Dynasty League Dilemma's: Bryce Harper or Mike Trout?

by Chris Buckley on Feb 6, 2012 3:00 PM EST in Fantasy Baseball Thoughts

Stephen Dunn - Getty Images

9 months ago: ANAHEIM, CA - AUGUST 19: Mike Trout #27 (L) of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim jokes with Howie Kendrick #47 as they warm up before the game with the Baltimore Orioles on August 19, 2011 at Angel Stadium in Anaheim, California. (Photo by Stephen Dunn/Getty Images)

Over at Halos Heaven, The Limey, whoever that is, introduced the idea of a Mike Trout and Bryce Harper swap. While that deal makes sense from a baseball stand point, and it certainly does if you read his argument, I immediately started thinking about who I'd rather have in dynasty. In the early parts of a currently on going dynasty draft, I passed on Mike Stanton with a second first-round pick in order to grab Evan Longoria and follow that up with Bryce Harper, at least that was my intention. My plan almost worked, as Harper went three selections before mine. I then turned to what I believe to be the next best thing by drafting Mike Trout. He doesn't have Harper's power but he does have the build and projectable strength to cast visions of 20+ home runs. What he does have for a fact is superior speed making him a potential five category threat in roto. Harper could be seen as that as well, though I believe Trout will consistently hit for a higher average. But it begs the question, if it came down to Harper and Trout, who would you choose and why?

Poll

Who would you prefer in dynasty play? Harper or Trout?

Mike Trout

84 votes

Bryce Harper

126 votes

210 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | 21 comments

Comments

Honestly

make up is a big issue, as Harper’s is, well, let’s just say it’s been called “atrocious” by more than one scout. However, there’s not an inverse relationship between being a douchebag and being an awesome fantasy baseball player (Barry, ahem, Bonds). With that said, I still think that Trout brings more in the SBs and OBP and if he could somehow slug .500 consistently, he’ll turn into the better player than Harper. But Harper’s peak years are gonna be monsterous.

JoelGuzman'sScout - February 6, 2012 reply

Trout

Cuz he is from Jersey….

smokeymcpots - February 6, 2012 reply

I like your way of thinking!

NJ rules all

Chris Buckley - February 6, 2012 reply

Having either would be a dream

But having to choose between them is a fantasy. With Trout you’re potentially getting 5 tool cat hitting in a potent line up that will feature Pujols, whom still puts up big power numbers. With Harper you’re getting a guy who may flat out mash the ball for a living. These are very simple descriptions of the two in a very complex argument, but for the sake of not dragging the post on I will take Trout simply out of preference for more cat production. However, both players have the potential to be top flight selections in many future drafts.

David Ball - February 6, 2012 reply

Trout

Despite being different style players, they have the potential value to be number 1 overall picks for many moons. But I would give the edge to the guy who not only has the ideal personality and work ethic, but also has never stumbled at all as he was progressing through the minors. Now Harper did skip over high A while Trout did not, so he does get a little credit there, but Trout’s numbers for each level are absolutely insane.

Also Trout gets the bonus points for never being thrown out of a game…

HeLeftYouBagEnd - February 6, 2012 reply

Multiple times

he was ejected btw.

HeLeftYouBagEnd - February 6, 2012 reply

work ethic

Harper has a crazy work ethic, and i don’t know why the fact that Harper was thrown out of games has anything to do with this analysis. The guy has a target on him everywhere he goes. The media attention to this is out of control.

Ray Guilfoyle - February 7, 2012 reply

I have never heard

anything out of the ordinary about his work ethic. You may have, but I have not. I don’t know where your confusion is about the ejections? I clearly said its separate from their skill sets and Trout should get the bonus for better personality. Do you not agree this is true? Would you really prefer a player who get ejected occasionally to one that never has and is like a dog having fun out there?

