I hope you are right and that is not a bad estimation but I do not think he will age well and I think as he gets older his time to recover will be longer. So 3 to 4 years maybe and then I think it will tail off

I hope you are right and that is not a bad estimation but I do not think he will age well and I think as he gets older his time to recover will be longer. So 3 to 4 years maybe and then I think it will tail off.

The only thing that might prolong it and make it more doable is if moves to the DH role sooner then later

The injuries may all be unrelated, but if nothing else it seems he has lost his karma. So much missed time since 2017. And while he seemed healthy until this latest injury, he was definitely a level off from his top game. I am more pessimistic than optimistic.

Going by WAR, Trout is ranked as the 52nd greatest player of all time, below Wade Boggs and Chipper Jones. I think he is a top 100 great, but not a top 50.

Also, I agree that Kiner was not as good, but other than average, many of the numbers are very close. Kiner retired at 32 due to a bad back.

His position today is still pretty impressive. He's right below Boggs and Chipper but they're not playing anymore and he's 31.

By the JAWS metric he's already the 5th best CF of all time.

I noted in a prior post that the new math is very kind to Trout. The baseball card numbers like Runs, RBIs, hits and homers have him way behind players like Aaron and Mays. I'm not saying he's Jose Vizcaino.

I hope he does well and plays as long as Rickey Henderson. I'm guessing his future is more like Britney Spears, where the next generation does not know who he is. Hopefully, we can revisit the topic as the years go by.

Well of course he's way behind Aaron and Mays they both played twice as long. So?

I am a bit biased in favor of the old timers, as I would expect to find here, but some of these takes are just completely divorced from any objective reality.

I mentioned Rickey Henderson. If Trout plays well for 15 more years hitting .300 with 30 homers, I will be wishing I had bought all of his baseball cards instead of making fun of him on a card site. I'm an Astros fan, so I am biased. When I see him play, I'm rooting for him to hit into a double play. The stats show he is elite when it comes to not hitting into a double play.

Also, maybe I'm wrong about the generational ignorance thing. Maybe it's a France thing with Wemby and Spears. Do French people know who Mike Trout is?

I didn't see Ralph Kiner play. His bio says he led the National League in home runs 7 years in a row. Does Trout have a stat like that, one that tells a story, and draws a fan in? Not Rbat, or WRC+.

Yeah it's called 3 MVPs and 3 second places, 1 or 2 of which should have been 1sts.

Steve Nash has 2 MVP's. I don't want people to get upset by saying Trout is baseball's answer to Steve Nash.

MVP's are popularity awards given out by the media. I know that Mike Trout is astoundingly popular. In fantasy literature they call what he has 'charisma.'

If I were to debate on his side, I would say, "Led the AL in runs from 2012-2014 and 2016. Leads all active players in career slugging and on-base average."

Like you say, he's only 31. I'm ready to see how he fares next season. If he goes to the Astros to finish his career, I'll be finding all kinds of nuggets and zingers in support of him.

In Trout's case he won because he was hands down the best player in the league and probably all of baseball. You may be the one denier on the planet who knows.

Sometimes, I wonder if there is any subject at all that a rational discussion can be had about on this board. It would get boring if it happened, but maybe just once a year or so would be nice to show it is possible.

Greg, you guys are saying that I'm untethered from reality and unworthy of debating when I say Trout could be another Duke Snider in 2 more years.

Is Trout the greatest player of all time in everyone's mind but mine? I doubt it.

I'd say his greatest stat is his OPS. Here he is at 12 for this stat, next to Mark McGwire. I'm not saying he's a bad player. I'm saying he's not Babe Ruth. Manny Ramirez in 6 years, maybe. Trout's percentages will be going down, not up.

I think we could all agree, that Trout, at his peak, was an absolute monster. But even assuming his health is perfect going forward, his counting numbers will go up, while his percentages go down.

Sticking with the Mantle comparison, which in my opinion I feel is most apt, here are there numbers through roughly, the same amount of games played.

As we can see, their careers are pretty close. Time will tell, if Trout falls off a cliff, due to health concerns. Again, I do not think this is the end for him, but I could be wrong.

Nobody is claiming that he is the greatest player of all time (what post is that?), much less everyone. That's a fiction and you know it :rolleyes:. Nobody is saying it is not possible he could have Snider's downfall (what post is that?). Nobody is claiming that he is Babe Ruth level (what post do you think this happened in?).

I know shifting the goalpost to defending a bad argument by making up a completely different argument to argue against is a forum favorite. What I am saying is that the arguments actually made in this thread, which has a reviewable transcript and there cannot be debate about what actually was said, are completely disconnected from objective fact.

