Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 867: Embracing the Harper-Trout Temptation

Episode Date: April 21, 2016

Ben and Sam reopen the great debate about who’s better, Bryce Harper or Mike Trout.

I say, baby, don't waste your time. I know what's on your mind. Make me qualify for a one-night stay. But I can never take the place Your name Hello and welcome to episode 867 of Effectively Wild, the daily podcast from Baseball Perspectus, presented by our Patreon supporters and the Play Index at BaseballReference.com. I'm Ben Lindberg of FiveThirtyEight, joined by Sam Miller of Baseball Perspectus. Hello. Howdy.

Do you have anything you wish to discuss? No. Okay. Well, my colleague at FiveThirtyEight, Neil Payne, just published a piece on Harper and Trout, and I can no longer resist the temptation. Is that today? Is that the whole thing? This is not banter, but this is the thing? That's the thing. All right.

All right. So there have been a few articles about Trout and Harper lately. And just to be clear, I don't know why it is that we need to weigh one of these guys against the other every so often. It's wonderful that they both exist. It's possibly unprecedented that there are two incredible, historically great players playing in the same time at different leagues and doing it in different ways and both being entertaining in their own way. So it's great for baseball, great for baseball fans that we have both Bryce Harper and Mike Trout. And I don't know why we need to establish which one is better at any one time,

but the temptation to do so is very strong. I feel the pull. It is. I think it is. I'm not sure why I don't feel that temptation. I often do feel such temptations. And so, I don't know, maybe I'm telegraphing that I'm just going to be a complete drag on this entire episode. But maybe you can explain to me why. And maybe, I don't know, maybe I have to think about what, because I want to debate such things constantly. Yeah. We have debated this very thing. Yeah. So I don't know.

I wonder if it's just too difficult or, you know what I think it is? Here's what I think it has been. Yeah. I think that this is what we're really doing is we're re-answering the question that we asked ourselves, that we asked each other, that was asked of us four years ago. And we're not really asking a new question. We're asking that one over and over again, which was, you know, who would you take? But the answer has changed multiple times, perhaps. Yeah. I think that what I'm saying though is that we're in too deep now. Now it's

simply, I feel like at this point you sort of just have to wait 10 years. It's going to be more fun to look back and to see which was right than it is to keep re-asking every few weeks, if that makes sense. sense Well it's premature It will always be premature Unless it becomes very clear At some point that one has taken a big lead Over the other we will talk about it Today and not have a conclusive answer

And maybe we'll talk about it Later this season and not have a conclusive answer And maybe that will be true for the next Few seasons so in a sense It seems unnecessary to keep relitigating this before we have a way to determine a really final answer. But most of the things we talk about are equally unnecessary. Yeah. And I'm still sort of struggling with my reticence. I feel like if suddenly the whole baseball universe was talking about who's better, Manny Machado or Chris Bryant or something like that, it'd be like, oh, good question.

Interesting. And if nobody had ever asked Bryce, it's not even that I'm not even and that I don't mind sort of constantly revisiting that question four years ago. I don't like restarting the race though, if that makes sense. Yeah. Well, it's sort of the Cinderguard question that we talked about yesterday with right now, that qualifier, like Clayton Kershaw has been the best player in baseball, best pitcher in baseball for years, and is still perhaps the best, but Noah Syndergaard looks like he might have surpassed him

at this instant, perhaps, or at least it's worth discussing. And you can kind of do that with Harper and Trout too. I mean, Trout has built up more of a head start. So obviously he has accomplished more, but you can kind of just pick any one moment as a snapshot and say who is the best right now, who is going to be the best going forward. I don't know whether it just feels like splitting hairs to you because they're both so great. That might it too right it might be it might be that it might be that i i don't have a yeah i mean i want to be clear that i there's no reason not to ask this question it's a i'm trying struggling with my very subjective response to you bringing it up again and wondering why i specifically am not enthused with this i don't

because i feel like i should be. But there's, that's no reason that everybody else shouldn't be. I'm not, I'm not saying it's not a worthwhile question. Yeah. I'm saying, why don't I like tomatoes? I ought to. Other people like them. Why don't I? And that's a boring thing to talk about. Me, me and my tomato taste. So let's get past me. Well, so it has been a fascinating question over the past few years, because the answer has changed a few times in that Harper was a phenom before anyone had really heard of Mike Trout, before Mike Trout was on the radar with the Sports Illustrated cover as a teenager and all of that. And then Trout came out of nowhere to blow Harper away for a while.

