If you could build around one player?

[1stpitchhacker]

Re: If you could build around one player?

DC...HES A BEASTTTTTTTT.

Trout would be my obvious pick.. I was just trying to throw some other candidates out there. Tulo is a bit injury prone, but he'd be my 2nd.

In that case I'd go with David Ortiz. He's a BEASTTTTTTT too. Lol.

[royals19]

Re: If you could build around one player?

Harper can grind and faceplant and hustle all he wants, Trout is the better player.

Trout has better athleticism and that in turn translates to his baseball skills which in turn make him a great baseball player. There's nothing wrong with him.

I just feel that Harper is more explosive and is better suited to play the game.

It's hard to go wrong with either really. It's like a silver-silver debate.

[AC]

Re: If you could build around one player?

Trout has better athleticism and that in turn translates to his baseball skills which in turn make him a great baseball player. There's nothing wrong with him.

I just feel that Harper is more explosive and is better suited to play the game.

It's hard to go wrong with either really. It's like a silver-silver debate.

Just because I want to make some narrative using, Trouble-With-the-Curve-loving old scout's head explode, I'll quote Billy Beane and say that we're not selling jeans for god's sake, I don't give a damn who has better athletic ability and is more explosive (What? this isn't basketball).

I'm less inclined to care about Harper's draft combine stats and more inclined to care about the .044 point wOBA difference in Trout's favor, .051 point OBP difference in Trout's favor, and the fact that Trout has been 35% better offensively than Harper while being a significantly better baserunner and a better defensive player (8.9-7.0 UZR/150 and good luck disagreeing based on the eye test).

But if you're into narratives and explosiveness and whatnot, an article I always loved..

http://www.baseballnation.com/2012/11/16/3654460/mike-trout-miguel-cabrera-stats-mvp

It's almost a shame that newfangled stats got dragged into it. It obscured the real case for Trout. It let the initialismophobes run amok, allowing baseball writers to use their hyper-macho histories as ex-Navy SEALs and former all-state athletes to poke fun at the people they're assuming weren't cool in high school. But Mike Trout had the most old-school argument of all-time.

In at least one game every day during the season, an announcer will wax rhapsodic about the abilities of a speedy leadoff hitter. When he reaches base, things happen. He distracts the pitcher. He manufactures the runs himself instead of off-shoring them. It's supposed to be one of the purer aspects of the sport.

Trout isn't just an exciting young player. He's been historically good through his first two years and there really isn't a player in the league I would consider taking before Trout.

[Sportsforever]

Re: If you could build around one player?

Mike Trout through two years: 20 WAR

Bryce Harper through two years: 7 WAR

Yes, Trout has played a few more games...but regardless if you like WAR or not, that is very telling.

[DamnYanks2]

Re: If you could build around one player?

I think Harper is not gonna live up to the hype, still so young, and enough time to prove me wrong. But that's just my feeling.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: If you could build around one player?

Did someone already pick Joe Mather? If not, that's my pick.

[royals19]

Re: If you could build around one player?

Just because I want to make some narrative using, Trouble-With-the-Curve-loving old scout's head explode, I'll quote Billy Beane and say that we're not selling jeans for god's sake, I don't give a damn who has better athletic ability and is more explosive (What? this isn't basketball).

I'm less inclined to care about Harper's draft combine stats and more inclined to care about the .044 point wOBA difference in Trout's favor, .051 point OBP difference in Trout's favor, and the fact that Trout has been 35% better offensively than Harper while being a significantly better baserunner and a better defensive player (8.9-7.0 UZR/150 and good luck disagreeing based on the eye test).

But if you're into narratives and explosiveness and whatnot, an article I always loved..

http://www.baseballnation.com/2012/11/16/3654460/mike-trout-miguel-cabrera-stats-mvp

Trout isn't just an exciting young player. He's been historically good through his first two years and there really isn't a player in the league I would consider taking before Trout.

Mike Trout through two years: 20 WAR

Bryce Harper through two years: 7 WAR

Yes, Trout has played a few more games...but regardless if you like WAR or not, that is very telling.

I don't want to get this off track so this is the last I'll say.

I like numbers as much as they next guy and they're helpful in today's game but I still maintain that there are intangibles within the game that can't be quantified. I'll probably catch plenty of flak for it but I don't need numbers to tell me if someone can play or not. While I agree that Trout has put up phenomenal numbers over the course of his young career, I prefer Harper based on the old school philosophies. You can't quantify (not yet at least) a player's drive, work ethic and physicality and because you can't quantify them people will say they're nonexistent and don't factor into the process.