Of course there is a target on his back. When you do stupid things and you are a top prospect that tends to happen. Or are you gonna tell me he didn’t blow a kiss at a pitcher? And its unfair to judge him like everyone else bc he’s good. That’s exactly why we judge him differently. And that whole ‘personality’ aspect happens to be Trout’s strong point. So I said I would take the player with the better personality. Comprende? How this clears it up for you.

HeLeftYouBagEnd - February 7, 2012 via Android app reply

to be quite honest

statements like “better personality” are completely baseless. Unless you are trained in the area of sports psychology, I’m betting you’re not since there is a clear lack of clynical analysis in your explanation, then you can’t really place a value on a given player’s actions in relation to his personality. Furthermore, saying something such as personality is better is completely subjective. Unless the player displays habits that are either volatile, harmful, or generally speaking, disruptive, then there is no such thing as “better personality”. You say Trout exhibits a better personality, personality is a cog in team chemistry, it doesn’t equate to being a better teammate or a better fit for that organization, and if a player doesn’t fit in and his performance is affected then his personality can’t be better. To cite a cliche, what’s good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander. Also, how one operates on the field of play is not really indicative of their personality. Zack Greinke is an introvert but you can’t tell that from how he pitches, he acts in the same manner as most pitcher’s do as they just tend to go about their business. If you were to say Harper’s “antics” raised questions or concerns of immaturity and his ability to adapt to the pro level, then you’d be well within your right, but to say his personality is better is not only incorrect but unsubstantiated.

Chris Buckley - February 7, 2012 reply

Clearly I should have said antics

to prevent this little rant. I think you, and everyone else, know exactly what I meant.

HeLeftYouBagEnd - February 7, 2012 reply

actually

I have no idea what you meant. You said personality several times, it would be foolish on my part to assume you know the clear difference considering you misused the term again and again. Maybe your that guy though, the guy that means one thing but for some very odd reason, repeatedly uses a word that means something completely different. I’m not, therefore I felt a need to comment. It’s not a rant, it’s a correction….comprende? *Hope, not how, clears this up for you.

Chris Buckley - February 7, 2012 reply

I think you misunderstand there champ

Personality certainly includes antics on the field, being the type of player that gets ejected and loses his cool. When I said “I should have used antics” it would have been for your benefit, not because I think I did something wrong. To further address your rant I have never said Harper’s general attitude would not work with organizations or cause big problems. Its very simple really. I said they have comparable skill levels, but personally I would give the slight edge to Trout because he is well known to be a great guy. You would be an idiot to act like you haven’t heard both positive things about Trout and bad things about Harper in this regard. If you wouldn’t do the same thing, then good for you. We are all entitled to our own opinion. If you don’t think personality matters at all for players, good for you. I don’t agree. We are all made different. You can keep making assumptions about what kind of guy I am, knock yourself out. Your opinion of me means nothing to me.

HeLeftYouBagEnd - February 8, 2012 reply

As A Sport Psychologist..

what people are most likely referring to when they discuss “personality” of a player is that of their goal orientations. The question is are they more “Task” driven or “Ego” driven in their approach to learning the game. It was originally believed that task was positive and ego negative in skills acquisition, but what has been found is that both are recorded at high levels in elite players. The task driven approach is the key element though, as excessively high ego orientation can lead to significant declines in performance given setbacks without a task oriented buffer. Regarding a sport of failure such as baseball, pushing someone to the upper echelons too quickly who does not have a good grasp on the task intrinsic nature of the game, may allow their ego to send them the route of Billy Beane. That’s my (greatest) concern regarding Harper.

MonkeyLuven - February 17, 2012 reply

Trout

I’d take Trout, but I’d agree it’s really close.

In my main keeper league, one guy drafted Trout, Harper, and Moore in the same minor league draft (the one between the 2009 and 2010 season). He also had Strasburg from the previous season’s draft. Better research at that point, as Trout had just been drafted and wasn’t that high on a lot of prospect lists.

Jason Hunt - February 6, 2012 reply