Twins Game Recap (8/20): Cruz Leads Twins Offensive Explosion

You could argue that in a macro sense, Mike Trout is the least valuable player in baseball.  The Angels are currently 63-66; subtract Trout's 8.4 WAR, and that drops to 55-74.  In other words, Mike Trout single-handedly drags the Angels to mediocrity, ensuring they don't get access to the premier talent at the top of the draft, or the larger bonus pool needed to get talent in the second and third round.  The Angels can't enter a full-scale rebuild, dumping veterans to buttress the farm system, and throwing their own prospects out to see who sticks.

Over the past 7 full seasons, the Angels are 584-550 (average of 83-79).  Take out Mike Trout's 64.2 WAR, and they're now 520-614 (average of 74-88); to put that in perspective, over the same timeframe, the Twins have been 507-627 (average of 72-90).

Further, while there is no other player the Angels could get to replace Mike Trout, his large salary (along with Pujols and Upton), prevent the Angels from getting immediate help.  Put another way, Kepler and Polanco have combined for 7.4 WAR this year (88% of Trout), but at 25% of the cost, leaving the Twins $26M free to play with.

Is Mike Trout the best player in baseball?  Currently there is no doubt that he is, and perhaps the best ever.  Is he the most valuable?  At least in my opinion, no.

Can't remember the last time we had that many balls bouncing off the fences for doubles! fun to watch, especially after the frustrating early hole.

I am amazed at the Nelson Cruz power show. Fantastic signing (especially since we have him locked in for next year), rather reminiscent of the Jim Thome acquisition in 2010. About the only thing stopping Cruz from having his best season as a pro in his age 38 season is...health. Unlikely that he'll clear 120 games.

And no, he's not an MVP candidate. he's a fantastic hitter and having a wonderful season but health and defense matter too. Alex Bregman is having a fantastic season and he's still a distant second to Trout IMHO. Trout is an amazing player and I'm not going to penalize him for being on a mediocre team; without him they'd stink. Not his fault they can't put a decent lineup around him or swing a competent pitching staff: I mean, you try carrying the corpse of Albert Pujols for 3-4 seasons.

Polanco was the Twins closest chance for an MVP candidate, but he cooled off for a while at the plate and is struggling defensively. Kepler's eased back a bit as well, Cruz adds no defensively value, Garver doesn't play enough (and is no longer nuking the world just hitting very very well)...and it's ok. The twins are doing it with depth. Trout would trade the MVP in a heartbeat to have guys like Kepler, Sano, Garver, etc around him...

So, which player wouldn't you trade one for one for Mike Trout? Because I can't think of one at all I'd rather have on my roster.

In a vacuum?  There is no player I wouldn't trade straight up for Trout.  In the real world?  I'd rather have Acuna.

Acuna will cost the Braves a maximum of $123M for the next 9 years--a time period in which he will probably post more WAR than Trout who will have cost a minimum of $329M.  What do you think you might be able to do with an average of $22.9M every year for the next 9 years?

Your post highlights some really fun possibilities I see in this project. Putting such a microscope on the pitching and tracking things day-to-day could sprout some really fun, different ways of looking at things.

 

I definitely agree with you that ERA isn't a very good metric to value relievers by. I think FIP/xFIP/SIERA do a much better job. Here's where Taylor Rogers ranks among relievers in all those metrics, for example:

 

ERA 22nd | FIP 12th | xFIP 14th | SIERA 12th

 

But, I also feel the same way as you about there being a problem with full-season stats for relief pitchers in general. I love WPA, but even that has it's blind spots. The other day I was trying to drum up a sort of game score metric that could be used for relievers, but couldn't come up with anything that was satisfying.

 

Worth mentioning: There already is a Shutdowns and Meltdowns metric that's based on WPA. You can read about it here and see how the Twins rank here (last two columns SD & MD). Even though that's some great stuff from FanGraphs, it would be nice if those were available as percentage of outings.

This is perfect and super illuminating!

For example, Dyson has the same ERA as Trevor May but 30 shutdowns and 6 meltdowns versus May with 15 shut downs and 9 melt downs. When Dyson melts downs he really melts down.

