Shandler: Trout's Decline Was Expected

[Hells Satans]

And the writing of the "I told you so" article on April 29th is just freaking outstanding. He deserves every bit, every ounce, every post calling him out.

Anyway, everything in his book is available for free on fangraphs, brooksbaseball, etc. You just need to work a little harder.

[DOUGHBOYS]

It's unfair to jump down Shandler's neck for a missed call. His track record is superb. Every one of us, every season has had guys we completely whiffed on, and guys who we wrote off that had huge years. It happens to everyone, even the best.

I really don't get this post.
Of course it is fair to criticize Shandler. He's not immune. It's the way fantasy baseball works. If Joey Votto is taken in the first five picks of the 2015 draft, that means I'll be wrong about him not being a true first rounder this coming year.
And I'd EXPECT to catch crap.
Trout is a HUGE swing and miss. As big as it gets. I haven't read Shandler in a long time. I don't feel he is as NFBC relevant as other sources.
He played here. Failed. And rooted for vickery the next time he played.
An NFBC publication of the kind that Shandler has published would be well received. Even that publication would be wrong in some judgments and catch Hell for it.
Nobody is above criticism for being wrong, not even 'the best'.

[BK METS]

It's unfair to jump down Shandler's neck for a missed call. His track record is superb. Every one of us, every season has had guys we completely whiffed on, and guys who we wrote off that had huge years. It happens to everyone, even the best.

I really don't get this post.
Of course it is fair to criticize Shandler. He's not immune. It's the way fantasy baseball works. If Joey Votto is taken in the first five picks of the 2015 draft, that means I'll be wrong about him not being a true first rounder this coming year.
And I'd EXPECT to catch crap.
Trout is a HUGE swing and miss. As big as it gets. I haven't read Shandler in a long time. I don't feel he is as NFBC relevant as other sources.
He played here. Failed. And rooted for vickery the next time he played.
An NFBC publication of the kind that Shandler has published would be well received. Even that publication would be wrong in some judgments and catch Hell for it.
Nobody is above criticism for being wrong, not even 'the best'.

I agree and I don't believe he was catching crap for simply publishing one article on Mike Trout's decline but it was his follow up article saying "I told you so" in May, which was really my problem with it. For me, it was as if he made a bold prediction and seemed the need to prove his point somehow after one month and of course, never to be heard from again on the issue, once Trout did his thing. Can't get on his case for simply being wrong. I respect much of his work but be a man and admit you were wrong after outwardly attacking your critics with a premature article and then disappearing. Obviously he wants to be a public figure and he has done many things good, to deserve respect. But with that you need to face the music when you are wrong. Maybe he will. Maybe he writes and follow up, "Mike Trout beats the odds". He is not required to do so but he will earn a lot of respect from his critics, if he does. Me being one of them.

[sek729]

To me the projection game is impossible to perfect and everybody is going to have misses. Shandler knows this. He's owned up to plenty of his mistakes in the past. Flip through the 2011, 25 year anniversary book and he recaps plenty of his blown calls. But I do agree that the small-sample "I told you so" was incredibly stupid and deserves flack for that.

[bjoak]

Okay, I have here the HQ (March update) projection for Trout: 610, 106, 22, 80, 32, .286. While those aren't his eventual numbers, they are good numbers. There's not going to be any talk at the end of the season that Trout is a disaster if he puts up those numbers.

So I say again, isn't Shandler arguing against his own publication's numbers, using statistical arguments that should have been taken into account when they created the projection?

My issue isn't his argument or even his small sample "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" article. It's that he believes either he or his organization doesn't know how to project. How can you expect your viewing public to accept your projections when you can't even stand behind them?

[Greg Ambrosius]

Okay, I have here the HQ (March update) projection for Trout: 610, 106, 22, 80, 32, .286. While those aren't his eventual numbers, they are good numbers. There's not going to be any talk at the end of the season that Trout is a disaster if he puts up those numbers.

So I say again, isn't Shandler arguing against his own publication's numbers, using statistical arguments that should have been taken into account when they created the projection?