And this guy who had not been famous, who had not been drafted early even, suddenly became clearly the best player in baseball and clearly better than Bryce Harper for a couple of years. And then suddenly Harper fulfilled all of his potential almost immediately, just almost all at once. He got better at everything and became a superstar. And Trout was still a superstar. So even then, it wasn't totally clear who was better and who wasn't. But I think it's fascinating because they have jockeyed for position in that way. If they had both been really great for a few years, then it almost wouldn't be worth talking about. But because they have changed position a couple times, there's the potential

for them to change position again now. And I think what people are picking up on, obviously, is that over the past season plus or over the past calendar year or however you want to set that since the beginning of 2015. Bryce Harper has been better, probably within the margin of error of better if you use some sort of wins above replacements, that has certainly been a better hitter. And the start to his season has been as impressive as his last season, maybe more impressive in some ways, whereas Trout has had a slow start. I wouldn't read much into that, but it does seem as if Harper has perhaps turned a corner after his corner turn of last season. And he has kind of reached the point, I mean, we made Barry Bonds comparisons

last year. We pointed out that he had the best offensive season since Barry Bonds, which was true. But I think even more so this season, he has reached the point where every plate appearance is just almost worth changing the channel to see, or he kind of has this feeling of inevitability when he comes up. Like a week ago, you and I were intending to do a podcast about the winless Braves and Twins. We were going to do it when they were both 0-8 and the scheduling didn't work out. So we pushed it a day and I sort of rooted against the Twins and the Braves that day. That's kind of what you do as a writer slash podcaster. You root for your

story to work out sometimes. So I kind of hoped they would both be undefeated for one more day so that we could do that podcast. And the Braves took an early lead in that game. And then Harper came up with bases loaded. And it was almost like at that moment before the at-bat even unfolded, I was supremely confident that the Braves were going to lose that game because Harper just seemed so unstoppable at that point. And of course, he hit a grand slam. He seemed so unstoppable at that point. And, of course, he hit a grand slam. So I think maybe my favorite Bryce Harper stats of this season so far, A, he is out-homering his strikeout total.

So he's doing a DiMaggio, basically, which is incredibly hard to do in this era of strikeouts. And he's also walking much more than he's striking out. And you know, it's 14 games, it's 60 plate appearances. It's a hot streak. It's not necessarily his new level, but it's impressive to sustain it even for half a month. And there's the fact that his BABIP is in the 230s. Partly that's because every ball he's hit hard has left the ballpark just about. And those are not considered balls in play. But still, like, maybe he's hit hard has left the ballpark just about And those are not considered balls in play But still, maybe he's even gotten a little bit unlucky If you adjust his numbers upward in that respect

They'd be even more otherworldly And he has seemed to continue to improve in ways that he was improving last year But just getting extremely selective Just not swinging at anything outside the strike zone, not missing anything inside the strike zone. And he really just sort of kind of conveys that he has no weakness right now, at least as a hitter. You said that it's a hot streak. In fact, he has, I mean, it is, I guess i guess maybe but he has a 1253 ops and from turner uh the the corner turnt weekend until the end of the season last year which was 125 games he had an 1164

ops so you're really talking about like one if you remove one homer then his ops would be lower this year than it was in the final five months of last year. So it's actually not that hot a streak. It's one fly ball. Okay. So the approach that a couple people have taken, including Neil at FiveThirtyEight and Dave Cameron at Fangraphs earlier this week, is to look at projections because projection systems are always reevaluating. Every day they areevaluating. Every day they are re-evaluating based on the most recent performance.

