OT: Trout vs. Mantle
 

I know, I know. Absurd. Here's the thing, I just would love to hear from the boards members who have gotten to witness both play. I have spoken with several individuals, involved with the game and outside it, IF Trout compared with Mantle (so far obviously) If yes, was he a better player. Internally heard about a 50/50 split on this.

I have seen Trout too many times in person, but unfortunately never got to see Mantle. All I have to rely on are film and stories. I have met Trout a good amount of times outside of the field as well and he is extremely nice and polite.

I honestly don't care who is better or not. What I care about is that I may actually be witnessing a legend in the making first hand from day one. And IF he finishes amongst the all-time greats, thennn have truly been blessed in the sense of the game that I got to witness a talent like this for 20 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the next Mantle?
 

Well, since this is a baseball card forum...

http://imageshack.com/a/img18/1199/4ux2.jpg

Trout's an amazing talent, but I hate it when people say "he's the next Mickey Mantle", or something like that. No, he's the first Mike Trout. Let him be who he is. From all accounts, he's a generally nice, humble young man. If he's not already, he's going to probably be the face of baseball for a while. Major League Baseball has been dreaming about having somebody like Trout come along for a long time.

Yes, his stolen bases are down. But I think he's being asked to run less. When he does run, he's still incredibly successful. He's stolen 12 bases in 14 tries. That's an 86% clip. The strikeouts are a concern, yes. But let's remember he's only just now turned 23 years old. That he's striking out 158 times per 162 games is definitely something he's going to have to cut down on. But while he's been striking out 158 times, he's still hitting .307 for his career with a .943 OPS. He's got 543 hits, 347 runs scored, 222 extra base hits including 91 home runs. And with all those strikeouts, he's leading the American League with 278 bases. After his home run last night (#30), he's 4 off the lead in the American League, and his 94 RBIs are 2 off the league lead. His average is down at .291, but if he can turn just a few of those strikeouts into hits, he's back at his career average.

If Trout stays healthy, he's going to put up some ridiculous numbers. I'd like to see him run a little more, but I think that's a product of who's hitting directly behind him-Albert Pujols. In his rookie year, Trout was leading off more. Now he's batting second. I'm certainly not going to tell the Angels what to do, because they've got the best record in baseball. What they're doing is working.

We're all lucky to see this incredible talent.

Without a shadow of a doubt, Mantle was better from the left side of the plate.

Curious which of the 5 tools he's lacking to only be a 4 tool player?

Mike vs Mick
 

I saw Mantle starting in 1959. Even as the knees got creaky he was still a smooth, graceful performer. Comparing Trout to Mantle in my mind is a reasonable match. Let's see what happens in the next few seasons. The Mick had his Triple Crown in his 6th season. I'll be curious what Trout does in his prime.

He does not have a great throwing arm.

Although he’s had an admittedly small sample size so far (three years), he is probably the single best overall player I’ve ever seen play in person – and that’s from a pretty large sample of greats that I’ve watched. Just an amazing talent and a nice guy. I hope he stays healthy and we can watch him doing what he does for another 12-15 years.

To Tell The Truth
 

Some of us are old enough to remember "the next Mickey Mantle"

Both were Yankees.

Both were Okies.

Will the real next Mickey Mantle please stand up?

Bobby Murcer

His SBs and average is down this year but his production numbers are up. He will set career highs in homers and RBIs this season. Depends on what you value, but either way he is incredible.

Trout & Harper
 

I've seen him play a couple of times and he's off to a great start to his career. If he continues at this pace, he'll definitely remain an all-star.

Way too early to compare him to anyone else, HOF or not. I don't understand why the media today feel compelled to always pump up rookies, compare them to past players and put that added pressure on these guys. Being on the east coast I don't hear as much about Trout as I do another player, Bryce Harper.

I cannot count the number of times I hear Harper being compared to Pete Rose. I see Harper play a few times a week at Nats Park. He hustles, can hit towering HRs and make great catches (when he's not running into walls). He's a two-time All Star. He has the potential to be a long term star if he remains healthy. But the constant expectations from him I find ridiculous. So what happens when he doesn't hit a million HRs in a season or when he strikes out when a base hit is needed? People start saying 'oh, he sucks. I thought this kid was supposed to be good.' I hear it all the time while at a game.

Harper has had a couple of injuries this year and missed a good deal of time. People don't understand that if you're on the DL for a month, it's like day one of spring training when you come off the DL. It takes time to find your swing again, get your timing down. And that's what Harper is doing. During a game a couple of weeks ago there was this annoying, know-it-all fan a few seats down from me. The kind of guy who constantly talks throughout the entire game, sometimes about baseball, sometimes about other topics I care not to share. He was a self-proclaimed baseball 'expert' and knows 'everything about everyone'. So when Harper got into the box for the first time, he was shocked at his then .250 batting average. He started a rant about 'how much he sucks, he's no Pete Rose.' I politely leaned over and suggested his average might be down a bit since he's coming off the DL and is working his way back to where he was before. His response? "If he wants to be the next Pete Rose, he needs to be hitting .350." Sigh.

