT, and he certainly should win MVP this year, but it seems like (again, on Twitter) that there's just this daily pounding of how great Trout is, and who he's passed in career WAR this week, and mentions of anyone else in the AL having a great season is immediately flooded with "LOL, he's not even close to Trout." Which, even if it's 100% true, it's just kind of tiresome.

Sounds like you need to follow better people on Twitter.
   17. Rally Posted: August 23, 2019 at 10:53 AM (#5873735)
Monkey's paw bargain for the Yankees fans here:

1. You get to draft Mike Trout.
2. You have to go back in time and disappear Derek Jeter. We have no idea who the Yankees would have had a shortstop in 1996-2000 and beyond, and have no idea how it would have affected results.

Would you take it?


Tough call. You almost certainly lose some of the 4 championships from 96-2000. Probably not all 4 though, I think the 1998 team in particular would find a way. Jeter didn't play that well in the AL playoffs. He was great in the WS, but that was a sweep anyway so at worst they win in 5 or 6. 1996 would be tough without Jeter, so would 2000. They might still win 2 or 3 rings in this period, since they still have Mo, Bernie, and the rest of the loaded roster.

Without Jeter, I assume the Yankees sign A-Rod in 2001 and he plays most of his career at his original position. They might even make up the championship deficit having 50 homers and a better glove at short from 2001-2003. Then there's whatever Trout might add from 2012 and on.

Very likely the Yankees win more rings with Trout, but since we know for certain that Jeter helped them win 5 it's tough to gamble those away on the promise of what Trout would do as a Yankee.

Now for the Marlin fans, I think both of them would see that as an easy decision. Disappear Derek Jeter? Where do I sign up?
   18. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 23, 2019 at 11:29 AM (#5873746)
Monkey's paw bargain for the Yankees fans here:

1. You get to draft Mike Trout.
2. You have to go back in time and disappear Derek Jeter. We have no idea who the Yankees would have had a shortstop in 1996-2000 and beyond, and have no idea how it would have affected results.

Would you take it?


Yes, without hesitation. Maybe they lose 1 or 2 championships (and maybe they still get all 4) but they get one of the top-5 position players of all time. No brainer. Hell, I'll un-retire #7 for him.

On the original question, Trout is already far better than Jeter: 55 WAA vs 31.
   19. Fernigal McGunnigle Posted: August 23, 2019 at 11:35 AM (#5873747)
Monkey's paw bargain for the Yankees fans here:

1. You get to draft Mike Trout.
2. You have to go back in time and disappear Derek Jeter. We have no idea who the Yankees would have had a shortstop in 1996-2000 and beyond, and have no idea how it would have affected results.

Would you take it?
Jeremy Giambi would!
   20. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: August 23, 2019 at 12:23 PM (#5873762)
In a word, yes.
   21. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: August 23, 2019 at 12:26 PM (#5873763)
15

I would, because you have to assume that A-Rod becomes a Yankee after 2000 instead of a few years later,


How quickly they forget...

In mid-summer 2000, a lot...I mean A LOT of people thought it was a foregone conclusion that A-Rod would end up a Met that off-season.
   22. PreservedFish Posted: August 23, 2019 at 12:38 PM (#5873764)
And then, very quickly, Wilpon made it clear that there was zero interest in such a player. Old fat injured Kevin Appier was more their thing.
   23. Rally Posted: August 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM (#5873768)
And then, very quickly, Wilpon made it clear that there was zero interest in such a player. Old fat injured Kevin Appier was more their thing.


It all worked out, they were able to flip him for old fat injured Mo Vaughn after a year.

Worked out for the Angels, that is.
   24. Bote Man Posted: August 23, 2019 at 01:04 PM (#5873779)
In that alternate reality, does Trout get to take the good drugs like Jeter??
   25. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: August 23, 2019 at 01:46 PM (#5873784)
In mid-summer 2000, a lot...I mean A LOT of people thought it was a foregone conclusion that A-Rod would end up a Met that off-season.

Because the Yankees had Jeter. If the Yankees had an opening at SS, no one would have thought he was going to the Mets.
   26. Answer Guy. Posted: August 23, 2019 at 02:08 PM (#5873791)
Talk about easy questions with easy answers.
   27. rconn23 Posted: August 23, 2019 at 03:05 PM (#5873805)
I mean, a whole thread devoted a column where the writer was clearly joking? I would certainly question why it needed to be written because it's not funny, but the author clearly doesn't believe Jeter is better than Trout.
   28. Blastin Posted: August 23, 2019 at 03:10 PM (#5873810)
Yeah a lot of you clearly didn't RTFA.
   29. bunyon Posted: August 23, 2019 at 03:32 PM (#5873819)
OTOH, it birthed a great what-if question.

