More Keeper League ‘Would You Rather?’ — Michael Trout or Michael Bourn
In the spirit of trying to help and really give the public what they want, this ongoing series does, in fact, take requests. A few pairings have been mentioned in previous posts and have been discussed in the comments sections, so today’s was pulled off of Twitter (feel free to submit yours to @rotobuzzguy) and brought here for discussion. It’s more upside vs proven talent, but this time we’re talking speed….and a lot of it!
Would you rather keep Michael Trout or Michael Bourn?
Trout has received an amazing amount of fanfare this season being just one month shy of his 20th birthday upon his call-up to the majors. People raved about his speed potential having swiped 56 bases in 2010 with another 33 in Double-A ball this season. His power, albeit not huge by any means, was also deemed “developing” as he knocked 11 home runs in 412 plate appearances this year in Arkansas, posting a .218 ISO. In 600 plate appearances between A and A+ ball in 2010, he hit a total of 10 home runs posting an ISO ~.150 for the entire season. Given the fact that it normally takes about 500 plate appearances for ISO to show any real predictive power, it’s probably safe to assume that his ISO should settle in close to league average, probably even slightly under. But let’s face it, Trout’s home run hitting capabilities are more of a bonus than anything else. It’s hit speed an on-base skills that everyone covets. Perhaps one day he could turn in an Jacoby Ellsbury-like season and add in one of those freak years where he does hit more than expected, but that should be the rarity more than the norm.
Bourn, on the other hand, is currently giving you exactly what you should have been expecting. He is a true burner, offering up 50+ stolen bases per season. He’s struggled with his batting average over the first few years of his short career, but is still seemingly improving in some of the other important areas. Up until this season, Bourn had shown a three year increase of his walk rate while simultaneously decreasing his K% as well. This season has seen a slight spike in each, but nothing that is too alarming or that should be deemed a red flag. His batting average and subsequent OBP (and wOBA) have fluctuated the most which is what his critics seem to knock the most, but with a steadily improved contact rate and slightly more disciplined approach at the plate, he should continue with his high BABIP/solid BA performance, thus maintaining strong on-base skills and hordes of stolen bases.
As always though, it comes down to cost, and all things being equal, it seems like Bourn is the better play here, atleast over the next few seasons. With the increase in overall stolen bases these past few years, Bourn seems to be one of those burners that people seem content to wait on in drafts. While they’re rushing out to grab Ellsbury in the 5th round, Bourn is coming off the boards no earlier than the 8th or 9th, on average, sometimes even lower. Sure, Trout was probably drafted much much later, but he is still a project; a player in the making who could still struggle at the major league level early on in his career. With Bourn, you know exactly what you’re getting and at what cost. Holding him from year to year allows you to draft a bit differently, knowing that not every guy you pick up needs to contribute in the steals category. He gives you a level of comfort, and even if he does struggle with the average a bit, you know he is still contributing in the category for which he was drafted.
Howard Bender has been covering fantasy sports for over 10 years on a variety of websites. In addition to his work here, you can also find him at his site, RotobuzzGuy.com, Fantasy Alarm, RotoWire and Mock Draft Central. Follow him on Twitter at @rotobuzzguy or for more direct questions or comments, email him at rotobuzzguy@gmail.com
Trout. I’ll take his upside and extreme youth over Bourn in a deep keeper. Then again, in my keepers every one that you guys tell me to scoop up is already gone as soon as they’re available.
“As always though, it comes down to cost, and all things being equal, it seems like Bourn is the better play here…”
I just can’t imagine “all things being equal”. I actually have both these guys in a mixed 14-team keeper league. Bourn will cost me $11 and Trout will cost me $3 if I decide to keep them next year. I think I own Trout at a bargain price, yes, but I would figure that the price of keeping Bourn in most leagues would be about double. In that case, Trout feels like (easily) the safer play … even for next year alone. There’s actually a possibility that I keep both these guys for next year, but I currently have Bourn in my “maybe” column while Trout is solidly listed as “yes, definitely.”
The only scenario where I could imagine keeping Bourn over Trout is if you’re in a points league that heavily overvalues stolen bases. Even then I imagine Trout’s all-around skill set could make up for the fewer SBs. I find Bourn to be extremely hard to own in general.
I would take Trout as well. Bourn is too one-sided and I avoid him in general.
I have a fun/painful one that I’m trying to decide now:
Brad Hand or Andrew Miller?
