Player Value vs. Greatness

    The value of a player's work that contributes to the success of his team is not the same of his actual ability, and is not always consistent. Let's jump right into an easy to grasp example. 

    Over the past decade, Mike Trout has unquestionably been the best hitter in baseball. He is always mentioned among the greatest nowadays, and has dominated pitchers for his entire career. What is my point in saying this? Trout has proven himself, and it is obvious that he is a great hitter. If he were to go on a ridiculous hitting tear, it would not be regarded as a fluke. He's got his own reputation. 

    In the same way, Bryce Harper has his own reputation, and is a truly great hitter, but most people would probably rate him below Trout, especially considering the entirety of their careers. 

    Over the past two seasons, Mike Trout has been better than Bryce Harper, but Harper has been more valuable. In 2021, Mike Trout was in the midst of his greatest season to date when he was shelved for the season with an injury. In 36 games, he was hitting .333/.466/.624 with eight homers in 117 at bats - simply insane statistics. However, he only played roughly a fourth of the season, and provided zero value after the injury. Trout left a lot of work for other, lesser players to play centerfield for the Angels. On the other hand, Bryce Harper also had an outstanding season (.309/.429/.615). He wasn't quite as hot as Trout was, but he was able to sustain it throughout most of the season, and as a result hit 35 homers, took home the NL MVP Award, and provided much more real value to his Phillies. He may have been slightly below Trout-calibre in 2021, but he provided a dangerous bat the entire year through. So far in 2022, Trout and Harper have played about the same number of games, and have hit about even (ironically, it's Harper who's probably hitting better, but Trout who's provided more value), but for the purpose of defining my terms, let's say they've been about the same. If you lump their 2021-22 seasons together, Trout's hitting .288/.398/.605 with 32 homers (8.02 HR%) and 69 RBI's in 115 games, while Harper's at .312/.415/.610 with 50 homers (6.85 HR%) and 132 RBI's in 205 games (with a defensive edge to Trout). Their career marks: .303/.416/.584, 334 homers (6.76 HR%), 867 RBI's for Trout; .281/.391/.528, 282 homers (5.88 HR%), 800 RBI's for Harper. That said, I think it's fair to say that Trout's been a little better since 2021, but Harper's produced much more than Trout over the same time. 

    Let's put it this way: if I had to pick one of them for one game, I would pick Trout (because he's better). If I were to pick one for a full season (knowing that Trout is more injury prone), I would pick Harper (because he's been more valuable since 2021). 

    The point of this post is simply to define these terms that I will use in many different articles. That said, I guess we can all say that we're on the same page. Here's the key: rate statistics will tell you how good a player is when he plays, while counting statistics keep track of his real value. You need both when evaluating a Hall of Fame candidate.