Shandler: Trout's Decline Was Expected

[Tom Kessenich]

Ron Shandler was one of the strongest critics of Mike Trout being a Top 3 fantasy pick this season. He has a column in USA Today explaining why Trout's current production should not be a surprise to anyone. Take a look.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/fa ... y/2121985/

[BK METS]

Ron Shandler was one of the strongest critics of Mike Trout being a Top 3 fantasy pick this season. He has a column in USA Today explaining why Trout's current production should not be a surprise to anyone. Take a look.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/fa ... y/2121985/

Yeah we were all waiting for the "I told you so" article from the magnificent one.

Lets share these stats:

May 2, 2012 YTD stats - 0 HR, 0 RBI, 1 Run, 1 SB, .143 BA
May 2, 2013 YTD stats - 3 HR, 17 RBI, 17 Runs, 4 SB, .270 BA

[DOUGHBOYS]

Agreed.
From a guy who seems to dislike small samplings, Shandler uses a small sampling to fortify an argument.
Blecchh.

[Hells Satans]

Agreed.
From a guy who seems to dislike small samplings, Shandler uses a small sampling to fortify an argument.
Blecchh.

Really terrible work. He should be ashamed of himself.

[CASS]

Mike Trout has played 1 full year. Prior to this he hit 29 HR across multiple levels in the minors - in 351 games. He was selected on average over:

Ryan braun - who's 6 year avg line is: .314/102/33/102/21. Never had a bad year...ever...not once.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Mike Trout has played 1 full year. Prior to this he hit 29 HR across multiple levels in the minors - in 351 games. He was selected on average over:

Ryan braun - who's 6 year avg line is: .314/102/33/102/21. Never had a bad year...ever...not once.

So, what's your point?

[Pitch12]

He's on pace for 18/102 and 24 SBs. 102 runs too.

Explain where has he regressed. He has a big few days and he's right on his paces for last year.

How are people labeled experts?

[DOUGHBOYS]

He's on pace for 18/102 and 24 SBs. 102 runs too.

Explain where has he regressed. He has a big few days and he's right on his paces for last year.

How are people labeled experts?

Agreed. I wasn't going to bring it up till your post, but Trout is one of 18 players in baseball to have at least three hr's, three sb's, and hit for a .270 average.
It seems like he'll never meet the lofty expectations, but it's not like he has stunk up the joint either.
And in the meantime, few are speaking of the Andrew McCutchen similar start.

[Brock]

These season has just gotten started and to proclaim Trout a failure this year is totally premature. I believe Shandler said last year would be Trout's high water mark for his career. He's so young with so much talent how can anyone be so sure. Even if Trout doesn't reach last years lofty numbers he still will most likely have a very nice season and hopefully for the guys who drafted him justify his ADP. Shandler's material is interesting off season reading but his projections are very conservative and should be taken with a grain of salt. The eye test is still the best way to identify who you like. Trout and Harper will wow people for another 15 years hopefully and I for one as a baseball fan will enjoy every minute of it.

[anpyanks]

I'm so tired of this guy (Shandler). Was in a main event with him a few years back in NY and the guy was clueless from the draft to FAAB. And of course finished horribly and has never been heard from since. I don't think anyone in the NFBC thought Trout would do what he did last year but I'll gladly take the guy because even 80% of last year he'll be well worth the pick. Shandler needs to stick to his forecaster, forum, and tout wars. Let the big boys play in the high stakes leagues Ron because I saw all I needed in NY when you played in the main event.

[Outlaw]

There were a lot of experts that bought into this line of thinking about Trout and touted it endlessly for 6 weeks leading up the start of the season. The drafters ignored them all in every format as he went top 3 everywhere, every draft, big money or free. Me personally, I believe it doesn’t take an expert to conclude some or even all of his numbers could regress, as they were so obscenely high last year to start with. The experts will chime they were right if he falls off his pace of last year in SB's, HR's, RBI, runs, and avg. He in fact could exceed them all numerically because of playing 160 games, but they will espouse he regressed off of last year’s "pace" numbers. If any of his numbers are lower than last year, we'll never hear the end of it on how all the experts were right. It doesn’t take a Rocket Scientist to figure out on Shandlers Article, he was using pace to cover his bases if Trout somehow performs as a top 10 player this year in Fantasy, which he should. He could very well be top 3 too. I’ve been a believer in Harper since day one and feel he could be better than Trout when all is said in done, but what am I talking about, Harper -1 Trout -2 long term. Barring injury or doing something stupid, they will shuttle back and forth between 1-2 for the next 10 years.

