There is nothing average about Mike Trout. People built like Brian Urlacher shouldn’t be able to scale walls, run like a scared deer, all while squarely hitting a round ball with a round bat. The 2014 season has seen Mike Trout put up a slightly more earthbound line than usual. The question is why? The sample size is rapidly getting too large for the saber community to claim this is all due to a small sample of games.

As Rob Neyer and Jay Jaffe have pointed out, the data backs up the notion that Trout is not merely a victim of bad luck. If it’s not bad luck or a small sample, then what the heck has gone (relatively) wrong with baseball’s wunderkind? When in doubt look at the swing that is putting up the numbers.

Before I get too carried away I need to frame this article correctly. This is not me saying Mike Trout is in long-term trouble, or that his only hope for salvation is reading this article. This article is more of an exploration of a great hitter going through a rough stretch, hitting .161/.286/.355 in May. Trout will get his swing back and put up the regular numbers we are used to, but times like these serve to remind us that even the best at the craft can have times where they are slightly less than elite. All the notes I make in this article are merely capturing snapshots.

Here’s a front view of Trout 2014 vs 2013. Both of these swings produced home runs, but there are small but highly important differences between these two swings. From the front we can see two small differences before he even makes a move.

2014 stance:

2013 stance:

In 2014 he stands more upright at the plate with less initial bend in his knees. He also starts his hands just a bit lower this year. I tend not to care how a hitter sets up his stance but I do care how he moves from the stance into the rest of the swing. This is where these differences take on importance.

When he was dialed in 2013, Trout started his hands higher and simply used his bottom hand to cock his barrel at an angle. One move. Hands high, bottom hand cocks barrel and go. But 2014 sees his hands start lower, then both hands move the bat back up, then back down slightly again before the bottom hand finally takes over to cock the barrel. Three moves. Bat up, then down a bit, then cock the barrel and go.

The differences with the hands are more obvious but should be easier to correct. The hands move in a vacuum before the swing launches. Trout doesn’t have to change any other part of his body to get his hands back to his 2013 pre-swing movement pattern.

Watching game footage from this year I saw Trout get beat by more average fastballs than I ever had before. The “busy’ hands would help explain this phenomenon, but the real giveaway comes from his meaty lower half. Look at his front foot after contact. Trout’s front foot always moves a bit after contact but this year it has been much more blatant than in prior seasons. Watch the frames after contact and zero in on his front foot. See how in 2014 the ankle seems to roll forward. The same thing happens in 2013, but much later in the process and to a smaller extent. This could mean Trout has a bum ankle but it is also indicative of a mechanical change.

His back foot is moving differently as well. Pause the videos right at contact and look at the position of his back foot.

2014 contact:

2013 contact:

In 2013 Trout’s back foot is very pointed. If his foot is even touching the ground at all it’s on the very tip of his shoe. The next year is a different picture. His back foot is angled and touching the ground awkwardly on the side of his foot. Proceed a few frames forward when Trout’s arms are fully extended and you will see that his ankle is fairly close to the ground, contrary to his 2013 position.

2014 extension:

2013 extension:

The differences in the hands can be fixed by altering the hands. The differences in the lower body need to be corrected by something other than the feet. The ending position of the feet is the product of the hips.

Simply put, Trout is not using his hips as efficiently as he was. He is not generating the same force and he is late when he does engage his hips. Everyone knows the hips rotate during the course of a swing to help supply power to a hitter. How this power is created in the hips happens during the stride or gather phase of a swing (depending on the hitter’s style). For some hitters, this begins as they lift their leg; for others, as they stride out. To spot this coil look for a small internal rotation of the hips independent of the shoulders, during or after weight has begun to transfer forward. In plain speak, the hips move toward the pitcher while slightly turning inward. It’s a small movement but vitally important. (Hitting coach Steve Carter (@SteveCarterPP) first showed me this movement and explained its importance.)