I immediately thought, yes, of course, you trade the rights to Trout for Jeter's career, even if it costs you a ring or two in the 90s.

But then I looked at where the Yankees finished in each year of Trout's career.

In 2012, they were swept in the ALCS. Hard to see one guy changing that.
2013, 12 out of division, 7 out of WC.
2014, 12 out of division, 4 out of WC. Maybe they get a WC with Trout?
2015, 6 out of division, lost the WC game to the Astros. Trout might push them through and then who knows?
2016, 9 out of division, 5 out of WC
2017, 2 out of division, lost ALCS 4-3. It's easy to imagine a ring for the Yanks here if they had Trout.
2018, 8 out of division, lost ALDS 3-1.
2019, lead division by 8 games on August 22.

So, let's say they make the WC in 2014. That's a 1/16 shot at a ring.
If they push past the Astros in 2015. That's a 1/8 shot at a ring.
Beating the Astros in 2017 gets them a 1/2 shot at ring.

That's not even a whole ring.

Given that record, and assuming a very conservative what-if, where the timeline isn't rendered unrecognizable by the switch, I'd keep Jeter. Especially if I'm my age. That's five rings you know you have. If you give up even one in making the switch, it isn't at all clear you get them back with Trout. (Obviously, if they finish a game shy a few more times in our reality, that might change things.)
   30. PreservedFish Posted: August 23, 2019 at 03:38 PM (#5873823)
The question isn't just about October results, of course. Watching an all-time great in your uniform is worth quite a lot.

For example, do you think that a Padres fan would trade a single WS victory if it meant disappearing Tony Gwynn? Would an Orioles fan trade a single WS victory to disappear Cal Ripken Jr?

Jeter is already a great, but Trout is something else.
   31. Blastin Posted: August 23, 2019 at 03:41 PM (#5873825)
n 2012, they were swept in the ALCS. Hard to see one guy changing that.
2013, 12 out of division, 7 out of WC.
2014, 12 out of division, 4 out of WC. Maybe they get a WC with Trout?
2015, 6 out of division, lost the WC game to the Astros. Trout might push them through and then who knows?
2016, 9 out of division, 5 out of WC
2017, 2 out of division, lost ALCS 4-3. It's easy to imagine a ring for the Yanks here if they had Trout.
2018, 8 out of division, lost ALDS 3-1.
2019, lead division by 8 games on August 22.


I'll play this. Without getting too complex, I think they win in 96, 98, and 99 anyway. The 2000 team was pretty weak, that flip play (and his WS MVP performance) may have mattered.

2012 - Jeter doesn't exist, and he was good that year, so they probably don't even make the ALCS if it's just a one to one thing, let alone being swept.
2013 - Trout is amazing, team is like 8 wins better, they could make the WC. Maybe they lose (it's not like the Angels have won a lot).

But! No reason to act a fool with Ellsbury, and they decide to keep Cano. They still sign Beltran to DH and McCann.

2014 - They're in the WC, and the Angels aren't 1st seed, but the Royals magic still exists.

2015 - I think they could have gone farther this year, but the Blue Jays and Royals were both still better.

2016 - Win a WC, lose to Indians.

2017 - Now this year, this year they actually pull the trigger for Verlander, and they win. That's the one year that's different.

2018 - Honestly, they probably still lose to BOS last year.

2019 - Can he pitch? They'd be a 108 win team with no SPs anyway.

So while I don't think he changes their overall number of rings (Jeter was great and well-positioned for the team's needs at the tiem he was there, until the end), they'd win a lot more going forward. That said, they also don't have Teixeira (that's the pick that became Trout), and then they maybe don't win in 09.

   32. Blastin Posted: August 23, 2019 at 03:44 PM (#5873830)
The question isn't just about October results, of course. Watching an all-time great in your uniform is worth quite a lot.

For example, do you think that a Padres fan would trade a single WS victory if it meant disappearing Tony Gwynn? Would an Orioles fan trade a single WS victory to disappear Cal Ripken Jr?


I mean. I mean. I dunno. I think the Os fans are a lot happier having had both.

The joy of a ring is still different from the day in day out joy of a great player. One is longer lasting but the other is a much stronger feeling. I mean, I can watch Trout myself right now.