What we are saying is that Trout's upside potential is not Jeff Bagwell (post 34), a player he is clearly peak better than and by many metrics has already surpassed for a career. I am saying that it is absolutely ridiculous to compare his downside to players he has achieved multiples of the value of (post 34). I am saying that dismissing his MVP's because Steve Nash may not have deserved his and Trout is charismatic (is he? He's boring as heck) is silly, as he was very obviously deserving and really has been shortchanged, if anything (post 62). I am saying that arguing Trout needs to hit .300 with 30 homers for another 15 years to meet your standard is ridiculous, that your expectation that he needs to perform at a top level until he is 46 is nonsensical (post 60). I am saying that the team one likes, be it the Angels, the Astros or the local T-Ball team does not need to make us deny what is very obvious. Trout is a great player; his upside is not Jeff Bagwell and he doesn't need to hit .300 until 46 for that to be true, and you surely know it. He does not need another 6 years of top notch performance to match Manny Ramirez, who by most value stands he has also already passed (post 65). Even against roid era offense, he more than holds up and generates more value. These are ridiculous arguments, devoid of reality.

Personally, I think the modern analytics skew heavily towards Trout because they are written with a series of assumptions and values to benefit the way we have played the game for the last ~30 years. I rate Trout lower than they do, probably below most here, but I can't deny the obvious. This dude is no Victor Martinez or Jeff Bagwell. Nor is he likely to be a negative player for the lat half decade of his career. At some point we have to set aside our narratives and start to deal with objectivity to be reasonable people. Just claiming hot takes that don't hold up to even 2 minutes of inquiry isn't reasonable.

Right, so, I'm not a solemn person. I joke around a lot, and this is a baseball card board. I named Victor Martinez because the baseball stat website algorithm generated his name when I was looking at Trout's numbers, and I thought it was funny.

I started naming better and better players, and I got the sense that some were insulted until I said Aaron, Mays and Ruth.

Griffey Jr, Bagwell, Kiner, Snider, Ramirez, and as James says, Mantle, are all-time greats. Trout would be proud to be mentioned with these names.

Trout has 2 years to pass Bagwell in runs, hits, doubles, homers, rbi. They are basically tied in stolen bases and batting average.

As you do not mean them, then surely you understand precisely why I said they are "devoid of reality" and it is not a "rational discussion", and need not object to that in 65 and come up with false arguments to argue against that not a single person actually made.

I meant all of my posts. My opinion is that his ceiling is 2nd tier hofer, and his floor is borderline hofer. To be mentioned with Aaron he needs to play well for 15 more years.

You didn't reply with any serious thoughts until I said "Ruth". It's like the movie analogy. I'm not going to change your mind. You could change my mind if you had an argument like he led the league in RBI 8 years in a row or something.

Of course you won't, the argument Trout is, in his best outcome, a 2nd tier HOFer and his floor is borderline HOFer is completely disconnected from objective reality and is nonsensical hot take. He gets elected in five years on the first ballot if he never plays another game, and we all know it. Your opinion is contrary to the math and objectivity. 3 MVP's, probably deserved another 1 or 2, 174 OPS+, 85.2 WAR, .301/.412/.582, OPS+ crown five years in a row. He is obviously one of the greats.

I swear we could have a thread asking if the sun rises in the morning and somebody will argue it doesn't :rolleyes:

Ok now that we've established that Mike Trout is a fraud and not the best player in baseball for the past 10 years, in the same vein can we work on how Sandy Koufax is more like Goose Gossage and had half the careers of Bert Blyleven and Don Sutton? :)

#mikescott4life

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

For me Mike Trout is the Real Deal and is a first Ballot Hall of Famer but to me his inability to stay healthy and on the field is preventing me to escalate him to the upper echelon of the Hall of Fame Greats. Plus to me without the playoffs and without the World Series games and victories that is also a factor.
And yes many greats have no World Series Victories but the True Greats of the Game that are elevated above the other greats seem to have that.
Especially last 40 plus years its all about the Rings. Sad but True

The rings argument is the one that always blows my mind. Baseball is such a team driven sport, Trout could have a god like year, and the Angels could still finish in third place.

I definitely think his recent string of injuries have made many question where he will actually end up in Baseball history. As it's been said, many times, only time will tell.

I will also say, while I would love to see him finish out his career with the Angels. I have a feeling, that he will eventually be moved to an east coast team. I know he grew up watching the Phillies, it wouldn't surprise me if he ended up there.

Nice post. Ha-Ha. You responded in kind. It does kind of sound like something I would say in a HOF debate.

