He's Hackin'
 

This year, everyone's leading AL MVP candidate saw his Batting Average drop 36 points and his strikeouts rise to an AL-leading 184.

Trout hit 36 homers so he struck out 5.11 times per homer.


Meanwhile in the wind city of Chicago, hold onto your hats:

Already in the Majors, two prospects have given fans plenty:

Mike Olt - 225 ABs - 100 Ks - 12 homers or 8.3 Ks per homer.
Javier Baez - 213 ABs - 95 Ks - 9 homers or 10.6 Ks per homer.


...an down on the farm, Kris Bryant logged these numbers:

492 ABs - 162 Ks - 43 homers or 3.77 Ks per homer.

compared to Baez in the minors last year:

517 ABs - 147 Ks - 37 homers or 3.97 Ks per homer.

and compared to Joey Gallo (Texas prospect) this year:

439 ABs - 179 Ks - 42 homers or 4.26 Ks per homer.

What does this all mean? Well, in spite of the name, I find it amusing that BBR lists one Hack Miller as the most similar batter to Mike Trout.

I also predict that 'pinball' Baseball is here to stay for all who suffer any level of ADD.

Enjoy the BREEZES while waiting for the BOMBS.

Instead of the station-to-station' offensive mentality,
it could become PLAY STATION to PLAY STATION.
=
=

I find high SO, HR dependent offense is unberable to watch. It was tough enough in the peak steroid era years, but this (the guys' numbers you cite) could be worse because there are fewer HRs across the board. Seeing the 200K SO (batting) eclipsed not once, but 6 times in the last 6 years seems a sign of things to come.

I have a hunch (and very much hope it happens) that a savvy GM will re-create the '80s Cards' model and stack his lineup with speedsters who make a lot of contact, and one to two mashers. The stolen base, especially since it's shunned by Moneyballer, I think will be had for a relative bargain going forward. I don't think Moneyballers have yet quantified the effect a speedy runner can have on a pitcher (distracted), a catcher (calling more fastballs), and a defense (holding him on, or cheating toward the bags). I used to hate those Cards, but would now love more than anything to see how a lineup like that could perform in today's game.

Strike outs are part of the game. I don't have a problem with them so long as it doesn't significantly affect the players OBP. What's Trout's OBP?

ANY out decreases OBP, but strikeouts unlike ground balls and sacrifice flies can't move up runners or even score runners.

Trout's numbers:

2012 - 139 Ks .399 OBP
2013 - 136 Ks .432 OBP - 3 less strikeouts; .33 point OBP increase
2014 - 184 Ks - .377 OBP - 48 more strikeouts; .55 point OBP decrease

He's still VERY good! - he deserved the MVP more last year, but this year Cabrera wasn't up to his two previous years, so Trout should win.

Strikeouts also don't induce double plays.

I gotta think it's probably at least semi quantifiable to best determine/estimate a break even point for this... Strikeouts vs possibility/rate of hitting into DP, and then calculate an expected run differential based on those two outcomes. I've also got a hunch that even a relatively small increase in strikeouts, and accompanying potential for double plays, is offset by the potential outcomes/gains of putting the ball in play- sac flies, advancing runners, etc. These high strikeout guys just add so much value when they do hit the ball- with extra base hits, RBIs, that it clearly justifies their presence in a lineup.

I don't doubt the value in these free swinging mashers, but I really prefer the total package.. complete hitters like Joe D, Ted Williams, even Mattingly in his prime. They didn't strikeout at all compared to today's numbers.. And to a lesser degree (than these greats) the ability to put bat on ball without sacrificing power was so much more common in the past. Sure pitchers throw harder now, and there are more power arms out of the bullpen, but there was a time that power hitters (with exception of very few) didn't strike out more than a 100 times.. And often far fewer. Anyway, as said, it seems it's just the way it is now.

Separately-- I think one of the single most undervalued aspects in baseball is base running. Seems there's no real stats to measure guys who can take the extra base, but that extra base is huge!! It's a good as a steal, and/or as valuable as doubling your slugging % (following a single), yet doesn't seem to be tracked. Whether it's speed, or the ability to quickly read batted balls and/or outfielders.. If you can take an extra base and score one batter sooner (hit/sac fly/etc.) than it would've taken otherwise, the team chances of scoring go up hugely (based on each batter's rate of failure). If I'm a GM and looking for OBP guys, I'd also want to quantify what they do once on base.

I remember a game commentator saying that being fast and being a good base runner aren't one and the same. In particular he said Will Clark wasn't fast, but he was a good base runner.

Trout did also have 83 walks, so his eye can't be that bad.

Exactly, he's a prime example (by far my favorite player as a kid). Speed is ideal, but he and guys like him have an uncanny knack to take that extra base.. Good secondary lead, good ability to judge hit balls, good ability to read down angle/pitch trajectory on balls in dirt, etc. If a good hitter gets on base 250+ times a year, and can consistently take an extra base when given opportunity, I've gotta think that contributes to a lot of added runs.

That said, still would love another team centered around speed. It puts so much pressure on a D.. Just watch how quickly even 2nd baseman need to get rid of a ball when Billy Hamilton hits a grounder. Forcing errors with speed (or pressing the defense) also seems very underrated/untracked by today's metrics.

Base running is key. In high school one our most dangerous runners was our fat first baseman. The kid had a great knack for knowing when to run and slide.