Shandler: Trout's Decline Was Expected

[DOUGHBOYS]

I've never thought of this as disrespecting Shandler. It's not even really about Shandler, to me.
Anybody could have wrote that piece and I would have scoffed similarly.
It's just plain too soon.
That Shandler predicted regression beforehand from a dream season only adds fuel to the fire for some.
If wanting to use Numerish to back up arguments that 'Trout's Decline Was Expected', that's fine.
And that's what he did.
But can you hold off long enough for a better sample size?
Gee Whiz!
As Mark Twain said when he saw a funeral notice for himself, "Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
And I thought about Twain as a writer was summarily burying Trout.
The fact is, we cannot judge a player from the whole of last year's numbers to a month's of this year's.
Be it the smart Shandler or the dumb Kenyon, it doesn't matter who does it.
It's just plain too soon.

[Floyd]

Shandler's original article for Baseball HQ, "Don't Draft Mike Trout" was essentially a publicity stunt, and not his first one. (Ever wonder how many books he sold because of the "LIMA Plan"?). Now that Trout is off to a slow start, the USA Today article is basically Shandler's I-told-you-so.

Here was my (unpublished) response to "Don't Draft Mike Trout"...

1. Trout's power did not come from nowhere, he had an ISO of .218 in AA in 2011, and an ISO of .221 in AAA in 2012.

2. Shandler's intro to the 2013 Forecaster insinuates that 2012's outlier performances (such as Trout's) may result from the use of PEDs. Not to suggest this is true, but if an outlier in a data set has a proposed cause, is it correct to assume the cause will be removed and the outlier will regress?

3. Trout logged a BABIP over .400 at three levels -- Rookie League (2009), A ball (2009-10), and AAA (2012) -- plus a .390 at AA (2011). Wasn't Trout's 2011 Angels BABIP (.247) the real outlier rather than his .383 from 2012?

4. Playing Time: Trout has logged 600+ Plate appearances each of the last three seasons (majors/minors combined). Isn't Trout, hitting top-of-order, more likely to do this again than most first-rounders?

5. Fly Ball Rate: Shandler says Trout's 33% FB% from 2012 is too low for a home run hitter. What about his 40% FB% from 2011?

6. Regression: Wouldn't .300, 110, 25, 75, 40 still be worth an early first round draft pick?

7. Why would Shandler consider Bryce Harper, a player a year younger with fewer major league at bats, less likely to regress than Trout on the basis of maturity factors?

8. Shandler says Trout's increased body weight no longer fits his stolen base profile. If so, doesn't it enhance his home run profile? To add a qualitative angle: did Trout actually look heavy, or slow this Spring?

9. Isn't Trout's potential to play 23 more games at the major league level a reasonable hedge against regression?

10. Among the following first round Speed/Power targets: Trout, McCutcheon (Batting average/power), Braun (playing time), Kemp (power, playing time), can't we make a good case that all of them are less likely than Trout to return first round value?

11. Mickey Mantle also debuted at age 19 and broke out at age 20. Did Mantle experience a single regression season before, say, age 27?

12. Yes, speed is available later in the draft. But how often does that speed come with a high batting average, 129 runs scored, 30 HR, or 83 RBI, let alone all of the above? This package together is not replaceable. Not a single other player is capable of matching his 2012 season, yet Trout (still) has a possibility to exceed it.

[Parnelli]

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.

I agree 100% not taking him in top 3 seems insane to me...

[Parnelli]

Any one who didn't put Trout in their top 3 ...Sign me up I wanna be in their league...lol

[BK METS]

Current pace - 30 HR, 112 RBI, 104 Runs, 30 Steals, .286

[The Mighty Men]

I went to the White Sox v. Angels game last week because I wanted to see Trout. He was on 1st base, and I told my family to watch him run the bases at 230 lbs if he has the chance. One of the next batters gets a hit, and the ball is misplayed in the outfield. He scores from 1st rather easily. Even my wife, a non-sports person through and through, was impressed with his size and speed combination.