And going by projection systems, which are taking years of data into account, Trout is still ahead, but not by a lot and already by a lot less than he was at the beginning of this season. Such has been the disparity between those two players' starts. And I think even based on the projections, maybe not Pakoda because Pakoda maybe is even less subject to small sample fluctuations. But I think based on the other projection systems, Harper is now projected to be a better hitter than Trout. Would you go along with that? Would you go along with that? Would you go along with Harper as the best hitter in baseball? Probably. I would say that given a ballot, I would vote for Harper. If you're asking my confidence level in that if you just put those two head to head i guess like maybe

i'd go like 64 to harper and then 36 to trout something like that okay and to be clear i don't think trout has affected my opinion of him at all this season not even one percent i think harper has probably even improved my opinion of him or my expectations for him with his start to the season. But Trout's slow start, and I think he got three hits yesterday, so it looks a little less bad right now. But nothing he's done has affected my opinion of him whatsoever. I know that Mark Simon wrote something earlier this week at ESPN about how he's having trouble hitting off-speed pitches and maybe had some trouble with those pitches last year. When a player is struggling, you can always find something they are struggling to do, usually. It just kind of then pushes the question

can down the road. Instead of, why is Trout struggling? It's, why is Trout struggling to hit off-speed pitches? And that doesn't really have an answer. And I think he has shown multiple times that he doesn't really have a weakness either, and that when it appears that he has a weakness for a while, he will fix that weakness. this being his new Achilles heel or him prematurely aging or any of his high-level work being behind him. I don't think there's really any serious reason to worry about that. Do you disagree? No, I don't disagree at all. Yeah. I mean, there was the time when it seemed like hitting high fastballs was something Mike Trout couldn't do. And then the season ended and then he worked on hitting high fastballs and then suddenly was amazing at it the next season. I don't know whether gearing up for those pitches has affected his ability to hit slower pitches, slower in the zone or something. But I basically will always expect Mike Trout to adjust to any adjustment that the league makes against him.

to any adjustment that the league makes against him. So I'm revising my opinion, by the way. I think that I was trying to be thoughtful about it. But yes, Harper, I would say Harper is the better hitter right now. And my confidence in that is higher than I said. Okay. So then what implication does that have for your outlook for the two in that hitting seems to be the thing that we can measure most accurately or that we can project most accurately and maybe you have a better handle

on a guy's long-term aging as a hitter than you do as as a base runner or as a fielder so does the fact that so you are not pronouncing harper the better player but does the fact that, so you are not pronouncing Harper the better player, but does the fact that you are pronouncing him the better hitter affect which one you would pick, say, if you were to choose between the two starting today? It's such a, I mean, it's not as though Harper's a poor fielder or a poor baserunner either. Although, you know, less with each year. either. Although, you know, less with each year. But let me, before I get to that, let me just bring up a few other factors that maybe I think about. One is that the first year when Trout came up and he was the best player in baseball, should have won the MVP award in his rookie season. And Harper was very good, but you know, roughly half as good by wins above replacement. But he was a year younger than Trout.

And so Trout was the better player. But based on their place in history for their age, we did an episode, in fact, on which was more impressive. I don't think most people, including me, most days really considered the applicability of that. We just assumed, well, trout is better right now. And to some degree, the degree to which the amount by which trout has been better has been somewhat illusory because trout has always had the extra year of, you know, development and also physical development. And so at this point, now that we're talking about them as being comparable and maybe better, maybe Trout is better, maybe Harper is better, we're going to decide that, but comparable,

but Trout does still have the extra year. Does that come into play at all for you? Does the fact that Harper is a year younger and that in the standard aging curve for most ballplayers, that is a variable that you would consider Does it apply to In your mind either of these guys right now Do you mean in terms of Picking one from today on

Or in terms of judging how Impressive each one's Performance right now is or Performance to date is Yeah I think those are the same question Okay I mean the fact that Harper Is peaking right now I think those are the same question. and has had a couple still excellent, still league leading, but down from his first couple full seasons in the last two years, that makes me more likely to pick Harper probably. I think that's a – maybe you answered a different – maybe you answered my question.