The only expert I listen to is the one in my head, followed by the players who consistently finish in the top 20-50 in the NFBC events. If I'm wrong, at least I have fun being wrong instead of blaming an "exeprt" or saying to myslef why did I listen to that clown. The rest of them, all those that opine on radio, TV, XM, blogs, web sites, ½ of them make no sense in their opinions. There are some however that do put out some very good statistical data that can assist in forming each our own “expert” opinions.

NFBC players more than most seem to cut through the BS. From what I saw this year, it was the NFBC ADP Draft Data that led the way for the entire industry. It wasn’t the expert drafts, and tout wars and experts on media; it was us, the NFBC drafters who truly determined value. They all just piggy back off that Data.
The XM guys the way they tout everyone as an “expert” or “guru” is hilarious. “Experts” are like butt holes, we only need 1.

[Cocktails and Dreams]

People that are experts are people that win. Dave Potts, Steve, Lindy etc. Those are the experts. I don't think Ron has won squat. And therefore I certainly don't consider him an expert. If Dave, Steve or Lindy gave advice I would pay far more for it than Ron. Not even close.

He's on pace for 18/102 and 24 SBs. 102 runs too.

Explain where has he regressed. He has a big few days and he's right on his paces for last year.

How are people labeled experts?

[Edwards Kings]

Ron's stock sure has gone down since he and his team (I believe I remember he drafted, then turned the team over to some of the BBHQ staff) faired so poorly that year. To be fair, Ron and team are always trying new things, some that work and some that don't. That year his approach did not work for sure.

I agree that Ron jumped the gun a bit on calling out Trout. I wouldn't have picked him in the Top 3, but that is me (missouri/missouri) and I have certainly not been one of the "winners" in this format. But I also know that by June, what happened in April will be ancient history. It is just too early to infer that any (other than Youkilis) is a flop.

But I also recognize Ron is one of the true pioneers in fantasy sports and sabermetrics. He has seen and done enough to be willing to put his reputation on the line to try new formats, strategies, measures, approaches, et al. Ron does not need me to carry his books for him, but this string has the earmarks of a dog pile in the making, which would not be fair.

Remember, of all of us, Ron is I am guessing the only one who was actually a consultant in real life for a MLB team. Disagree with him sure. He relishes it for what I have seen, but it would not be right to lump him in with all of the other "experts" who peddle to the 8-team mixed league crowd.

[Greg Ambrosius]

Ron Shandler was one of the strongest critics of Mike Trout being a Top 3 fantasy pick this season. He has a column in USA Today explaining why Trout's current production should not be a surprise to anyone. Take a look.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/fa ... y/2121985/

I don't see anything wrong with this story and in fact I see less "I told you so" than "the analytics are rarely wrong" from Ron. This is for USA Today and honestly there are some great facts here for fantasy owners and non-fantasy baseball players. I think we all knew these facts before Draft Day and most of us STILL DRAFTED TROUT. Why? Because he put up last year's numbers in just 5 months of the season. We ALL WANTED his full season numbers.

Some of these facts are spot on:

"Trout's 63-point drop in batting average should not be a total surprise. His batting average on balls in play last year was .383, a level that is unsustainable over time. This year's BABIP is a more reasonable .324. Last year's "expected" batting average (xBA) – the level calculated from his peripherals alone – was only .280, which also presaged this year's decline. His current xBA is identical at .280."

We all knew a reduction in BA was likely because his BABIP was so, so high last year. Ron is just stating the obvious.

"Last year's leading indicators also pointed to the possibility that Trout's home run production would decline. His home run-to-fly-ball rate was a high 22% — about twice the league average. His current rate has regressed to only 9%. I would expect that to normalize at least somewhat over time."

Agreed. 3 HRs already at that level means 20+ yet if he stays healthy.

"If there was one statistic that most fantasy leaguers did not expect to regress, it would have been Trout's stolen base output. But one metric perhaps best explains this. Last year, Trout attempted a steal nearly 30% of the time he reached first base. This year, that rate has dropped to 19%. Blame his team, if you will. The Angels have struggled out of the gate, having scored the second fewest runs in their division – behind even the Houston Astros. Manager Mike Scioscia may be reluctant to risk losing potential runs on the basepaths and so has not given Trout as consistent a green light."

Agreed again. The ANGELS SUCK RIGHT NOW.

I don't see a need to pile on Ron, who is a good friend of the NFBC, an industry pioneer and someone spreading good news about fantasy sports in USA Today. It's a solid column of facts that some folks see as a "I told you so" column. Don't worry, Trout may still prove him wrong, but the early facts are just that, the facts.

[BK METS]

OK Greg, then tell us how his numbers are a "decline" if he didn't play all of April last year?