   33. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: August 23, 2019 at 03:45 PM (#5873833)
[31] Did you forget about the 2009 team or just not feel it was relevant?
   34. Blastin Posted: August 23, 2019 at 03:47 PM (#5873834)
[31] Did you forget about the 2009 team or just not feel it was relevant?


It's the last line!
   35. Fernigal McGunnigle Posted: August 23, 2019 at 04:08 PM (#5873844)
In both 2013 and 2014 Jeter was either injured or way past it, so just replacing him with a 1 WAR Not Derek Jeter is a win for the Yankees. Those were also the Ichiro years, so Trout could potentially have done a ton to improve the team. IOW, in those years NDJ + Trout would be improving two problem areas and so would help more that you'd expect from merely adding an all-time great to the roster.
   36. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: August 23, 2019 at 04:14 PM (#5873846)
For example, do you think that a Padres fan would trade a single WS victory if it meant disappearing Tony Gwynn?

Before 2016, I would have given up the existence of Ryne Sandberg for a WS victory. I'd give up Sandberg for a second WS victory.
   37. APNY Posted: August 23, 2019 at 04:23 PM (#5873851)
So much depends on if they sign ARod in '01. Who plays 3rd from 04-13? What happens with Soriano? ect
   38. Rally Posted: August 23, 2019 at 05:13 PM (#5873872)
Blastin- one nitpick, the Jeter flip play fading into nonexistence doesn’t hurt the 2000 team, because that play happened in 2001. Helped the Yankees get to another WS but not one that they’d win.
   39. Cowboy Popup Posted: August 23, 2019 at 05:16 PM (#5873876)
Hard to say, really. Jeter wasn't great on SNL, but he had his moments. Hard to imagine Mr. Weatherman clearing that bar.

I'm very interested in the idea of Alfonso Soriano, Major League SS though.
   40. JAHV Posted: August 23, 2019 at 06:36 PM (#5873900)
I'm very interested in the idea of Alfonso Soriano, Major League SS though.


Interested in the same way it's interesting to read about the Lusitania or the Hindenburg?
   41. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 23, 2019 at 06:45 PM (#5873902)

Interested in the same way it's interesting to read about the Lusitania or the Hindenburg?


It's hard to believe he could have been worse than Jeter.
   42. PreservedFish Posted: August 23, 2019 at 06:47 PM (#5873903)
Oh, I believe it. He would've doubled Jeter's annual error totals.
   43. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 23, 2019 at 07:34 PM (#5873910)
Oh, I believe it. He would've doubled Jeter's annual error totals.

Probably, but it would still be pretty easy to be better than Jeter while making 30 errors a year.
   44. Cowboy Popup Posted: August 23, 2019 at 08:01 PM (#5873927)
Interested in the same way it's interesting to read about the Lusitania or the Hindenburg?

I was thinking more along the lines of the "mid-30s Gary Sheffield at 3B" experience, only everyday. That was exhilarating. But sure, at some point he might have killed enough people sitting along the first base line to match up with those.

Well played Snapper. I'm not biting but I'm sure someone will.

Edit: only 35 people died on the Hidenburg? That'd be like year 2 for Soriano. Dude had a heck of an arm.
   45. His Clutchness, The Just Pasha Diving Jeter Posted: August 23, 2019 at 08:14 PM (#5873932)
Mike Trout is well below Jetes GAR (giftbaskets above replacement)- hell he married his highschool sweetheart.

Then he's also well behind me in PPP (prime ##### plowed).
   46. Walt Davis Posted: August 24, 2019 at 12:43 AM (#5874029)
a replacement level defensive shortstop

Just a reminder that it's not clear what such a beastie is. Although it's called dWAR, it is actually dWAA. If we took "replacement level defender" to be somebody so bad on defense that even average offense (for their position) only brought them up to 0 WAR, you'd be talking about a player with negative 20-22 Rfield each year. Even Jeter was only around -12.5 per 650 PA.

I've pointed out before that Jeter's late-career defensive numbers really don't look that extreme. After age 30 he had -6 dWAR in about 10 full seasons. Ernie's last season at SS was age 30 at which point his knees were shot. He put up -7 dWAR in about 7 full seasons. Yount's last season there was age 28, he put up -6 dWAR over about 9 full seasons. Those were both injury cases. Michael Young was a poor defensive 2B/SS in his 20s. From 31 on, a mix of SS, 3B and other stuff, he put up -8 dWAR in about 6 seasons. Hanley was a lousy defensive SS and from 31 on he put up -5 dWAR in about 3 seasons. Harrah was a poor defensive SS; in his 30s he wasn't too bad at 3B/2B with -1.5 in about 5 full seasons. Franco wasn't a good SS and he too was OK with -2 dWAR in about 7-8 seasons through 38.