Maybe you answered a slightly different one. I guess what I'm asking is do you project any growth for either of them at this point? I think I don't for Trout. Okay. Just because... You don't think he's got a 56 home run age 27 season in him? That certainly wouldn't shock me. I mean, he wasn't expected to be a 40 homer guy ever, probably, certainly not so early on. So no, it wouldn't shock me if he continued to morph and morphed into that type of player eventually. I don't know whether he would be a better player, though, by that point, a better hitter, possibly, but it seems like that would maybe go hand in hand with him getting bigger and bulkier and slower and that that might affect what position he plays or

how well he plays it yeah but uh he could be he could i mean he was as good a hitter as miguel cabrera uh you know at 21 and also a great fielder and a great base runner you take away the fielding and the base running and that hurts his value but it's conceivable that he can be a much, you know, if he continues to grow and develop and follow the standard aging curve, it's possible that he could be a much better hitter than Miguel Cabrera, which is about the most incredible thing you could say about a player. Like it's possible that we're talking about a guy who's got a offensive

upside that just based on his age, what he's done in his early 20s, and that he's still only 24. It is conceivable that we're talking about a guy who could develop into an even better hitter than Harper is now, right? It's conceivable. It's conceivable. There's nothing about the statistical record that he's put down so far that rules that out. looking at him i mean he hasn't shown really any offensive improvement since he turned into mike trout i mean his last four seasons have been almost identical in their level of production yeah different different shape of production but

there's no trajectory you can't you can't hang your hat on the trajectory right but you can you do know that he's going to grow three more years but i i'm i'm saying that just looking at his record you could you leave open the possibility but watching trout it doesn't feel like that's happening like yeah it doesn't like he was so big and was so strong that's why trout was so great is that he was one of those very rare players who was precocious in his strength. And so it's not clear. I mean, the aging curve is to a large degree, I think, based on the idea that players aren't that strong. Hitters aren't that strong when they're 21. It's not like a pitching where you might be, your ligament might be at its physical peak at 21. For hitters, you're usually not that strong you have to develop that particularly lower body strength and all that and so trout was an outlier in that regard and that seems to be one of the reasons he was able to be so good so fast it trout is a great hitter he you know he is a great hitter he has great hitting technique but he's not that's not exactly like it doesn't jump out at you in quite the same way

that like that's not what you would say about trout you would have you would say it was the tools he had the yes the thing that made him as exciting in 2012 as bryce harper is right now is that he did everything as well as anyone did so all, all right. So you are then saying that you would, if I told you one of them got much better over the next three years, you would pick Harper and not necessarily because of the age, but because of the whole package. Is that? I think so. Just, yeah, if anything, just because of the recent trajectory and maybe it's wrong to

extrapolate from that. Well, let's talk about the trajectory. Okay. Because you're right. One's line is flat. The other's is going straight up. And yet, if you look at the last three years, including this year, which is only 15 games, so basically two years plus two weeks, Trout is the better hitter. Trout has the higher OPS plus than Harper over the last two years and two weeks. And so you're betting on trajectory instead of the overall sample. And we normally know that to be the wrong thing to do. We normally

know that trajectory is false and regression is what drives the game and regression is what drives projections. And in order to bet on the trajectory, you have to have a reason. projections and in order to bet on the trajectory you have to have a reason and so with like chris davis there were you know there were lots of articles written about the changes he made or with jose batista there were lots of articles or josh donaldson lots of articles and with lots of guys who who ended up not being good good players who's who did regress instead of following the trajectory there were also lots of articles about what they changed. With Harper, it doesn't really feel like we have an explanation for what changed. We're mostly saying, well, this confirms what we always knew about him. Right.

Yeah. There have been a ton of articles about what changed, but not necessarily why it changed. It's not as if there's a new swing or something really. He didn't get LASIK. Right. And so there's not an easy reason to know Why he turned the corner We accept the corner turnt

Because he's Bryce Harper And we have an idea about what Bryce Harper is And I think that I think it's Possible that that is Very good logic and that That is why Harper is the better bet And it's probably what i believe

i thought that i well i'll get it but uh i also think it's possible it's a total fallacy and that we are just falling for you know all the all the same logical fallacies that we always do and that we don't actually like it's it might be hard to justify this to a review board. Yeah. Right. A projection system doesn't buy it yet. Exactly. And third thing, before I get to that, do you have any hypothesis for why Harper turned the corner? Maybe partly health.