My issue isn't his argument or even his small sample "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" article. It's that he believes either he or his organization doesn't know how to project. How can you expect your viewing public to accept your projections when you can't even stand behind them?

Anybody who publishes projections opens themselves up to debate on every single player and nobody knows that better than Ron Shandler. He's been doing it for many years and getting many projections right and many projections wrong. He's not alone in this field of endeavor.

And I think Ron will be the first to admit that Mike Trout exceeded all expectations that he had for 2013 and that he did prove him wrong. I mean, Ron first said in October of last year before his AFL Symposium that he was 99 percent certain that Mike Trout just had his career year. And he said that because he knew that fantasy owners would draft him in the Top 3 the next year expecting similar production. It was his bold way of saying he didn't see it coming again and that he wouldn't draft him in the Top 10, not even in the first round. He boldly said that as did others.

Where Ron went wrong was boldly writing MISSION ACCOMPLISHED in April when Trout was hitting .261-2-16-4 with 15 runs. Even at that point Trout looked good; it was the Angels that looked pathetic and of course the day after the article was published Trout had a big game and continued to hit well the rest of the year. He didn't top 2012's numbers across the board -- so his career year is still 2012 -- but he still exceeded expectations in many ways. Let's count the ways:

** His .323 average: If there was one stat everyone just KNEW he couldn't duplicate in 2013 it was his BA because his BABIP in 2012 was so high. Well, he almost beat it as he hit .322 in the first half of the season despite a slow start and .324 after the All-Star break. More amazing, his OBP jumped from .399 to .423.

** His RBIs increased from 83 to 97 as his HRs fell from 30 to 27. In 2012 he was the Angels' leadoff hitter for every single one of his at-bats; last year he had only 77 at-bats as a leadoff hitter, 343 as a No. 2 hitter and 169 at-bats as a No. 3 hitter. He hit .325, .329 and .308 in those three spots. The change resulted in fewer runs (109) and fewer stolen bases (33), but the talent is there.

** He plays with an all-out style like Bryce Harper, but yet he still stayed healthy long enough to play in 157 games. His WAR was 9.2, the highest in the majors. He's a difference maker and someone special who we all might have under-rated.

Yeah, under-rated, even though he went 1st, 2nd or 3rd in most leagues. I have a feeling that Trout will still be a hot topic of conversation at Ron's Arizona Fall League Symposium in a few weeks and I have a feeling Ron will admit that he whiffed on this one. Why wouldn't he? Again, many folks missed on the fact that this guy really might be as talented as they come and now is as good a time to admit it as any. The proof is in watching him play. He's something special and I have a feeling that 2012 won't be his career year. This guy is something special and 2013 just reinforced that. Now everyone has to admit that, even Ron.

And as for the Forecaster's projections, you never heard Ron say he would bottom out. That's a fair projection from the Forecaster and one that took into account more than just Ron's opinion. Lots of folks have a hand in those projections and again it looked like a fair one to me.

[Greg Ambrosius]

Kudos to Ron Shandler for opening up the Arizona Fall League Symposium with a hilarious mea culpa about being wrong on Mike Trout. He took his beating and led off with a hilarious PowerPoint on "12 Reasons You Should Not Draft Mike Trout......In 2014!!"

Don't get all worked up folks, it wasn't a serious presentation. He poked fun at the possible reasons that Trout could regress, while knowing just how special this player is. It went over well with the participants as Ron admitted his mistake on Trout in his own way. Well done.

And in fact, on Sunday during a draft panel, Ron did say that he would draft Mike Trout No. 1 overall this year. No question about it, he said. He wasn't there on Trout last year, even saying he wasn't sure he was a first round pick in 2013. That's changed this year and few fantasy owners would disagree with him.

Mike Trout has proven everyone wrong. He may just have another season or two like the one we saw in 2012 and maybe even better ones after all. Anything is possible with Trout. Even Ron Shandler agrees with that.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Classic case of Missouri/Missouri

[California Aces]

I have an old friend who told me that the internet was "just a fad" when it first started. After that I did the opposite of what he said.

Hope Shandler is not jinxing Trout for next year.