(His numbers with the Giants were wild 27 shut downs to 3 meltdowns. Comparatively, Rogers is at 27 and 6 for the whole year)

So, which player wouldn't you trade one for one for Mike Trout? Because I can't think of one at all I'd rather have on my roster.

Exactly.   Forget salary, age and future seasons.   Would you trade what Trout has produced for what Cruz has produced?   Would you trade Cruz for Trout for just the rest of the season?    I would in a heartbeat.   Would you do that if you thought your Player was Most Valuable?    While we are on the subject lets not just make it a foregone conclusion that Cruz is even the most valuable on the Twins.   Statistically Polanco is a 4.9 WAR per BR.   Cruz and Kepler are both at 3.7.    Those are my top 3 and I am leaning toward Kepler.

I should have added ignoring contracts, because the MVP has nothing to do with that. He can't help it Acuna has the worst agent in the history of sports....

That's why I answered twice.  If my name is Jeff Bezos, and I just bought a team with the sole goal of winning a world series, no matter the cost, Trout.  In literally any other scenario, Acuna is a vastly superior option.  Also, while I'm sure voters don't take contracts into account for MVP consideration, they probably should.  Bellinger on a rookie contract is massively more valuable than Trout on his contract.  In fact, if a metric that divided WAR by salary existed, Trout is probably not one of the 25 most valuable players ion the league by that measure--he might not even be top 50.

Exactly.   Forget salary, age and future seasons.   Would you trade what Trout has produced for what Cruz has produced?   Would you trade Cruz for Trout for just the rest of the season?    I would in a heartbeat.   Would you do that if you thought your Player was Most Valuable?    While we are on the subject lets not just make it a foregone conclusion that Cruz is even the most valuable on the Twins.   Statistically Polanco is a 4.9 WAR per BR.   Cruz and Kepler are both at 3.7.    Those are my top 3 and I am leaning toward Kepler.

Other than much of what determines a player's value to his organization comes from his salary, age, and future seasons.  If you throw those things out, the Twins should clearly trade Lewis, Kiriloff, Graterol, Larnach, Sano, Garver, and Berrios for Trout.  After all, by MLB WAR, Trout is better than all 7 of those players this year combined.

There is no wrong answer, only how you view the question.

I choose Nick Punto. Now just give me a few minutes while I frame the question.

Oddly, I remember that team well because that is the year I asked for the APBA Baseball game for Christmas and received it (I'm curious if anyone remembers that game.) They could hit home runs right and left, but they hit a ton of solo shots because no one was on base (at least in my game). They also couldn't pitch and were the slowest team on the planet, except for one their outfielders who was super fast but not a very good hitter (the name slips my mind,)

Ralph 'the roadrunner" Garr. Was pretty fast, stole some bases, got caught a bunch too, led the league in triples twice, kind of an adventure in the outfield. I liked him. He was a member of Bob Lemon's 1977 White Sox team that won 90 games by some mystery. Their defense was like swiss cheese, holes everywhere. Fun team. 1977 was a fun year for any of you re-players out there. That's the year Carew hit .388.

Great job Tom.  I think you're on to something there with the new content and leverage index.  Appreciate all the hard work and time you bestow upon TD.   

MVP is not about the future... We are talking about the MVP vote ...

If the MVP vote is based solely on current year production, Mike Trout is the clear and only choice.  If he doesn't win it unanimously, people should have their voting privileges taken away.  If it's based on current year value, which would include salary, arguments can be made Trout shouldn't be in the top 5.  To illustrate this, think about if the Twins had signed Berrios to a 6 year, $150M deal before the season started, but Berrios had the exact same season.  He's clearly less valuable in that scenario than in one where he's not extended, despite identical production.

If we're talking organizational value, Trout shouldn't even be on the ballot.  Anthony Rendon has put up 5.2 WAR this year so far (8th among hitters).  However, since he cost $18M this year, and is a free agent after this year, Juan Soto, Trea Turner, and Victor Robles all have far more value.

Think of it this way; who do you think would require more in prospect capital to acquire; Mike Trout or Ronald Acuna?  If the answer is Acuna, that would seem to make it pretty obvious that Acuna is more valuable.

Part of the rationale for not voting for players on non contending teams is that they get pitched to differently.