Perhaps it's too easy to pump up a rookie and make millions off of the potential rather than grow fans through long term success. Perhaps we want too much 'now' and lack any sort of patience.

Going back to Trout and not to derail this thread, I hope he continues to play well and earn the money the Angels have decided to pay him. And I hope he is and remains drug-free.

I'm too young to have seen Mantle play in person. Will Trout be the next Mantle? Nobody knows and in my opinion a bit ridiculous to already be making the comparison. Let's see where we are in 10 years. That's when comparisons can start to be made, for Trout, Harper and anyone else.

Well Trout's Strikout average is higher in his first 4 years than Mantles... so he is better at doing that.

I think it's just exciting for people who didn't get to see a player in their prime (like me who never saw Mantle) to see a comparable player. Of course the media has other motivations and loves sensationalism.

Within my generation, I'm looking forward to the days ahead when some 18 year old is being called the next Ken Griffey Jr. and I can tell all of the kids how no one was better than Griffey.

I barely recall Mantle only from televison after his prime, still, his aura was huge from what I recall. I've seen Trout play, he's a player for the ages. It's unreal how Mantle like he is. We should feel blessed as baseball fans to have his enthusiasm for the game, in the game. If you haven't seen him in person, you should.

Bill, beautiful Trout. But if you examine his auto closely, it looks like it reads "New York":)

First time I saw Trout was in 2012 at Seattle. We sat right behind the Angels' dugout. Trout made a point of jogging over to Tori Hunter at the end of each inning and joking around with him all the way to the dugout. When Hunter came out of the game, his replacement tried to talk to Trout on the way in from the outfield after each inning, and each time Trout totally ignored him.

Seemed to me that Trout was letting his 'maybe-a-Mantle' status go to his head quite early in his career.

Wasn't Barry Bonds the next Mantle?

It's a long list. I believe the first one was Bobby Murcer.

So was Kirk Gibson. :rolleyes:

ML history is littered with guys who were studs for 5-8 years, then fell off the charts. Early comparisons are fine, and unavoidable if you follow baseball with any passion, but we'll see if he goes the way of Mattingly, Garciaparra, etc.

As he's a friggin Angel, I sort of hope he fades away in some manner that doesn't involve much pain.

What's gone wrong with Bryce Harper, speaking of can't miss prospects?

I saw Mantle play his first and last games. In ten years ask the question.:)

Not a bad list...

Similar Batters through 21
Compare Stats to Similars

Frank Robinson (957) *
Mickey Mantle (939) *
Orlando Cepeda (929) *
Al Kaline (924) *
Jimmie Foxx (922) *
Vada Pinson (922)
Ted Williams (918) *
Hank Aaron (917) *
Ken Griffey (915)
Tony Conigliaro (907)

* - Signifies Hall of Famer

The Greats of the Game are so revered that it's natural (so to speak) to wonder which of the players we're now watching will join that group.

Why Mantle? Its not even a given that he was the best centerfielder in his era.

I think the comparison is being made to Mantle because Trout is more similar in skills and abilities to Mick than to Mays. That's not to say that Mantle was better than Mays.

It's a status too. As good as Mays was Mantle's name will always be said first. Mantle made a transition into popular culture that Mays did not. Although if the Giants never left NYC who knows what would have happened.

You can't expect every can't miss prospect to live up to their hype the way Strasburg has.

I have my own formula for calculating how great a career someone has had. Using that formula (I acknowledge you have every reason to be skeptical of its validity, but if you trust me...)

I've scaled the scores so pitchers and non-pitchers can be ranked fairly on the same list.

Babe Ruth (1st) scores a 45.7,
Mickey Mantle (21st) scores a 17.0,
and Mike Trout is at a 5.2, which means he's already had one of the 200 greatest total careers in MLB history if he retires today! In all likelihood he moves into the top 100 next year.

Anything over an 8 almost always gets a guy into Cooperstown, so the 5.2 is ridiculous for someone who is at the age when a big league career would normally be starting. If I had to put money on it, I'd say he'll end up ahead of the Mick, but of course [insert your favorite sports cliché here].

IMHO, I think the Angels are mismanaging Trout.

One study that was done (a Saber study?) showed that most players best years were between the ages of 26 - 28 or 27 - 29. That is when everything seemed to jell especially the power numbers.