By the way he started the column, "What has happened to last year's rookie superstar, Los Angeles Angels' outfielder Mike Trout?" and the fact that he is writing a column about a player's decline, at the beginning of May, is absolutely ridiculous.

Granted, there were many that thought he would decline, but Ron was as extreme a pessimist as there was about Trout and just by the fact he is writing this article now and producing numbers that are based upon a month that he didn't even play in last year, is jumping the gun by several months... If this isn't "I told you so" without saying it, then what is??

And just because he is a friend of the NFBC, doesn't mean we cannot criticize him for writing a dumb article. Hey, I would criticize YOU for writing a dumb article, but you never do!

[Greg Ambrosius]

OK Greg, then tell us how his numbers are a "decline" if he didn't play all of April last year?

By the way he started the column, "What has happened to last year's rookie superstar, Los Angeles Angels' outfielder Mike Trout?" and the fact that he is writing a column about a player's decline, at the beginning of May, is absolutely ridiculous.

Granted, there were many that thought he would decline, but Ron was as extreme a pessimist as there was about Trout and just by the fact he is writing this article now and producing numbers that are based upon a month that he didn't even play in last year, is jumping the gun by several months... If this isn't "I told you so" without saying it, then what is??

Ron is a big boy Alan and he doesn't need me to fight his battles. I'm just telling you like I see it. He wasn't comparing 2013 April to 2012 April. He was comparing his flyball rates, his BABIP, his steal percentage, and other analytics from 2012 to 2013. All are worth watching.

His pessimism was that Trout will NEVER top last year's overall numbers and that he wouldn't pick him in the First Round this year. He didn't say he was bad or would have a bad year. I know he liked guys like Cargo better and so far he is right. Trout isn't a Top 3 fantasy player right now, but again, most owners still like him and are glad they have him for the next 5 months. Everything Ron wrote was spot on for April 2013 and there's still plenty of time for Trout to prove Ron wrong.

For me, this was nothing more and nothing less.

[headhunters]

i think the whole article and gregs response are spot on- except the comment from ron that he wouldn't take trout in the 1st round. the article shows why ron is great at what he does and the comment shows why he is a businessman not a fantasy player. 20-20- 100-100 .280, trouts "regressed" numbers are 1st round- ron just doesn't realize that.

[Glenneration X]

I agree that several of these comments are a bit on the harsh side and over the top.

[KJ Duke]

I agree that several of these comments are a bit on the harsh side and over the top.

You mean the comments about Trout were too harsh? yeah, I agree.

The problem I have with Schandler is that he sells himself as a "fantasy baseball" expert ... win your league with my expertise blah blah blah. That is complete BS. He is a proven sub-par player. If all he did was present himself as a numbers guy, I'd have no problem with what he says.

Now, there are other guys writing for HQ that are very good fantasy players. Maybe it's time Ron to step down as fantasy figurehead.

[Hells Satans]

I agree that several of these comments are a bit on the harsh side and over the top.

You mean the comments about Trout were too harsh? yeah, I agree.

The problem I have with Schandler is that he sells himself as a "fantasy baseball" expert ... win your league with my expertise blah blah blah. That is complete BS. He is a proven sub-par player. If all he did was present himself as a numbers guy, I'd have no problem with what he says.

Now, there are other guys writing for HQ that are very good fantasy players. Maybe it's time Ron to step down as fantasy figurehead.

No numbers guy would ever write an article based on the premise 25 or so games of data proves a point. Numbers guys understand the concept of sample size.

[Glenneration X]

I agree that several of these comments are a bit on the harsh side and over the top.

You mean the comments about Trout were too harsh? yeah, I agree.

The problem I have with Schandler is that he sells himself as a "fantasy baseball" expert ... win your league with my expertise blah blah blah. That is complete BS. He is a proven sub-par player. If all he did was present himself as a numbers guy, I'd have no problem with what he says.

Now, there are other guys writing for HQ that are very good fantasy players. Maybe it's time Ron to step down as fantasy figurehead.

KJ, I don't necessarily feel that's fair and part of my problem with the direction this thread has gone. Instead of a debate on the merits of Shandler's argument against Trout, it's become a referendum on Shandler himself and his abilities as a player and/or a tout.

I know some might feel me biased due to my recent gig with BHQ. However, that wouldn't be accurate. I didn't agree with Shandler's views on Trout and even went against the BHQ party line by drafting Trout for the team I share with the site. Still, though I disagreed with Shandler's stance, I respected it.

He supported his argument with data and stood fast despite the fact that it was a very unpopular viewpoint, not shared by the NFBC community, most of his colleagues in the industry, and even a good number of his subscribers (as shown in a very long, very combative thread in the BHQ forums). The only two I know of that agreed with Schandler's thoughts on Trout were David Gonos and Todd Zola.