Jeter is pretty much right in the middle of that pack, maybe near the top given he lasted so much longer (in PA terms) than any of them did (i.e. he gets whacked for -3 dWAR over his last 4 full seasons that these other guys mostly didn't play). There are also a couple of hitters I think of as being pretty similar to Jeter in terms of style and value and played a very long time -- Raines and Gwynn. All three ended up with about -8 career dWAR. Jeter as Raines allowed to play SS (or maybe 2B where he started) for most of his career seems reasonable to me. Offensively I suppose he was also similar to Al Oliver (-13 dWAR in about 10,000 PA) and Bill Madlock (-9 in a much shorter career) so he's rated as being a much better defensive player than those guys with which I think everybody would agree.
   47. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 24, 2019 at 05:36 PM (#5874146)
In both 2013 and 2014 Jeter was either injured or way past it, so just replacing him with a 1 WAR Not Derek Jeter is a win for the Yankees.


Jeter played 17 games in 2013. He was replaced with -1.5 WAR Eduardo Nunez.
   48. DavidFoss Posted: August 24, 2019 at 06:18 PM (#5874150)
Just a reminder that it's not clear what such a beastie is. Although it's called dWAR, it is actually dWAA.

I think the assumption is that no-hit guys with decent gloves are a dime a dozen in AAA. Fielding only requires athleticism while hitting major league pitching requires some freaky eyesight+coordination combo. Lots of great athletes failed because they couldn't hit.

Baseball Prospectus used to try to apply a replacement level to their fielding numbers in the early 00's versions of WARP. The feedback at the time was that it overweighted the defensive contribution (which is still the toughest to quantify). Sean Smith setting fielding replacement level to average is one of the reasons why his version of WAR is what ended up catching on. (At least, that is how I recall.)
   49. Walt Davis Posted: August 24, 2019 at 08:20 PM (#5874174)
Jeter played 17 games in 2013. He was replaced with -1.5 WAR Eduardo Nunez.

For one season, an injury replacement is likely to be replacement-level. That's of course because you're making that call at the end of spring or mid-April or whatever and there's nothing available. If you're talking about replacing, say, the last 5 years of Jeter's career (or moving him off SS), then the replacement is likely to be league average over those 5 years -- or possibly crappy in year one then average.

I think the assumption is that no-hit guys with decent gloves are a dime a dozen in AAA.

And I'm not saying that's a bad way to think of it. I'm just pointing out that a negative career "dWAR" just means that Jeter was a below-average defender, not "below-replacement" whatever that might mean.

One could go with "replacement level = -1 WARbat+r + -1 WARf+p" and calculate oWAR and dWAR by splitting the Rrep between the two which is basically an assumption that half their time/value is bat and the other half field. (In terms of value that's incorrect; in terms of time it's about right. I'd need to think through how best to handle DHs.) But, as is, oWAR (really oWARP) gets all the replacement value.

We see confusion in the interpretation of these categories of bWAR all the time, especially the defensive ones. Not that relabelling them as oWARP and dWAA would clear that up ... it would probably be a good idea to make oWAR + dWAR = WAR but that involves dropping Rpos from oWAR, making it a purely offense (+ PT) measure. oWAA + dWAA = WAA might help, then just let the Rrep speak for itself. But I don't think there's any obviously best way to present these things but we can try to help folks keep them clear. (#2 might have already known all of this of course.)

Baseball Prospectus used to try to apply a replacement level to their fielding numbers in the early 00's versions of WARP. The feedback at the time was that it overweighted the defensive contribution

My memory is that it basically turned an average bat plus average glove into a 4 WARP player -- which basically set the "replacement level" team at 0 wins. (i.e. a replacement level player was -20 bat and -20 glove.)
   50. bunyon Posted: August 24, 2019 at 08:38 PM (#5874179)
As I said, vanishing Jeter - or simply moving him out of New York, likely changes many things. But for the thought experiment, I think it only makes sense to assume nothing else changes. League average replacement, etc.