To me, guys with speed usually are best when they are younger and then the speed goes and they have to adapt as a player. If Trout is already not running as much (by choice or by orders from above) then he/they are limiting his skills and wasting the speed years while trying to force him into the power years which he might be ready for and which the strikeouts show.

No, if Pujols doesn't want Trout running because it distracts him when he is in the box, my suggestion has always been to have Trout lead off, with Hamilton batting second and Pujols third. That way, Trout can run if he wants to and Hamilton has the hole between first and second to try and pull a ball through.

This also makes it harder for opposing defenses to put a shift on. I say this because if nobody is covering third and Trout is successful at stealing second then he can just get up and run to third.

So, to wrap it up, I would let Trout steal as much as possible early in his career to get those numbers up and then let him grow into his power. He could easily be stealing 50 bags a year in his youth and then hitting 40 to 50 home runs a year in his peak years.

David

Anything other than pan-fried in butter with a little salt and pepper, is mismanaging trout. But the Angels also were done with their Salmon a bit early. These two fish should have played for the Marlins.

His health.

He missed 44 games last year and has missed 60 this year.

Mike Trout is the worst thing to happen to Bryce Harper.

I've seen both (Mantle while still in his prime in the early '60's), and to this point, Trout is the closest thing to a young Mantle I've seen in the intervening 50+ years. Watching him brings back the memories of how truly dominant Mantle actually was! He's got a long way to go, however, and lots of things can happen to derail him. Nothing will tell but time, which is why some of the asking prices for Trout border on the absurd, being supported by demand that is either highly speculative, transient (later to move on to the latest and greatest new thing!), or both: $50K for a one of three refractor rookie? $14,999 for a gold refractor rookie? Those cards won't be actually worth that based on true collector demand in your grandchildren's grandchildren's lifetimes!

Great thread!

Larry

Larry, watching all the sales of modern cards at nearby booths in Cleveland this year, I would love to get in on that money. But trying to figure out the logic behind these prices is so much more difficult than pre-war. I'd rather live on food stamps and enjoy my collecting/dealing than tie my brain in a knot by getting involved in modern stuff. I nearly had a seizure when I finally figured out what 'refractor' meant.

a pre-war board not getting modern cards...what a suprise! having a thorough understanding of prewars and dabbling in the speculative nature of modern card collecting, i can say i enjoy both spectrums.

trout early in his career is already producing peak-year rate of many hof heavyweights and it's hard to think he's going to continue at his 10war rate every year...but he has the potential to! even if he settles into the 7-8war for the next 10 years which is totally plausible he'd still be an all-time great. living in socal i get to experience possibly 2 of the all-time greats in their primes, and it's NIRVANA for a baseball fan like me.

...and harper, nothing's wrong with him! he's still younger than most of the top 100 prospects list they put out every year. he'll be fine if matt williams would stop jerking him around (baseball is seemingly in decline because nobody relates to these hard-ass white guys with their unwritten rules...give it a rest brian mccann-types).

+1

I was having this discussion with a friend just the other day. He is huge into the modern card market. (I dabble, but mostly just raw base RC's to keep.) He "prospects" which is basically the same thing everyone did in the late 80's, except he unloads immediately. He argued that certain cards, in particular the 2009 Mike Trout Bowman Chrome AU run will hold near current prices barring the unforeseen cutting his career short. I called him crazy and we debated for awhile. He walked away thinking he was right, and I did the same for myself - except that later I thought about it and.... he could be right.

For starters, the kid has talent (crazy talent) and he's exceptionally marketable for MLB. The fact that a Mantle vs. Trout debate can spring up and not be considered absurd speaks highly for the kid. It highly conceivable for him to go down as the best of his generation. So lets look at his most coveted card/cards (the 2009 Bowman Chrome Auto RC) and compare it to the 1952 Topps Mantle (the most important card of the post-war vintage market.)

Personally I've always argued against manufactured scarcity when compared to authentic scarcity, but after this debate I looked at the issue from a different prospective. For example, the two major variables for vintage cards are scarcity and condition. With the consideration of a vintage card this condition variable can easily range from 0 (Authentic) to 8/9/10 (Mint). With modern cards, however, this range usually shortens from 0-10 to ~8-10. This leaves little in the way of comparison, but if we substitute manufactured scarcity for condition with modern cards a more fair argument can be made.

With the 1952 Topps Mantle, PSA and SGC have combined to grade ~1,500 specimens.
With the 2009 Bowman Chrome Mike Trout Auto PSA and BGS have combined to grade ~1,100 copies.
So they're in the same ballpark with the number of copies on the market. (Copies available on eBay are also similar - ~20 for Mantle ~30 for Trout.)
However, the average grade assigned to the 1952 Topps Mantle by PSA (the card's leading grader) is ~3.7, while the average grade assigned to the 2009 Bowman Chrome Trout by BGS (the card's leading grader) is a much higher 9.2. With condition as point of discussion there is absolutely no way to discuss the cards together. Modern cards simply grade higher because the hobby has become about collecting and preserving.