Trout hasn’t gotten the same drive out of his hips this year thanks in part to his new stance. There's nothing wrong with an upright stance, but Trout is used to moving with more bend in his knee. In 2013 he picks his front knee up, loads into his back hip and then unleashes his swing. In 2014 he picks up the front knee, loads into the hip, then a very slight delay as his lower half works down before driving forward. Watch his back foot: in 2013, it moves as he drives his lower half forward; in 2014, it moves, and then he drives his lower half forward.

The new stance is also playing a part in how Trout’s front leg is behaving during his swing. To best examine how a hitter’s front leg moves during a swing a view from the side is helpful. Luckily enough the swings used earlier also have side shots. The angles of the shot are slightly different but still provide useful information.

Let’s look at when his front leg straightens out. In 2013 his front leg wasn’t straight (or stiff) until after contact. We can see that at contact there is a slight bend in his front knee.

In 2014 his front leg is stiff several frames before contact:

After contact his front leg is unstable in 2014. Trout has always had a fun little hop step to get out of the box but this season he spins on his heel before the hop. If you watch his 2014 swing from the front, pay attention to how his leg stiffens and then appears to lock out even further to the point where his front leg looks bowed. In 2014, his front foot is sliding toward third base after contact. In 2013 his front foot is completely stable and stationary and doesn’t move until he hops out of the box.

Locking out the front leg before contact isn’t an inherently bad thing. Miguel Cabrera does it and he is pretty decent at hitting baseballs. The difference is how stable Cabrera is after contact. All the force he built up in his swing has been thoroughly laid into the baseball. Instead of the force going into the baseball you can see the unapplied force reverberate back through Trout, especially in his legs.

Big league hitters have .3 seconds to hit an average big-league fastball. It is an exercise in timing. If the timing of your own swing is off, good luck timing up big-league pitching. This is what Trout is dealing with at the moment. He can’t properly time when his hips fire. Don’t get me wrong—they still fire, but instead of putting all that energy created by the hips into the ball it leaks out into his swing following contact. The early rolling and sliding of his front foot? Poor hip timing. The inefficient movement of his back foot? Poor hip timing. Why is he missing fastballs? Why are his batted ball metrics down? I bet you know the answer.

Recently, Trout hit a walkoff home run that seemed like it might bust him out of his slump. This swing shows he is starting to make some small but positive changes. His hands are much calmer. There is more bend in his legs at the start of the swing. When he launches, he is back to not locking out his front leg before contact. His front leg is more stable after contact. His front foot is still sliding, but overall the leg moves less at the end of his swing. It appears that Trout might be on the right track.

Trout can fix this. He will get his hips moving at the right time and eliminate any hiccups in his lower half. He may also just go back to his older stance. Trout is a special player. He wouldn’t have even sniffed the level of success he has had without the ability to make adjustments. Once he does make some adjustments, he will go back to wrecking baseballs like the Trout we know and love.

Thank you for reading

This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.

Subscribe now
You need to be logged in to comment. Login or Subscribe
This is really interesting, thanks for posting. Would there be a reason that he would be trying to fire his hips earlier? Could he be concerned about missing fastballs, so he would try to start earlier?

He is also not wearing that shin guard this year, but that probably doesn't mean anything.
scared DEAR?
it's called slumping...and none has ever escaped without having had to confront it
No doubt many slumps are tiny hard-to-detect flaws or changes in one's swing such as this.
The reason his leg is stiff in the 2014 is because the pitch is middle-in. In the 2013 example the pitch is on the outer half.
Brooks has the 2013 right down the middle. There is some difference based on pitch location and when the front leg firms up but usually not as extreme as the difference between trout 2014 & 2013.
What appears to be a little alarming is that Trout's K rate is up quite a bit this year. 2013 brought a 18.99% rate and 2014 so far is a pedestrian 27.86%. Any thoughts on if this is a result of what is discussed here, or just something that will be ironed out once he catches his groove?
I am not necessarily buying any of this. I could be wrong, but I think anyone could support any narrative with pictures of swings, because there are hundreds if not thousands of swings that a batter has during a season, depending on the pitch location, type, the count, etc.