I don't need Shandler's geek numbers to tell me a guy with that speed and 40 steals last year is going to score a ton of runs and steal a ton of bases every year. Plus, just looking at his size and strength, I don't need a fly ball rate to guide my decision on whether his power is legit. Sometimes, eyeballs are enough.

[Driver Love]

Is it fair to say Shandler himself is not a skilled fantasy player based on one bad season in the NFBC? Or has he had a long history of poor results?

If you play one season, suck, quit, and continue to bill yourself as a guru it's a fair if not charitable assessment.

I have a lot of respect for the "experts" who put their money and reputation where their mouth is and compete publicly. I also know that many variables contribute to fantasy sports success vs top level talent like we see in the NFFC and NFBC. Those who play consistently and will show themselves to be more skilled over time. I was just curious to know if he has had a history of poor results or just had one bad year.

[Sebadiah23]

Request for a follow-up USA Today Mike Trout article by Ron Shandler please.

Humor is therapeutic.

[BK METS]

Cycle tonight.. with a SB and 5 RBIs.. just sayin

[anpyanks]

It's why you don't write a "told you so and/or look I'm right" article after four weeks.

[BK METS]

It's why you don't write a "told you so" article after four weeks.

But he did strike out tonight... the decline is coming... the numbers say so

[Parnelli]

Put Shandler in my league please!! Trout is slumping with 9 hr's and 9 SB. For me he was easy top 3 or even top 2. Even if his numbers fall a little, his upside wins championships...

[BK METS]

This whole Trout thing, for me, didn't bother me after he wrote his first article, "12 reasons not to draft Mike Trout", since he has a column and he got everyones attention, but it was his 2nd article saying he "still" wasn't drafting Mike Trout, and where he brings up Trout getting "outside help" (PEDs) since it was impossible for a guy to do something spectacular and defy his flawed stats and defies gravity. Then obviously the ridiculous "I was right" article. I would have no problem if he wrote the first article and left it at that...but when you put your name on something, you have to expect to take criticism. And in my opinion, the BABIP stat is flawed, since it does not take into consideration the speed of the ball off the bat and guys hitting the ball like Trout and Bryce Harper, both of whom hit the ball at an elevation and speed that cannot be put into a simple BABIP stat. I am all for numbers and probabilities, but sometimes, Ron, players come along that do defy the odds. Comparing it to defying gravity is just hilarious.

[anpyanks]

Then obviously the ridiculous "I was right" article. I would have no problem if he wrote the first article and left it at that...




BINGO!!!!! All he had to do was nothing after he wrote his first article. I wonder if he will give us an update on his opinion of Trout at some point again during the season?

[Sebadiah23]

Don't hold your breath waiting for any word about Trout's amazing 2013 season.

He's too busy blaming his bad NFBC draft performance on the "unfair" snake-draft format

http://www.ccsdesperados.com/?p=173

[KJ Duke]

Don't hold your breath waiting for any word about Trout's amazing 2013 season.

He's too busy blaming his bad NFBC draft performance on the "unfair" snake-draft format

http://www.ccsdesperados.com/?p=173

The Trout article along with those old quotes from Shawn's article provide a perfect picture. When he's right he's smart and when he's wrong it's bad luck, unfair or somehow otherwise wrong. Classic. Schandler is the anti-Jupinka.

[Billyhaze]

talk about beating a dead horse. pile on a little more.
What amazes me most is that people here have never been wrong about any player.

[KJ Duke]

talk about beating a dead horse. pile on a little more.
What amazes me most is that people here have never been wrong about any player.

I'll stop when I see a mea culpa in USA Today.

We've all been wrong about players, and we admit it. Even Mikey - he just admitted he's wrong about every player!

[anpyanks]

talk about beating a dead horse. pile on a little more.
What amazes me most is that people here have never been wrong about any player.