If the Angels are contending and another contender is playing them, they aren’t going to let Trout beat them, period. Pujols doesn’t offer sufficient protection anymore. Nor does Ohtani. So Trout would have a more difficult time putting up numbers than he is. As it is now, most teams would be of the opinion that they can beat the Angels no matter what Trout does because the rest of the team has been so bad. Their high water mark was 54-49, after taking two from the Dodgers in mid July. At that point they were still 12 games back and since then have been an abysmal 9-16. And that’s probably what the rest of their season looks like.

Yesterday was Tuesday, August 20.  It was the 126th game of the year putting the Twins 78% of the way through the season.  The Twins hit 3 home runs upping their record-breaking season total to 244 home runs.  They are now only 24 home runs short of setting a new single-season MLB record.

The 2019 Twins are now 11th on the all-time "most home runs in a season for team" list.

Next on the list are the 1996 Mariners and the 2012 Yankees, both who hit 245.

I choose Nick Punto. Now just give me a few minutes while I frame the question.

Jorge is so HUGE for this team when he is hitting. He went into a prolonged slump for most of the summer and in the last 11 games or so it finally, hopefully, looks like he has snapped out of it and is hitting like he was at the beginning of the season. More impressively, he hi that HR as a right handed hitter last night.

I think his last 2 HRs have been as a righty. Very good to see!

Cruz is looking very much like David Ortiz did at age 39, let's hope he follows through with a similar age-40 season!

 

Ortiz put up .273/.360/.913 as a 39 year old with 37 doubles and 37 HR, and he followed that up with .315/.401/1.021 with a league-leading 48 doubles and 38 HR at age 40!

 

Cruz is currently at .296/.385/1.031 with 19 doubles and 32 HR...

He’s actually at .303/.390/1.057 with 22 2b and 33 HRs in 89 games/333 ABs.

Ortiz in his age 39/40 seasons was at 146/151 games and 528/537 ABs respectively. Now with that being said, health is a skill especially at older ages.

To put in perspective Cruz’s numbers with that many ABs are as follows:

.303/.390/1.057

99 runs -35 2B - 52 HRs - 127 RBI

Your point does stand. Very similar. Cruz has actually been better, especially during his age 39 season. I hope he makes a similar age 40 jump

Part of the rationale for not voting for players on non contending teams is that they get pitched to differently.

If the Angels are contending and another contender is playing them, they aren’t going to let Trout beat them, period. Pujols doesn’t offer sufficient protection anymore. Nor does Ohtani. So Trout would have a more difficult time putting up numbers than he is. As it is now, most teams would be of the opinion that they can beat the Angels no matter what Trout does because the rest of the team has been so bad. Their high water mark was 54-49, after taking two from the Dodgers in mid July. At that point they were still 12 games back and since then have been an abysmal 9-16. And that’s probably what the rest of their season looks like.

Sorry.  Not buying it.    No team is going to say we can beat the Angels no matter what Trout does.   They are going to say our odds of beating the Angels go up significantly if we pitch around Trout and make the others beat us..   At least the smart ones do.    Twins should have pitched around Abreu this series.   If they had they might have won 2 of 3 instead of losing.     On the other hand, teams would have a tougher time pitching around Trout if he was surrounded by guys that can hit.  He leads the major leagues in walks.    That doesn't tell me they are going after him.   The only reason to pitch to him ever is that when they don't walk him he makes outs 70% of the time.

You could argue that in a macro sense, Mike Trout is the least valuable player in baseball.  The Angels are currently 63-66; subtract Trout's 8.4 WAR, and that drops to 55-74.  In other words, Mike Trout single-handedly drags the Angels to mediocrity, ensuring they don't get access to the premier talent at the top of the draft, or the larger bonus pool needed to get talent in the second and third round.  The Angels can't enter a full-scale rebuild, dumping veterans to buttress the farm system, and throwing their own prospects out to see who sticks.

 

Over the past 7 full seasons, the Angels are 584-550 (average of 83-79).  Take out Mike Trout's 64.2 WAR, and they're now 520-614 (average of 74-88); to put that in perspective, over the same timeframe, the Twins have been 507-627 (average of 72-90).