Yeah. I mean, that was the thing that seemed to be holding him back in his early seasons. He was hurting himself often, and that seemed to be a product of his playing style and his aggressiveness. And I don't know, maybe his prefrontal cortex developed a little bit when he went from being a teenager to not being a teenager. And suddenly he decided to play a little bit more conservatively, And suddenly he decided to play a little bit more conservatively and that helped him stay healthy. And maybe if we could retroactively erase that wrist injury and the knee injury and the collision with the wall and all of that and the surgeries that he had and we could restore a healthy Harper for those early seasons, then maybe the leap that he appeared to make last season would not appear to be as big. I think that's the best explanation. It's not totally convincing to me.

It's not really that convincing to me because I know that he was very often hurt. He was very often dealing with injuries that would affect his swing. But I don't think that, A, you could say 100% of the time he was. And B, just in a general matter, he just, it wasn't as loud as it is now There's just something about when he comes up That you look at and see That is like undeniable It's visible immediately

And I don't know I feel like it would have been more visible Like if it were a matter of inconsistency Like he was having a month like this, but then a month where he was bad, then it'd be easier to sort of partition out the healthy days and the unhealthy days. But this is constant. This is an unceasing greatness that just didn't quite show through in the same way. So although at times- Yeah, the changes that he has made it it's not purely that he is just like hitting the ball harder or something it is it seems to be that his approach has really evolved in some ways his approach has really really really evolved

i mean to go from 104 strikeouts and 38 walks in a half season to 131 strikeouts and 124 walks that's two different players that is yeah that's an approach thingouts and 124 walks. That's two different players. That is, that's an approach thing. Right. And he's, you know, he's pulled the ball much more. He's hit the ball in the air much more. It seems like he has done a lot of things that really separate him from the player he was. Yes.

Third thing is, I wonder how much you're affected, you're influenced by the fact that Mike Trout has been just as good, roughly speaking, just as good in each of his four years, but less compelling to watch, not as fun to watch, frankly. He's just as good a ball player, just as valuable a ball player. But the thing that made him seem unique, the thing that made him seem unique the thing that made him special unstoppable invincible was the you know the basically the way that his speed was tied into everything he did and that he was he was the fastest big baseball player since Bo Jackson and so you could turn on

any Angels game at any time and just watch for whatever Mike Trout was doing on screen because you'd never seen that. And so that is going down. Meanwhile, Harper's thing is getting bigger. It's like the thing that you watch Harper for is to see that swing connect, to see him take this incredibly violent swing and to marry this strength of swing with an unbelievable ability to find the ball with his bat. And so every day that Harper is good, we like watching him play more. And every day that Trout is good, we kind of like watching him less. And so is it possible that that is affecting your assessment of how valuable they are instead of simply letting that affect which decisions you make when you choose what game to watch? I would say it actually has made Trout slightly less valuable.

Would you? I wouldn't say that. So you don't think the wars are accurate? Well, they are, right? I mean, his wars have been lower the last couple of years than they were his first two years. The warps have gone 9-10, 9-10. So those have not. I don't know.

Let's see. I have a reference might be different. Reference is 11-9-8-9-4. So rookie year. I mean, it's that first year, I think, was just the best. Maybe some defensive systems are overrating how good he was at defense that year, and maybe that's why. But it does seem, I mean, he is essentially the same level of hitter, maybe a tiny bit better than he was that year, but about the same. And that year he was, you know,

stealing 49 bases and probably better at defense. So I don't think it's too, I don't know, it seems pretty likely to me that he was a better player at that point than he is now, but not by much and not enough to matter all that much in this discussion, probably. But yeah, I mean, that might be part of it. Harper is just more fun, more exciting right now. And partly that's just because this happened last year and is happening right now, whereas Trout is not getting better and is just the same old Trout. And I guess we can get bored even of Mike Trout, who's, you know, the best. And, you know, another factor that might be unfairly perhaps influencing my opinion is that Harper has clearly established