"As Rob Neyer and Jay Jaffe have pointed out, the data backs up the notion that Trout is not merely a victim of bad luck. If it’s not bad luck or a small sample, then what the heck has gone (relatively) wrong with baseball’s wunderkind? When in doubt look at the swing that is putting up the numbers."

Is just plain wrong.

We have no idea how much of a player's past or present performance is luck and how much is true talent. We can only make inferences based on sample performance. Sure, using "scouting" and observation, we can make those statistical inferences stronger, but we can never be nearly certain what is luck and what is true talent.

The idea that we "know" that Trout's slightly worse performance so far this year is a change in talent from last year is just ridiculous. We know no such thing. For all we know, Trout was lucky the last 2 years and this season's performance represents his true talent all along. Or he is indeed unlucky this year and prior years' performance is representative of his true talent. Or anything in between (more likely of course).
I'm not necessarily buying this response.

The author did not claim that he "knew" that Trout's performance this year represents a change in talent, but he did suggest underlying explanations for why his performance has been off lately. Perhaps this is a semantic question of "true talent," a term which is mostly a red herring that makes sense from a statistical construct but falls apart once applied to the field. An athlete's "talent" is naturally dynamic day-to-day and throughout his career, as is the case with virtually any skill that one acquires.

The stats may not have the power to detect a change within a small sample, but one who has the eyes to see what is happening on the field can glean these subtle details. Ryan goes out of his way to mention that this could be a short-term funk, and he is not trying to predict the future but rather explain some of the nuance of the past: "This article is more of an exploration of a great hitter going through a rough stretch."

I see this kinda thing with pitchers every single day, and most often I can tell you exactly why a pitcher is having a bad day or inning based on what I am watching on the field (mechanics, stuff, etc). One could construe that phenomenon as his "true talent" changing, but I chalk it up to the fact that this is a dynamic skill with several variables at play. "Luck" does occur, in the sense that good process + bad outcome = "luck," but I do not believe that luck is commensurate with uncertainty in our numerical measurements.

I'm not sure why "scouting" was in quotes, but the observations of expert evaluators such as Ryan Parker and Jason Parks allow us to see so much deeper than the stats allow, and Ryan is using the pics and GIFs not to tell a narrative (which has become a pejorative term) but to help the audience to see what he sees.
Incredibly well-stated, Doug. Thanks.
"The stats may not have the power to detect a change within a small sample, but one who has the eyes to see what is happening on the field can glean these subtle details."

I'll believe that when just once - once is all I ask - someone uses observation and scouting to tell us how a player's true talent actually got better even though his performance got worse! Or vice versa. Surely that has to happen.

Everything you said, Doug, is opinion without any evidence to back it up. Why should I believe that any more than I should believe Kruk on ESPN when he tells us how fielders make more errors with slow pitchers on the mound (they don't).

When you scouting guys can tell me something that is going to happen in the future and not merely narratives about the past, and we can test that, then I might believe what you have to say. I'm not saying you guys are wrong, but I have zero evidence that what you guys are saying has any merit whatsoever. At least I don't think there is. If there is, please let me know where to find it. Otherwise it is just opinion without evidence, which might be interesting, but it's not science.
Nobody suggested scouting was science; in fact, its an art, one that is a learned skill and normally applied using a historical perspective.

If you want examples of talent improving at the expense of performance, read the countless developmental updates we provide on the Ten Pack. On Monday, I pointed to Eddie Butler's less-than-exceptional numbers in AA, explaining that one of his best pitches was shelved in order to give developmental priority to his CB, a pitch that isn't all that special as an individual offering but will no doubt elevate his overall arsenal. His talent (as a whole) is improving despite an on-the-field performance that would suggest otherwise. I can name countless examples of this type of talent progression at the expense of performance.

I suggest reading more about scouting and player development before putting everything we write about into one box.

"Nobody suggested scouting was science; in fact, its an art, one that is a learned skill and normally applied using a historical perspective."

Art, science, whatever. If there is no evidence that what you say has merit, then, I am afraid it is just blather.