Eww. How deep is that league?
I’d lean Miller, but either choice is a bad one.
I really don’t think we should pay any attention to when ISO generally “stabilizes” (still hate the bogus use of this term on this site) when we’re talking about a 19 year old who just got promoted to the majors.
Power takes a while to develop. The fact that he’s already hitting home runs is a great sign.
Can you expand on how their use of ISO stabilizing is wrong?
My personal complaint with true talent level arguments is that I don’t believe talent is a truly stable attribute, although with many players it will swing around a tight mean and hence we can generally call it close enough. Injuries, mechanical changes, etc will constantly tinker with a player’s talent.
My issue is in how misleading this word is. You always need to regress – the sample size dictates how much. Writers on this site tend to throw around the word “stabilize” as if, once a sample reaches a certain size (which by the way was arbitrarily chosen; it’s a split-half r=.7 if I’m remembering correctly?), it’s a reliable proxy for true talent. That’s just incorrect.
Also it’s not specific to ISO, and it’s not specific to this site. A few months ago everyone started using this in sabermetric writing. I’m not sure why, but I just find it really misleading.
Awesome, thanks man! (I am @mamaxmax)
While reading through the article I was a little concerned. There are very few league formats in which Bourn will be better than Trout. As much as he helps in SB, he hurts in AVG. I know AVG isnt a great stat, but most leagues still use it…Anyway, the comments have reassured me that I’m not crazy. I think the only real question regarding Trout is his playing time. If he gets it he’ll be better than Bourn. Finally, while you can look at similar power stats for others along their development to assign ‘potential power’ to Trout, but when you’re talking about a 20 year old the range is very large…
While I would probably lean Trout as well, I think people are underestimating Bourn. Eno has mentioned this in his chats a few times, but his contribution to SB is so far above everyone else that it is quite valuable. And he’s not one-dimensional; he contributes in runs too. Essentially he allows you to focus entirely on power and BA everywhere else. You don’t want 0 stolen bases from everyone else but if some of your power guys can get ~10 each that’s great.
Let me put it this way – I was 13th in SB in my 16-team roto league with a pretty good power core, so I made 2 trades, taking advantage of some of my players’ fluky hot starts, to acquire Bourn and Gardner. Two weeks later I was at the top in SB, and still top 3 in the other offensive categories. Looking at the numbers, I would still be 2nd there even without Gardner. I know people hate reading about other peoples’ fantasy teams but this is a good example of how Michael Bourn can contribute to a team and make a big difference.
But yes, Trout is amazing and one of my mancrushes so i will probably go with him. It seems like he will contribute solid numbers all-around. He also gained LF and RF eligibility for leagues that use LF/CF/RF which is a bonus coming into the draft. Unfortunately he is still only 20 so the possibility of a couple adjustment years exists, unlike with Bourn where you know exactly what you’re going to get.
Bourn in roto, no questions asked, particularly since he is on Atlanta next year.
I can only keep 6 and am really agonizing about whether to keep Trout next year. I would have 3 no-questions-asked locks in McCann, A-Gon, and Felix, but my other three are up for grabs between Phillips, Cruz, Choo, Ian Kennedy, Romero, Marcum, and Josh Johnson. My gut tells me Phillips, Cruz, and Romero. Trout has amazing upside but I’m not sure I can keep him over one of those guys.
stumanji: If you can keep the guys in perpetuity or at a slowly increasing rate, then I think you have to squeeze Trout in there somehow, because in 2-3 years he could be a top 30 player overall. But if it’s JUST for 2012, then I would almost definitely keep any of Cruz, Phillips, Kennedy, Romero and Marcum ahead of him.
Do not keep Johnson, he’s out. Shoulder injuries are too fickle in pitchers.
I’d keep Phillips, Cruz, Trout personally. I like Romero more than Kennedy, who I think will see regression in his HR rate, especially in that home park.
Romero is a good player, but he’s not “great” enough to have me miss out on Trout’s potential. When you look at the history of players who are good enough to push themselves to the majors by their age 20 season, you see a ton of greatness. Justin Upton being the latest example.
Who do I keep for next year ONLY… 6×6, 16 team league, H2H
Michael Bourn or Brett Lawrie?
I already have decent power coming back with Fielder, Granderson, and CSantana. My team has always lacked a true speedster until I traded for Bourn this year, but 3B is going to be real thin in our draft.