Trout has better numbers than Harper and is on an entirely different level than Harper but Harper posses more of the intangibles that I personally prefer.

If we want to start up a thread to debate this then that's fine with me but I just wanted to get this final point across before discarding this.

[AC]

Re: If you could build around one player?

And I'll argue that I value Trout's intangibles over Harper's because it helps my argument and there's no valid way to respond to this without pure bias because you can't quantify it.

[Chip Douglass]

Re: If you could build around one player?

Literally no one would dispute that Trout is a much better player right now.

However, "building around one player" is a long-run question as much as it is a short-run question. IMO, Harper will be better over the long run than Trout because his skill set won't hit the wall as fast as Trout's will. Harper hasn't even scratched the surface of his true power potential while Trout's speed/defense has arguably already peaked. I seriously doubt Trout will replicate his insane baserunning/defense combo in 2012 at any other point in his career.

[AC]

Re: If you could build around one player?

Literally no one would dispute that Trout is a much better player right now.

However, "building around one player" is a long-run question as much as it is a short-run question. IMO, Harper will be better over the long run than Trout because his skill set won't hit the wall as fast as Trout's will. Harper hasn't even scratched the surface of his true power potential while Trout's speed/defense has arguably already peaked. I seriously doubt Trout will replicate his insane baserunning/defense combo in 2012 at any other point in his career.

That's not where the majority of his value came from in 2012 though. 14% of his value in 2012 came from defense, and 13% came from baserunning. 27% of his overall value came from the speed/defense combo. 52% of his value came from his offensive contributions in 2012.

In 2013, I'm not going to bother running those calculations again because I'm just sooo lazy, but you know what? He didn't replicate his speed/defense combo.. and he was roughly as valuable.

Trout's 2012 and 2013 were both valued at roughly 10.1 fWAR/700 PA. In 2012, he posted that insane baserunning/defense combo. In 2013, Trout posted a 12.5 Baserunning+defense RAA, down from a 25.3 in 2012. That's like a 50% reduction, and he still had the same quality of season.

Trout doesn't rely on speed and baserunning to be extremely valuable. His offensive production is ridiculous.

Fun fact: In his first two seasons, Trout is second to Miguel Cabrera in batting runs, by a whole 11 runs or so. Harper is 27th.

Another factor in why I believe Trout will be more valuable is Trout's durability and lack of injury *knocks on wood*. Harper's had some injury problems. Which I really hope he gets over.

So yeah, Harper isn't at his peak yet. But Trout is a once in a generation player, and in all honesty, we can probably throw aging curves out the window with him. The argument that Trout's defense and speed has peaked (which is a completely legitimate argument considering those two things peak early) is completely fine, but you absolutely can't overlook the fact that Trout pairs those skills with Cabrera-esque hitting that Harper simply may not be able to catch up to.



How great is it that we can have this debate? Seriously, let's take a minute to consider some of the young stars in the game. I love baseball.

Edit: where I say value, "production" would probably be a better term.

[DrJones]

Re: If you could build around one player?

I like numbers as much as they next guy and they're helpful in today's game but I still maintain that there are intangibles within the game that can't be quantified. I'll probably catch plenty of flak for it but I don't need numbers to tell me if someone can play or not. While I agree that Trout has put up phenomenal numbers over the course of his young career, I prefer Harper based on the old school philosophies. You can't quantify (not yet at least) a player's drive, work ethic and physicality and because you can't quantify them people will say they're nonexistent and don't factor into the process.

Trout has better numbers than Harper and is on an entirely different level than Harper but Harper posses more of the intangibles that I personally prefer.

Frankly, I find this bizarre. Isn't Trout a prototypical 5-tool player who "plays the game the right way"? What's more old-school than that? Are there reports out there that question Trout's drive, work ethic, and physicality? Please pass them along, I'm curious.

[AC]

Re: If you could build around one player?

Isn't Trout a prototypical 5-tool player who "plays the game the right way"?

Exactly what I was getting at with "Trout has the most old school argument of all time." If anything, as well, Harper is the bashful, arrogant opposition with a bad attitude, if we're going to build stories.

The stats are obviously on Trout's side and I don't see how the narratives help Harper.

[1stpitchhacker]

Re: If you could build around one player?

Arguing for Harper is easy because of course if he turns out better than Trout (don't know how that could happen) then the Harper supporters can say with a smug look on their face "I told you so, I have such an eye for the intangibles!" lol. Don't see how this is even a debate. Harper can't hit left handed pitching at the MLB level.

[Bdubb]

Re: If you could build around one player?

Harper gets more chicks in the stands.