He also didn't take a safe approach to his stance by softening the rhetoric or projected regression on Trout. Instead, he led the charge and made it the centerpiece of his analysis this season. I've often read complaints on these boards that industry projections play it too safe and noone goes out on a limb. That obviously wasn't the case here.

I still disagree with Shandler's thoughts on Trout. However I do wonder if NFBC drafts were held today, if Trout would still be a unanimous top 3 pick.

Was it a little early for Shandler to state that his thought process has proven accurate? Maybe. However, if Trout had started the season off with Justin Upton numbers, how many would already be stating that Shandler was wrong.

[KJ Duke]

I agree that several of these comments are a bit on the harsh side and over the top.

You mean the comments about Trout were too harsh? yeah, I agree.

The problem I have with Schandler is that he sells himself as a "fantasy baseball" expert ... win your league with my expertise blah blah blah. That is complete BS. He is a proven sub-par player. If all he did was present himself as a numbers guy, I'd have no problem with what he says.

Now, there are other guys writing for HQ that are very good fantasy players. Maybe it's time Ron to step down as fantasy figurehead.

No numbers guy would ever write an article based on the premise 25 or so games of data proves a point. Numbers guys understand the concept of sample size.

His discussion on numbers was reasonable - fly ball rates, babip, etc.

His conclusion - that Trout is a disappointment after so few games is part of his "I'm a fantasy guru" BS. That's the part that bugs me, and you're right he's actually reducing his "numbers" credibility by not pointing that out.

[KJ Duke]

I know some might feel me biased due to my recent gig with BHQ.

Glenn, I've never known you to be biased about anything!

I would observe that you, ehh, perhaps, at times, maybe, embrace bias ... but when you do, you're still smart enough not to let it influence your game.

Let me guess the difference in that article if you had written it, rather than Schandler. You might talk about the same numbers and suggest that it's possible his numbers may not reach last year's. You would also talk about it being a month into the season and not reading too much into the slow start. And you'd also come across as humble, so not to disturb the fantasy gods and to set yourself up to look foolish if, say a month from now, Trout goes on a ridiculous tear. And one more difference - no one here would be bothered by a word you said, even if you were preaching to stay away from Trout this year.

[knuckleheads]

These things seem clear.

1) Shandler stinks at fantasy baseball, at least when compared the guys who compete against the best and routinely win. I'm sure he could consistently finish second in my home league, but there is a reason an expert stops competing and starts commenting. (See Mike Sexton, World Poker Tour...Again, I am pretty sure Mike would do pretty well in my home game, but there he is on TV saying things like "bingo, bango, bongo.")

2) Shandler is pretty good at recognizing statistical trends that are true for most players.

However, winning fantasy baseball is not about identifying who will do the same thing they always do, it's about finding the guys who do the inexplicable. This year.

With that said, Shandler doesn't seem to pretend to compete in fantasy any more. His article was in USA Today, which I think it is safe to say is not the research lab for NFBC players. Had Tom not linked it, I'm not sure 5% of the guys in these leagues would have seen it. In fact, for those who do get their fantasy advice from USA Today, it was probably a fair warning to them to not trade their first 3 picks and half their FAAB for the chance to draft Trout.

I have no problem tuning out Shandler's remedial and/or incomplete advice. (Frankly, I don't think it's intended for me.) I have more trouble listening to those who quote him as sage, and draft according to his projections. One of those disciples co-owns my Main Event Team. I had to beat him into a stupor (perhaps he drank himself into a stupor) to draft Trout second this year.

And to the point of Shandler's argument, I say this.

1) Speed don't slump.
2) Power NEVER peaks at age 20.
3) Mike Trout hits the ball harder than Pujols, with more line drives than Jeter, and runs to first faster than Bourn. I don't know if his BABIP should be in the .380's, but it very well could be in the top five each year.
4) Young guys pull fewer hamstrings and generally get hurt less than say, 250-lb 3rd basemen.
5) And to debunk Shandler's 25-game sample size, Trout is currently on pace for 98 Runs, 98 RBI, 52 Doubles, 17 Triples and 17 HR and 23 SB. 86 Extra-base hits ain't slumping, and it certainly ain't regressing.

[BK METS]

I agree that none of us should be attacking Shandler as a man or insulting his fantasy player abilities (or lack thereof). All I said was that it is ridiculous to write an article like this, one month into the season. Does anyone think John Buck is going to hit 60 HRs and 160 RBIs? No. Same being said, a sampling size of one month does not warrant an article like this, especially from Shandler, who made the biggest noise about the Trout decline in the pre-season. It just seemed strangely timed.. that's all I am saying. It was nothing against Ron personally.