There's an obvious way to rank active players without wishcasting on their future: rank them based on what they've done already.
Given what's he's done already, it's obvious that Trout isn't a top-20 player. I don't think I've seen anyone here disagree with that. ESPN's ranking is too high. (But then their list is terrible for lots of other reasons as well.)
FWIW, he's 75th all-time in WAR. Sandwiched between Bobby Wallace and Paul Molitor. Subjectively, that feels about right. If he were to retire tomorrow, he'd be a deserving but not top-tier hall of famer.
Now, that's probably not where he's going to end up. I'm still pretty confident that Trout will end up being a top-20 player. He's not there yet, and so shouldn't be ranked there yet. But from the fact that we don't know where he'll end up at the end of his career, it doesn't follow that we can't rank him now, given what he's already accomplished. (With the acknowledgement that the list will need to be revised in the future.)
|