himself as the more compelling personality. As intrigued as we are by Trout's Twitter punctuation and as endearing, as genuinely endearing as his weather fixation is, he's still not particularly outspoken, not particularly quotable, whereas Harper is very much both of those things and has the sort of superstar persona to match the superstar performance, which obviously doesn't make him better at baseball, but he's certainly more marketable, certainly in the headlines more often, and maybe that flashier personality affects how we perceive him as a player. Those are my three points, and those are the three points that I was using to pivot away from your question. And I forget what your question was. Well, one question was,

is Harper a better hitter? You said yes. You are not willing to pronounce him the better player, I assume. Today, for what time span? This season. I remember when I was, I think I've mentioned this before, but I remember in June of 2012, mid-June 2012. So Harper was up and he was hitting. Trout was up and he was going crazy. Like June was really when he became Mike Trout. was really when he became Mike Trout. And I had just begun, it was like the day before I had accepted this assignment to follow Trout for the summer and write a 10,000 word article about his rookie season for ESPN, the magazine. And my aunt who knew Bryce Harper as a young man, not knew him, but watched him play through travel ball, the travel ball circuit,

asked me who was better, who was going to be better. And the answer was supposed to be Trout, because at that point, Trout was already maybe the best player in baseball, and I was about to write about him. And I said, it was Harper. And I just don't want to have to keep on re-answering the question. I said it was Harper. So, I just want to like let it be and we'll see. I'm right or I'm wrong. I don't want to have, I don't know, you and I both have to make enough statements about baseball that we end up on both sides of many issues over time. And that's totally unsatisfying. I also don't want to be the guy who's like, well, I picked the Padres in April and I'm sticking with them. Like, you know, I don't want to do that.

I don't want to, you know, like be unable to change. And so I'm not saying Harper because I think Harper and I'm saying Harper because I don't want to answer. I think Harper and I'm saying Harper because I don't want to answer Well I don't I'm happy That Harper is a superhero I'm really happy that that happened That we all got to enjoy that Because there are plenty of

Phenoms who turn into Depressing stories or Disappointing stories and it would have Been very very easy for him To be the next, you know, Drew Henson or Brian Taylor or whatever and just, you know, get hurt or something go wrong off the field or just turn into a very good player but not the best player.

And it's pretty cool. It's pretty cool that the best player in the world at age 15 has turned into the best player in the world at age 15 has turned into the best player in the world at age 23. I mean, it's kind of impressive that he was identified that early. Yeah. As great as his talent was, it's really sort of impressive that people could pick up on it accurately at that point. Yeah.

Sullivan had a tweet before the 2013 season, I think, when Trout had just done this incredible thing. And he tweeted something like, you know, baseball, you know, baseball would be more interesting if Trout sucked now. And because, you know, like, it does the mystery of baseball of why sure things fail of why great players become horrible, of how you could have a situation where Barry Zito was simultaneously the highest paid pitcher in baseball and literally the worst. That you could have that situation is insane. And it's what makes baseball fun to analyze. It is also the case that the exact opposite is true. The idea of, yes, being able to

identify a kid at 15 and to be right 10 years later is also incredibly satisfying. There's prospecting would not be fun if there wasn't a great deal of prophecy to it. And it would also not be fun if it weren't so easy to miss so badly. And so, yeah, I mean, the two things I love about baseball, I think, more than anything, are how great the greatest players can be, how much better Barry Bonds can be or Pedro Martinez can be, and also how unexpectedly, you know, Mark Burley or Brandon Beachy or, you know, somebody who was nothing can turn into something really great. Kind of wish he were still a catcher

though. Harper? Yeah. Imagine if he were still a catcher. If he were still a catcher and had had last season, I mean, we could figure out exactly what he would have been worth, I guess, but that truly would have been like a Barry Bonds or maybe better than Barry Bonds season. figure out exactly what he would have been worth, I guess. But that truly would have been like

Barry Bonds or maybe better than Barry Bonds season. And, you know, if he were still a catcher, maybe he'd get hurt and maybe he wouldn't have developed as a hitter as well. And maybe he wouldn't be in the lineup as often and maybe he'd be a terrible catcher. So all of those things are probably good reasons that he switched positions when he did. But it would be kind of cool if he were this good and a catcher. But he's good enough as it is. I don't want to begrudge Harper his right field position. All right. So I didn't expect to come to any kind of conclusive answer.