I mean, if offered: replace your SS with Arod and then get trout, there isn’t a team in history that doesn’t make the switch.
   51. bjhanke Posted: August 25, 2019 at 01:10 AM (#5874262)
Let's not get too excited about this. The Pirates of the Honus Wagner era would not make that deal. But, then, ARod would not hit like the ARod we know if he had to play in 1908. "There isn't a team in history" is an enormous claim.
   52. Rally Posted: August 25, 2019 at 09:45 AM (#5874272)
I’d do that deal as the Pirates. Let’s assume no timelining here, so A-Rod is not quite as good as Wagner. But still the second best SS ever if left at the position. And towards the end of that SS’s career, you get the equivalent of a Cobb or Speaker.
   53. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: August 25, 2019 at 10:53 AM (#5874274)
Let's not get too excited about this. The Pirates of the Honus Wagner era would not make that deal.

I think the Wagner-era Pirates come out of that deal just fine, really. The Pirates won four pennants with Wagner (1901, '02, '03, and '09), all of them by at least 6.5 games; Wagner was great, but he wasn't 6.5 wins better than A-Rod in any of those seasons. They split the two World Series that they played with Wagner; Honus hit well in the 1909 victory, and poorly in the 1903 defeat, both of which were close series. I think it's pretty likely they come out of the exchange just fine (especially if you can transplant A-Rod's 2009 postseason to exactly 100 years earlier), and then eventually replace their worst outfielder with Trout, who I assume would be reasonably Cobb-like if he came up in the deadball era.

The Pirates weren't especially good (not within Trout range of the pennant) in the mid-to-late 1910s, but they have excellent chances to gain pennants in 1921 (4 GB) and 1924 (3 GB); the could also conceivably win in '23 (8.5 GB with an 88 OPS+ out of one of their starting outfielders) and '26 (4.5 GB with a suddenly washed up Max Carey soaking up almost 500 PA of 55 OPS+). They likely still win the '25 Series (although that series was very close and swung on some unusual plays), and almost certainly still lose in '27, but if you add 2-4 more pennants, there's plenty of opportunity for additional titles in there.

Also, with regard to:

ARod would not hit like the ARod we know if he had to play in 1908.

He wouldn't hit 40-50 homers a year, no. But remember, A-Rod won a batting title and led the league in doubles at age 20, and led the league in hits while stealing 46 bases two years later. I suspect a young A-Rod could have adapted to the deadball era.
   54. Rally Posted: August 25, 2019 at 02:33 PM (#5874294)
That’s my assumption, Trout and young A-Rod are/were great all around players. Take away the HR and they would beat you in other ways, as Wagner and Cobb did. When putting together the lists of ‘most WAR by age X’, Cobb is most often the target Trout is chasing.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
tshipman
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogNetanyahu? OMNICHATTER hardly knows hu!, for September 18, 2019
(86 - 10:25pm, Sep 18)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

NewsblogEven Gary Thorne is getting frustrated with the Orioles
(4 - 10:19pm, Sep 18)
Last: PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina

Newsblog37 MLB Players Destined to Become 'Guys' Who Will Be Remembered
(32 - 10:06pm, Sep 18)
Last: The Honorable Ardo

NewsblogTwins set MLB record as 5th player reaches 30-home run mark
(10 - 9:56pm, Sep 18)
Last: The Honorable Ardo

NewsblogOT - NBA thread (Playoffs through off-season)
(6761 - 9:45pm, Sep 18)
Last: tshipman

Gonfalon CubsApproaching the Finish Line
(51 - 9:13pm, Sep 18)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread - A New Season is Upon Baldrick
(833 - 8:37pm, Sep 18)
Last: Biff, highly-regarded young guy

NewsblogTigers lose 104th game, move closer to first overall pick
(48 - 7:55pm, Sep 18)
Last: Infinite Yost (Voxter)

NewsblogFelipe Vazquez Arrested
(65 - 7:33pm, Sep 18)
Last: Jose is Absurdly Unemployed

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-18-2019
(22 - 5:51pm, Sep 18)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogNew bowl game at Fenway Park to match teams from ACC, AAC
(20 - 4:59pm, Sep 18)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (September 2019)
(185 - 4:11pm, Sep 18)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogThe bizarre brilliance of Derek Dietrich’s 2019 season
(11 - 3:25pm, Sep 18)
Last: My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto

NewsblogFrom 319 transactions to No. 1 overall: Sacramento River Cats win third Triple-A championship
(5 - 2:36pm, Sep 18)
Last: Wayne Newton's pet monkey (gef, talking mongoose)

Newsblog100 losses no novelty this year; same with 100 wins
(2 - 2:21pm, Sep 18)
Last: donlock

Page rendered in 0.5480 seconds
46 querie(s) executed