Jump to content

Even more lazily slapped together Regular Season OT


Thelonebillsfan

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, TLO said:

He’s arguing that Mike Trout is, and always has been, better than Acuna. And he’s correct. Pretty simple. 

maybe, maybe not. i honestly dont know. what i do know is that trout is due for regression. but you know that too, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GSUeagles14 said:

maybe, maybe not. i honestly dont know. what i do know is that trout is due for regression. but you know that too, right?

It’s not maybe or maybe not. It’s not debatable lol

If you wanna hang your hat on Trout not hitting >.400 as the basis of your argument, go for it. It doesn’t make your argument any better.  Nobody is arguing that he’s going to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, TLO said:

It’s not maybe or maybe not. It’s not debatable lol

If you wanna hang your hat on Trout not hitting >.400 as the basis of your argument, go for it. It doesn’t make your argument any better.  Nobody is arguing that he’s going to. 

Nah, it’s debatable. But this is a very productive back and forth.

 

As I’ve said multiple times and I’ll repeat, I don’t know. But there’s an obvious argument for it based on 2020 forward, it’s just too small of a sample. It’s very possible acuna falls off hard and this was a silly thought, but also maybe not. I’d rather ask an unpopular question though then ignore some of the advanced stats that I know you and @mse326pay attention to in favor of just saying trout has always been better and will be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

Nah, it’s debatable. But this is a very productive back and forth.

 

As I’ve said multiple times and I’ll repeat, I don’t know. But there’s an obvious argument for it based on 2020 forward, it’s just too small of a sample. It’s very possible acuna falls off hard and this was a silly thought, but also maybe not. I’d rather ask an unpopular question though then ignore some of the advanced stats that I know you and @mse326pay attention to in favor of just saying trout has always been better and will be. 

But, it isn't debatable. You can debate who at this very early moment in the season is doing better, no one is arguing that, but to suggest we should start considering if Acuna is better isn't debatable. It will take FAR more than a month of barely better, if at all better, play. You say yourself it's too small a sample so we don't know. That isn't how it works. It's too small a sample, where Trout is outplaying Acuna, so it shouldn't provide a basis to change what we have a large enough sample to say which is that Trout is better.

And you keep talking about Trout regressing from his current numbers like Acuna won't. He hasn't changed his approach or swing but his K% is cut in half. That won't continue. Basically all of his numbers are significantly higher than his career best. Now he is only 23 so improvement is expected but not this massive jump. His xwOBA is 40 points higher than anyone has done (stat on fangraphs back to 2015) and 90 more than his best. That too is not going to continue. Of course Trout's numbers are due to regress since his numbers are absurd. But Acuna's are due for regression as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mse326 said:

But, it isn't debatable. You can debate who at this very early moment in the season is doing better, no one is arguing that, but to suggest we should start considering if Acuna is better isn't debatable. It will take FAR more than a month of barely better, if at all better, play. You say yourself it's too small a sample so we don't know. That isn't how it works. It's too small a sample, where Trout is outplaying Acuna, so it shouldn't provide a basis to change what we have a large enough sample to say which is that Trout is better.

And you keep talking about Trout regressing from his current numbers like Acuna won't. He hasn't changed his approach or swing but his K% is cut in half. That won't continue. Basically all of his numbers are significantly higher than his career best. Now he is only 23 so improvement is expected but not this massive jump. His xwOBA is 40 points higher than anyone has done (stat on fangraphs back to 2015) and 90 more than his best. That too is not going to continue. Of course Trout's numbers are due to regress since his numbers are absurd. But Acuna's are due for regression as well.

For the 3rd time now, its based on more than a month. Are you repeatedly missing that or intentionally ignoring?

 

And sure Acuna is almost certainly not going to keep up this pace. Curious what you’re basing it off when you say he has changed his approach or swing. Hes swinging less at balls outside the zone, more at strikes, chase % way down, contact % is way up, etc. essentially everything is improved across the board in those categories. What were you looking at that said otherwise?

 

now it completely possible he just in a middle of a hot streak and they will go back to career norms, or there’s a chance he’s genuinely improved. But just because Acuna see regression doesn’t mean we ignore the red blinking lights and alarms going off with Trout. Unless he finishes with possibly the luckiest season of all time, he will see his #s go down. With Acuna, I’m not saying there’s no luck, but certainly much less and it’s more of the thought that there’s simply no way he can continue the pace.

Edited by GSUeagles14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, TLO said:

I love how the huge red flags for Trout are basically that he won’t end the season as a .400 hitting 2004 Barry Bonds. 

I love how all of a sudden babip doesn’t matter. I just want to understand going forward, babip doesn’t matter, correct? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

I love how all of a sudden babip doesn’t matter. I just want to understand going forward, babip doesn’t matter, correct? 

You literally don't understand what he said. Please read it again. Dear Lord this is tedious.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GSUeagles14 said:

For the 3rd time now, its based on more than a month. Are you repeatedly missing that or intentionally ignoring?

 

And sure Acuna is almost certainly not going to keep up this pace. Curious what you’re basing it off when you say he has changed his approach or swing. Hes swinging less at balls outside the zone, more at strikes, chase % way down, contact % is way up, etc. essentially everything is improved across the board in those categories. What were you looking at that said otherwise?

 

now it completely possible he just in a middle of a hot streak and they will go back to career norms, or there’s a chance he’s genuinely improved. But just because Acuna see regression doesn’t mean we ignore the red blinking lights and alarms going off with Trout. Unless he finishes with possibly the luckiest season of all time, he will see his #s go down. With Acuna, I’m not saying there’s no luck, but certainly much less and it’s more of the thought that there’s simply no way he can continue the pace.

Not swinging at balls outside the zone isn't a change of approach. Either he is drastically improved his eye, which is incredibly rare, or he's just on a good streak. You can improve a bit, and are in fact expected to, but not to the degree he is. A change of approach is more about contact vs power, field usage, etc. He hasn't really changed that and if anything is pulling the ball more which usually results in more power but less hitting.

Even if you include 2020 that is basically half a season combined with 2021 where Acuna still hasn't performed as well as Trout. You are still relying a too small sample size where Acuna still hasn't been better than Trout to say it's an argument.

Not a single person has claimed Trout will finish with these numbers. He obviously won't, but nice strawman. But to assume that Acuna will keep up a 12 WAR pace when he's never had a season even at half that is ludicrous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mesa_Titan said:

You literally don't understand what he said. Please read it again. Dear Lord this is tedious.

So I was going to post, but then I figured  why do that, it’s the internet.
 

so...I’d be happy to resume our debate, however to be snippy after posting something so clearly incorrect, well, it’s just not a great look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

So I was going to post, but then I figured  why do that, it’s the internet.
 

so...I’d be happy to resume our debate, however to be snippy after posting something so clearly incorrect, well, it’s just not a great look.

Woof. Dreamland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...