No, really. Sometimes we know things before someone in the advanced-metrics community produces the numbers that tell us so.

Mike Trout is really, really good, and his Angels teammates are really, really not good.

Anyone who watches the Angels for a weekend (or follows the club’s boxscores for a week) could have deduced that.

But, still, it was a bit fun to have it reinforced by someone from the sabermetric crowd, in this case Neil Paine over at FiveThirtyEight.com.

Some of the findings:

–If Trout has something resembling a Trout-level finish to the 2016 season, he will continue his dominance of the age-group statistics that have found he has had the “best career” after every season he has been in the bigs. From age 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 … and, coming soon, age 24 ahead, again, of .

–Oh, and if you haven’t been following the Angels (and not doing so is entirely understandable, given the Angels are 42-52), Trout at this writing is second in the American League in walks (62), third in batting average (.320) and slugging average (.568), fourth in runs (74), fifth in steals (15) and eighth in RBI (62). He also has 23 doubles, two triples and 19 home runs. And he still plays a marvelous center field.

–Trout’s future with the Angels? He probably is not going anywhere soon, for a couple of reasons.

One is his six-year Angels contract, running through 2020, which for its first three years underpays him significantly — $6.1 million last year, $16.1 million this season, $20.1 million next year. Then comes three years at $34.1 million, but that probably will be a bargain, too.

The second reason comes from the FiveThirtyEight suggestion that the Angels could never get fair value for Trout in a trade. No team has prospects enough that could be expected to have more value going forward than the Angels would get from keeping Trout.

The Angels should consider themselves lucky that Trout does not seem agitated at taking the field along with such marginal talents as Gregorio Petit, Jett Bandy, Ji-man Choi (no, not making up these names), Andrelton Simmons, Daniel Nava and Yunel Escobar.

Those six were in the starting lineup with Trout tonight, along with the sometimes useful Kole Calhoun and what is left of Albert Pujols (pretty much only his home-run swing).

The Angels also should consider themselves lucky that Trout seems like one of the more humble superstars in sports history. Some players in his situation would long ago have marched up to the GM’s door and demanded an improved team.

(At his espn.com stat page, some video has been posted in which his name is mentioned in a “most boring superstar in sports” discussion, along with Derek Jeter and quarterbacks Andrew Luck and Russell Wilson.)

So, what should we, as Southern California baseball fans, do about Mike Trout?

Go to Anaheim often enough to fully appreciate how good he is … and maybe write a polite but firm letter to the front office asking when the Angels are going to find a batch of players good enough to make the playoffs — and give Mike Trout a fair chance at winning the MVP award he deserves nearly every year he has played.