 

Further, while there is no other player the Angels could get to replace Mike Trout, his large salary (along with Pujols and Upton), prevent the Angels from getting immediate help.  Put another way, Kepler and Polanco have combined for 7.4 WAR this year (88% of Trout), but at 25% of the cost, leaving the Twins $26M free to play with.

 

Is Mike Trout the best player in baseball?  Currently there is no doubt that he is, and perhaps the best ever.  Is he the most valuable?  At least in my opinion, no.

Ok, I concede.   Lets call it the NIAMSOWRTTPCOEHHODOBRHVHIITCSOTAPFWTMRTTTSH    Not In A Macro Economic Sense Or With Regard To The Player's Contract Or Effect He Has on Draft Order But Rather How Valuable He Is In The Current Season On The Actual Playing Field Without Too Much Regard To The Talent Surrounding Him award    Or MVP for short.

Ok, I concede.   Lets call it the NIAMSOWRTTPCOEHHODOBRHVHIITCSOTAPFWTMRTTTSH    Not In A Macro Economic Sense Or With Regard To The Player's Contract Or Effect He Has on Draft Order But Rather How Valuable He Is In The Current Season On The Actual Playing Field Without Too Much Regard To The Talent Surrounding Him award    Or MVP for short.

Dude, we can debate multiple definitions at the same time.  I've stated, explicitly and multiple times, that based solely on on-field production (which is the current criteria), Trout is the MVP, it's not close, and it should be unanimous.

If the MVP is restricted to the current year (which it should be), but pay is included (which it also should be), Trout is much less valuable, due to the fact that each point of WAR costs $4.2M (Kepler is $1.7M, Acuna is $196k, Bellinger is $88k).  Those 3 players cost less than half of Trout this year, but have combined for almost twice the WAR.

Here's an example for you; say you are told you can have one bowl of ice cream, and you get a choice between two bowls.  One has 3 scoops, and costs $5, while the other costs $2 for 2 scoops.  If all you care about is maximizing your ice cream, you'll get the 3 scoop bowl.  However, if you get the 2 scoop bowl, you can use your extra 3 dollars to buy a brownie, some hot fudge, whipped cream, and a cherry.  The latter option clearly has more value, which should perhaps be taken into account when conferring an award that has the word Valuable right in it.

Dude, we can debate multiple definitions at the same time.  I've stated, explicitly and multiple times, that based solely on on-field production (which is the current criteria), Trout is the MVP, it's not close, and it should be unanimous.

 

If the MVP is restricted to the current year (which it should be), but pay is included (which it also should be), Trout is much less valuable, due to the fact that each point of WAR costs $4.2M (Kepler is $1.7M, Acuna is $196k, Bellinger is $88k).  Those 3 players cost less than half of Trout this year, but have combined for almost twice the WAR.

 

Here's an example for you; say you are told you can have one bowl of ice cream, and you get a choice between two bowls.  One has 3 scoops, and costs $5, while the other costs $2 for 2 scoops.  If all you care about is maximizing your ice cream, you'll get the 3 scoop bowl.  However, if you get the 2 scoop bowl, you can use your extra 3 dollars to buy a brownie, some hot fudge, whipped cream, and a cherry.  The latter option clearly has more value, which should perhaps be taken into account when conferring an award that has the word Valuable right in it.

I was mostly trying to be funny.    I disagree that pay should be included in any calculation.    I don;t care how much they make.   If price per WAR were a factor you might as well just eliminate any veteran over 6 years from consideration.    Closest I can come with  your ice cream example is would you rather have Kemps, Edie's, Haagen Daaz, etc.   Period.   Most valuable asset would be a different discussion and would maybe bring Aj for Nathan, Liriano and Boof or Viola for Aguillera, Tapani into play.   A different award could be most best return of WAR for the money.   MVP should just be whose production for the current year would you most like to have on your team.    If its close then players on competitive teams should be considered.    If a guy has 20 homers and 6 of them are walk off that should be considered.    If another guy has 20 homers and they all came with plus or minus 5 runs that could be considered also.   In other words mostly stat driven but situational consideration.   Situational meaning on the field situations not compensation or draft considerations.  Thats just IMO.