How big a catch was Trout?

[sharksrog]

Allen recently said that Francisco Peguero looks like a ballplayer. Mike Trout looks like ... a superstar.

Should Trout have been rated the #1 player in the game? I can't answer that with any certainty, but here is what I can say:

. Last season as a leadoff man, Trout drove in a surprising 83 runs in 139 games. Bobby Bonds is generally considered the best power-hitting leadoff man. In his best RBI season as a leadoff hitter, he drove in 83 runs in 139 games.

Rickey Henderson is often considered the best leadoff man in history. He had excellent power for the #1 hitter. Rickey's best was 61 RBI's.

. Trout led the AL in steals with 49 and was successful 91% of the time. I can't say how many players have stolen 49 bases or more with a 90%+ success rate, but I feel comfortable in saying the number is very low.

. Trout finished 3rd in the majors with 38 manufactured runs.

. Trout finished with a +51 bases as a base runner. The Giants' Angel Pagan finished among the leaders with +41 bases.

. Trout swings at pitches outside the zone about as often as Buster Posey.

. According to Fan Graphs, his base running was worth 12 runs, and his fielding 11. Baseball-Reference values his defense at 2.1 wins above replacement.

. Not that it is 100% definitive, but one could make a metrics argument that Trout was the best base runner in the game last season and that he was the most effective offensive player overall. His fielding ranks nearly that high metrically.

. Pitchers threw a very high percentage of fastballs to Trout last season. That may have been because on a per-pitch basis, he hit every pitch except the split finger better than the fastball, according to Fan Graphs.

This morning I watched last Wednesday's Giants/Angels game. Trout singled to right, flied to right, and walked. Like Posey, he seems to use the entire field. And he has done this at age 20.

So are there any warning flags? A few.

. As Don pointed out, Trout's strikeouts are high. He was in the range of Ryan Braun though, so that may not be a deal breaker.

. He homered on an exceptionally high 21.6% of fly balls (compared to an average of about 10%). His 30-home-run power might not hold up.

. His BABIP was .383. That's darn high, and could lead to a drop in average.

A drop in his strikeout rate could help keep his average (.326) high. An increase in his fly ball rate could help keep his power up -- although it would likely affect his batting average negatively.

Trout was more or less Mickey Mantle as a 20-year-old. For his time, Mantle struck out a lot more than Trout -- and also had even more power.

Mantle went on to become an all-time great. Because his knees are much better than Mantle's, Trout could possibly go on to become even more than Mickey.

For now though, let's simply project him a little behind Mickey and see what develops. It may be REALLY fun to watch.

Wish he were a Giant. He may become a giant.

[Islandboagie]

I know before the MLB Network revealed it's top 100 list, you had Trout at 9 or 10 if I'm not mistaken, has he moved up on your list due to MLB Network results?

I thought 9 or 10 was a tad high, certainly he'd be in my top 20, but considering the list was looking at the last 3 years and Trout only has 1 year under his belt I find it ridiculous having him at #1.

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- I know before the MLB Network revealed it's top 100 list, you had Trout at 9 or 10 if I'm not mistaken, has he moved up on your list due to MLB Network results?

Rog -- Usually I can remember my thoughts pretty well, but I'm not sure I was doing anything more than predicting where players might fall among the top 100.

I can tell you that I was surprised Trout was ranked as high as he was and that Buster was ranked that low. I thought the relative inexperience of both Trout and Bryce Harper would keep them a little lower. My 1-20 show got cut off, so I actually don't even know the order of the top 10 or so. I just know from the board here that Trout was #1.

If we're talking about 2013 only, I think that is indeed a bit high. I do think there's a decent chance that he'll be the best player this season (as he likely was last year), but he could also fall back to reality with a sophomore slump.

Willie Mays played only about a quarter of a season his second year and hit just .234. He had Army duty hanging over his head, and the sample was small. But it does show that the sophomore slump is possible for even the great ones.

Willie McCovey was the MVP in 1959 despite playing only 54 games, but he ultimately spent some time in the minors the next season.

You get the idea.

This, just as the injury potential for Posey made me have a better understanding of why he was ranked only #21, I am surprised that the possibility of a tough 2nd season didn't keep Trout from being #1.

I will say that the projections I have seen for Trout have been high -- although not as high as his 2012 season. With Buster, I was surprised that Bill James predicted a .324 average.

There are a lot of really, really good players today, so in reality, there is a lot of subjectivity in making a list of the top 100 players. As an example, I would be very surprised if Trout doesn't go on to a very, very good career. But how he'll do in 2013 alone is a little less certain.

Entering 2011, none of us had any idea that Buster's season would be cut so short -- or even that he wouldn't have shown much power when he did go down. Entering 2012, I was perhaps the most optimistic of our posters for Buster (yes, even more optimistic than Don) but I certainly didn't expect the season he had.

And how in the world could someone have predicted the disaster Tim Lincecum had? Boly and Don predicted he would eventually fall back, but I don't think either had pinpointed the year or magnitude.

Two posters here including Allen said they would trade Tim. But I'm virtually certain that Allen didn't have any idea things would get so serious so fast. It was more the concept of trading what appeared to be a declining asset while his value was high.

The Giants would have been severely criticized for trading Tim, and who knows, even without his unfathomable season, they might not have gone on to win the World Series. The postseason was the time when Tim did by FAR his best pitching.

So, really, no one knows what will happen with a particular player this coming season. There are simply far too many variables. Baseball Prospectus posts a range for each player -- showing not only the middle ground of expectations, but sort of a best-case, worst-case. I'll bet even they didn't capture in advance the agony of Tim's defeats.

Ever wonder why pitchers are almost never projected with an ERA below three? It's not because a great pitcher doesn't have a good shot of doing so, but he also has the possibility of a four-plus ERA, as was the case with Roy Halladay a season after he might have been considered the best pitcher in the game.

I truly enjoy player projections. The future is, well, the future, so it gives us hope. But we should also realize the fallability of projections, particularly for a single season.

If I could pick a player, not including positional need, to have on my team for as long as I could afford to keep him, I would probably pick Bryce Harper, since he's a year younger and under team control for one added season. But, darn, Trout may be the most well-rounded player since a guy like Mays.

Harper also has a lot of tools, but he won't be the amazing base stealer Trout has been as a major leaguer. Still, that added season of control might make the difference for me.

But I would be absolutely thrilled to have either. I love having Buster, but he is playing a position that could shorten his career, and if he moves to first base, his positional advantage disappears and begins to work against him. He's also older and under team control a lot less time than the other two.

I do think Buster will re-sign with the Giants, but while he likely won't try to wrangle every last million dollars, he certainly won't come cheaply.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1601&page=1#9375#ixzz2MnPQ1LjV