I am NOT (of course, you will ignore this sentence and just go an assuming that I am saying that you don't know what you are talking about) saying that you or any of the other "scouts" are right or wrong about anything in particular. I am simply asking for evidence, that's all. Maybe there is. I admittedly don't read much of these types of articles. For example, if you say that you can analyze someone's swing or pitching mechanics and predict something that the numbers can't, then there must be evidence, right, or why should anyone listen to what you have to say?

I mean, if a respected doctor tells us that he has a cure for X, and he writes a beautiful article about why and how it works, we don't really care unless and until it is tested, right?
"Everything you said, Doug, is opinion without evidence to back it up."

I encourage you to read my "Raising Aces" column, which is saturated with evidence to back up my claims of what pitchers are doing on the mound. I might use visual evidence along with the subjective 20-80 scouting scale, but I also provide a rubric (with visual examples) so that others may vet the process. Furthermore, the basis of my approach to pitching is rooted in data driven by high-speed motion capture - I have spent years breaking down the pitching delivery, both visually and numerically, across a sea of biomechanical variables. If you're interested, some of that numerical evidence can be found in my book: "Arm Action, Arm Path, and the Perfect Pitch."

The scouting evidence is all around us, and there are countless examples on BP where scouting has revealed elements of causation. "True talent" is a nebulous concept, but there do exist cases with players whose core skills improved even though on-field performance went in the other direction (as Jason mentioned in the Butler example).

Visual evidence is evidence nonetheless, even if it cannot be fed into an algorithm. Until we have access to physical measurements on the field (such as the new tracking data from MLBAM), then scouting observations will be unable to satisfy certain definitions of validation. But the inability to appreciate that which cannot be measured in a box score does not invalidate the existence of such elements, and one's mistrust in the art of scouting is equivalent to one who doesn't trust wOBA because they haven't grasped the numerical underpinnings of the system.

There is no spoon.
With all due respect, MGL raises a great question about claims of mechanical efficiency. While I highly enjoyed your book, and do in fact agree with most of the concepts you talk about, the sample sizes used to draw conclusions were very small and do not qualify as proof in my opinion.

I struggle with the same issues as a hitting coach and researcher. While I have many reasons for teaching certain things and disagreeing with others, the vast majority of it is still based on the personal experiences of myself and others I trust. Your statement that you "have spent years breaking down the pitching delivery" leads me to believe you are the same. THAT ABSOLUTELY HAS VALUE, but for there to be any real final say on the discussion, more research with true independent and dependent variables must be done. Otherwise, there is no reason for the casual onlooker (with respect for MGL, I mean in the realm of mechanics) to believe one expert over another.
All fair points, Dan, and I appreciate the discourse.

I see a line between one's ideas of "good/bad" mechanics and the collective understanding of how the process impacts the outcome. I also hear the frustration from the coaching angle, and personal experience will no doubt shape one's approach. But I think that we can turn it into a positive by expanding the collective experience of the baseball audience, getting more eyes to appreciate the nuances of the game, and this is at the core of articles like "Going Yard" and "Raising Aces."

We don't have to agree on whether "locking out the front leg" is a bad thing, but our understanding will evolve as long as we can agree on what "locking out the front leg" look like, allowing for a deeper evaluation of adjustments that players make over time.
Everyone slumps. Babe Ruth slumped. Pujols has slumped. So has Trout. I'm sure it's mechanical, as any long-term athlete can agree with - sometimes a routine becomes the problem itself and you develop bad habits.
"I can name countless examples of this type of talent progression at the expense of performance."

Anything at the major league level?
MLB teams are playing games to win. They don't make these sacrifices at this level.

Halladay went to the minors to revamp his mechanics for a reason.
I think he is going to have many struggles, relatively speaking. He is firmly caught in between doing what he does best (being a leadoff hitter with pop) and wanting to be an elite slugger. I think he could be an elite slugger, and he will be when his legs are gone, but for now he is in a tough spot mentally. Offensively, he would be best served to be Rickey Henderson but there is a lot of pressure on him to be something else. He has been taking some pretty inconsistent hacks lately... and by inconsistent, I mean bad.