I agree with you that he is the best hitter in baseball. I think I would go so far as to say that. Here it is. Here it is. I'm just saying things would be a lot more interesting if Mike Trout wound up terrible. My time is wrong, though. It was actually when he was called up. It was his first week in the majors.

Yeah, I guess. I think it's more interesting that he became as good as he did and wasn't recognized as that. It's nice that we're talking about two players who, you know, one was pinpointed as the potential best player in baseball as early as it's possible to be identified as such. And the other, very shortly before he became the best player in baseball was not recognized as such by every smart evaluator just about so i like that they have different backstories some people are probably finding it odd that i mentioned brandon beachy yeah i early on at bp i wrote an article about beachy as an undrafted free agent and how he uh was found and how he was overlooked and what it means for the game that he could turn

into something. So that's why Beachy, but you could say Albert Pujols if you want to get the clicks. Yeah. I do think that the way in which Harper has changed makes me more likely to believe the change than say a projection system would be. And I mean, I guess projection systems do break things down into components to some extent. So they'll look at strikeout rate and power and walk rate and all of that. It's not just one number. But they don't, I don't think, go deeper than that currently. They don't look at, say, batted ball rates, or maybe some of them do,

but they don't look at pull rate or O-swing rate or something like that. So to me, I think just the number of fronts that he has improved on makes me more likely to think that we should believe the recent performance more so than we would for a typical player who just sort of got incrementally better at the same things he was already good at. Just the sweeping nature of the changes makes me more likely to think that we can draw a line between pre-2015 and post-2015 Harper. I don't know that that is true. You'd have to do a study of some sort to determine whether that's true, but I am thinking of it that way. whether that's true, but I am thinking of it that way. And so because of that, I think I am more, I think if I had to choose, I would pick Harper over Trout for the remainder of 2016, at least across the board, not just offense. I would not say that he will finish with the better career.

Going forward or including? Well, definitely not including. going forward is tough i believe i believe that harper has the better outlook through his prime years and that trout has the better decline projection oh interesting and so i will say that uh i will say that trout wins the career battle based on what he's already done and what he will do after 32 and that har Harper is going to win five of the next six MVP awards. Any particular reason why you think Trout would age more gracefully? I don't think that swings age well. That's why.

Okay. So just that he has a broader spectrum of skills, maybe? Yeah. Okay. All right. This concludes yet another entertaining but inconclusive Harper Trout discussion. Go continue to enjoy and marvel at both of them. You can support the podcast on Patreon. Today's shout outs to Patreon supporters go to Patrick Morris, Eric Smiley, Dominic Rivers, Randy Stearns, and Matthew Yeo. Thank you. As you surely know by now, you can buy our book, The Only Rule Is It Has To Work, which comes out on May 3rd. It's the story of how Sam and I took over an independent league team,

the Sonoma Stompers, last summer. There's some good stat stuff in there for those of you who like stats. There's some good interpersonal stuff in there for people who prefer a less stat-based story. I hope there's something in there for everyone, and I hope that you will pre-order it on Amazon or Barnes & Noble or at your local bookstore. You can also pre-order the audiobook

or buy an autographed copy of the book from the Sonoma Stompers website at stompersbaseball.com. You can email us your questions and comments at podcast at baseballperspectus.com or by messaging us through Patreon. You can also rate and review and subscribe to the podcast

on iTunes, which helps us recruit new listeners. Finally, you can get the discounted price of $30 on a one-year subscription to the Play Index by going to

baseballreference.com and using the coupon code BP. We'll be back with another show tomorrow. First you say you do And then you don't And then you say you will, and then you don't. And then you say you will, and then you won't. You're undecided now, so what are you gonna do?