I've been wrong quite a few times and will be wrong many more times. First of all, I don't judge a players season on 4 weeks good or bad. Secondly, I don't have access to write an article in USA Today and if I did I certainly wouldn't do it after 4 weeks good or bad. Finally, I wouldn't pat myself on the back good or bad after 4 weeks. It's not piling anything on its deserved criticism. I never saw Lindy or Jupinka pat themselves on their backs EVER let alone after 4 weeks and both of them are far more sharp in fantasy baseball than Schander will ever be. He invited this and if you want to call it piling on then I'll be piling it on the rest of the year because it was uncalled for and a joke from a "so called expert and self proclaimed professional." I've read things from Greg, Tom, Todd Zola, Shawn Childs and never have I read anything from them congratulating themselves after 4 weeks.

[Pitch12]

Should I follow Shandler's advice and cut ties with Trout. Continues to underperform

[PGromek]

[Cocktails and Dreams]

This whole Trout thing, for me, didn't bother me after he wrote his first article, "12 reasons not to draft Mike Trout", since he has a column and he got everyones attention, but it was his 2nd article saying he "still" wasn't drafting Mike Trout, and where he brings up Trout getting "outside help" (PEDs) since it was impossible for a guy to do something spectacular and defy his flawed stats and defies gravity. Then obviously the ridiculous "I was right" article. I would have no problem if he wrote the first article and left it at that...but when you put your name on something, you have to expect to take criticism. And in my opinion, the BABIP stat is flawed, since it does not take into consideration the speed of the ball off the bat and guys hitting the ball like Trout and Bryce Harper, both of whom hit the ball at an elevation and speed that cannot be put into a simple BABIP stat. I am all for numbers and probabilities, but sometimes, Ron, players come along that do defy the odds. Comparing it to defying gravity is just hilarious.

I also think the babip stat is kind of a waster of time. To say a guy is simply getting lucky or not lucky is ludicrous. How hard balls are being hit by batters and against pitchers are what will tell the tale. Not BABIP and saying someone is lucky or unlucky simply based on that.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Agreed. I know the Numerish will be all over us, but I also have little use for BABIP.Any stat that eliminates homers from a stat is a major problem for me and to equate luck with batted balls, without also following the mph and direction on each batted ball is stupid.

While on topic about stats, why do we care in roto about a fella's on base percentage?
It's not one of our roto categories and a walk, unless a base stealer, for the most part, is a wasted chance for our players.
I admire a player like Carlos Santana in being selective in getting the right pitch. Announcers love saying, 'He's having a great at bat!'
As a fantasy owner, I say SCREW THE GREAT AT BAT! HIT THE DAMNED BALL!
A walk with runners on does absolutely nothing for us in fantasy and since Santana, inexplicably, has hit down in the Indians order this year, a worse batter comes up for the Indians.
But hey,
'great at bat!'

[Rainiers]

"Shandler: Rebound Probable Following Trout's Slow Start" A much more accurate headline for the way I read Shandler's column in USA Today. Batting Average aside, this is the way Shandler described what had happened and what to expect going forward in 2013.

Tom K, I believe, chose a poor headline that led to some unfortunate overreactions in this thread.

[ToddZ]

OK, I'll take the bait.

Here's the deal with BABIP and HR/FB and some of the other advanced metrics. They're just tools. They're not a be all end all. Like all tools, they need to be used properly or they end up not doing the job not to mention are dangerous.

We all have an idea of expected performance. There is variability associated with this expectation. What these advanced metrics do is help reduce the expected variability, It doesn't eliminate it - just minimize it. Using these metrics help define the upside and downside, they don't tell us what WILL happen. They are tools to help us discern what is MOST LIKELY to happen. It doesn't always happen. But if the season were played 1,000,000 times under the same conditions, these tools help elucidate the most common (but not only) outcome.

When DIPS theory which led to BABIP was first illuminated, luck was indeed the primary riving force with BABIP. But as data collection had been refined to include batted ball type and how well each type was struck, BABIP has been fine tuned to composed of both a skill and luck element. Soon, the subjectivity of data collection will be replaced with electronic means of measuring ball speed and trajectory after being struck. This will even further help us peel off the luck so we can use the skill to derive the most probable outcome.

To equate BABIP with luck and ignore its components is wrong.

But so is completely ignoring its very powerful and useful applications.