So lets look at substituting manufactured scarcity for condition for the Trout and comparing the two. As of now the market for the 1952 Topps Mantle is ~$10k - $14k for a PSA 4 depending on the presentation which puts it in the same current market range as the 2009 Bowman Chrome Mike Trout Orange Refractor. The Trout Orange Refractor, however, is limited to just 25 copies while to date PSA has assigned a grade of "4" to 159 Mantles. With this considered, I believe that yes, it is possible for this certain card maintain current levels and even possibly grow. It is highly possible that in the future hobbyist collecting modern cards will chase manufactured scarcity much in the same manner we currently chase high grade vintage cards. If Trout maintains his current production on the field and remains the hobby darling this card will become the "must have" card of this era much like the Mantle is for 1950's-1960's.

I never saw Mantle in person and only on TV in the last few years, so I never really saw his true physical gifts. There is moment in the Ken Burns special that provides a hint. He is shown being thrown out at first base, but MAN, o MAN is he ever fast down that line. He was a great athlete before his knees gave way.

As far as impact on the BBC hobby, no one comes close to Mantle. He was the first TV superstar and therefore, had fans throughout the nation...even if they were not Yankees fans.

Willie Mays was actually better in almost all measurable ways, but suffers from the side of the hobby that no one likes to talk about. It is difficult for us to admit it, but it is true. We (at least a lot of us) like to say that we collect a certain player because, we (at least on the inside) can identify with him more...but, is that all it is...I wonder.

Trout is a great young player, but let's not forget the many 'bridges' between Mays & Mantle and Trout...like Ken Griffey, Jr.- certainly one of the best I have ever seen.

Speaking of short memories, it seems like every few years the title of 'best pitcher in baseball' bounces to a new owner...I remember Halliday and Verlander being praised exactly the way Kershaw is being now...how very fleeting fame is, huh?

Trout and Mantle
 

I was old enough to have seen Mantle play, but I didn't really take much interest in MLB action until the 1970 World Series when I was ten years old and instantly became an Oriole fan for life after watching the Human Vacuum Cleaner that Brooks Robinson was. Having said that, my opinion is that OPS is a very good indicator of how good a player is as a batter. Trout is good, but he is no Mickey Mantle. I am no fan of Mantle, but it's going to take some doing to reach his lifetime .977 OPS. And that OPS was posted after four years of serious decline toward the end of Mick's career. Advantage: Mickey Mantle

Forget the current population reports. There are far fewer Mike Trout 2009 Bowman Chrome autos than there are 1952 Topps Mickey Mantles. Assuming Topps has the same tiers, there are 2,676 2009 Bowman Chrome Mike Trout autos-1,695 base autos, 500 refractor autos, 250 x-fractor autos, 150 blue refractor autos, 50 gold refractor autos, 25 orange refractor autos, 5 red refractor autos, and a superfractor. And of those, Beckett graded 9s or higher will command a premium.

When I was a kid Roger Repoz was supposed to be the next Mickey Mantle!

One thing i havent seen yet in this thread is or was mantle had some tremendous speed and could lay down a helluva bunt. I dont think to many players in mlb can bunt properly today.

with the mondern analytical approach mantle would never be allowed to bunt today...that'd be a waste of an ab for him, or trout, or harper.

Great point - he was the king of the drag bunt. Someone else mentioned Trout striking out a lot. It seems like with all the emphasis on the long ball there are more strikeouts and fewer bunt-for-hits. Fans don't want to pay for 'small ball'.

I also remember hearing that Walter Johnson pretty much only threw a fastball, and obviously got away with it. Perhaps all the 'new' pitches and larger rosters (meaning fresher pitchers in the same game, fewer looks at the same guy) is partly why even a guy like Trout strikes out a lot. Mantle might have done the same.

Danny - I did mention his speed...check post #38 - he was amazing!

When there are 96 versions of a player's rookie card, it's hard for me to get excited because the player puts some chicken scratch illegible "autograph "on a sticker that gets attached to the card and the manufacturer decides to print only 10 of a particular color. :D

Stop it Peter - you're making my heart race.

Typical modern autograph card. 4 years at Stanford?

Mr. Trout has a damn nice sig too!!

As opposed to standing in a line for an hour, and paying $100 for Mickey Mantle to sign his card in between trips to the bar. :p

BTW, there's no sticker in the Trout card I posted, or the one you posted. That's why I prefer the Bowman Chrome cards. They're always on card autos.