Koufax was great, as is Trout. Man, I dunno, Goose Gossage was really good, too. Sutton is an all-time great. I won't go on.

It depends on what counting stats you are referring too. WAR Trout 85.3 Pujols 101.5 Walks Trout 964 Pujols 1373. The only things that matter to the modern player are walks, HR and WAR and Trout does have a chance to pass Pujols in two of the three.

I think you missed the memo that winning games no longer matters, theoretical wins is all that we care about now, it's called WAR. It is more important that Trout is worth more than 9 theoretical wins per 162 games than the fact that the Angels only win 2 more real games per 162 with Trout in the lineup than with him out.

WAR is not a counting stat. A successful baseball team depends on more than just 1 player. Having someone like Trout with an individual WAR of 9 or 10 doesn't mean they're winning the World Series or even making the playoffs. Ted Williams career WAR is 121.8 and he played in 1 World Series. I don't think anyone would argue he's not an all time great. I'm not saying Trout is as good as Williams, but it's hard to argue that the Angels would have been better off without him than with him throughout his career.

Trout surpassed Bagwell, Snider and do I even need to say it Kiner quite some time ago. Maybe next we can argue Kershaw still has a ways to go to match Jamie Moyer or Bartolo Colon.

I don't understand, but I'll move on after this. I haven't put Bonds numbers on here because it's not fair to Trout. The numbers are vastly greater for Bonds.

Look at the numbers for Bagwell , runs, hits, 2b, HR, RBI etc


How has Trout surpassed Bagwell? That's why I said, "Charisma". Trout is better than Bagwell, not by a numbers-based argument, but, rather it's some sort of position that Trout has a je ne sais quoi, that Bagwell never had.

WAR is not perfect but probably the best tool we have for comparing players relative to their time. Trout's 162 game average is 9.3 Bagwell's was 6.0. That's a huge delta.

Trout has won 3 MVPs, finished 2nd 3 times, and 3rd once. He is absolutely the dominant player of his time, so far. Who is even close? Bagwell I believe won 1 MVP and might have finished 3rd a couple of times. He was not close to being the best player of his time. Off the top of my head, Bonds, Griffey, and ARod were better, at a minimum. And likely others. Manny Ramirez probably although I haven't studied his numbers. Maybe Frank Thomas.

Points taken. Sounds good. Frank Thomas and Bagwell are comps I think.

Quan brought up Mike Scott, I'll start my own thread on that one day. That 1986 Cy Young year, whoa...Cheers

Look at those per 162. Look at that OPS+. Look at the era context. To claim that at his best, as has been repeatedly claimed, Trout's ceiling is to be roughly equal to Jeff Bagwell is utterly and completely devoid of a mathematical basis.

B.J. Surhoff has more hits than Jeff Bagwell. He's better than Bagwell. Tom Brown scored more runs than Jeff Bagwell, he's better. Adam Dunn ended up with more home runs than Bagwell, he's better. A reasonable person would see how ridiculous and illogical those arguments are and be cognizant that while playing time matters, it is not everything, and it is almost completely irrelevant when one is basing it not on career value but on their upside performance ceiling.

A reasonable argument could probably be had if we looked at if Trout's 85.2 WAR vs. Bagels 79.9 is a good standard, has Trout up to today actually produced more value in his much shorter career? But that take isn't hot enough, evidently.

Can't wait to see what the next ridiculous argument based on an absurd bias is. Maybe we can debate if Ted Simmons was better than Johnny Bench because he accumulated a bit more in raw traditionals over a longer time.

At 31, Trout is a 10 time All Star with 3 MVP awards. At 31, Jeff Bagwell was a 4 time All Star with 1 MVP award. It seems cut and dry to me.

Probably the same guy who compared Bobby Grich to Derek Jeter.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Best 5 seasonal totals...

Bagwell Runs Trout
152................. 129
143................. 123
126....................115
124....................110
111....................109

HR
48........................39
43........................39
40........................32
37.........................32
37.........................28

RBI

135.......................111
132.......................104
130........................100
126........................97
120........................90

Wins v Replacement Player %
8.2...........................10.5
7.7...........................10.5
7.5............................9.9
7.4............................9.6
6.3............................8.9


Bagwell played 15 seasons and Trout has played 13.


Trout is 31 and Ohtani is 28. Do you guys concede that Ohtani is better than Trout from the eye test? I don't see Ohtani catching Trout in what you guys call "counting stats."

Check out Ty Cobb's home run totals.

Can anyone give a coherent argument that Runs, RBI's and HR's over a career or season is NOT a counting stat?

Some of this crap is just absolutely ridiculous lol

If you enjoy betting

What would the over/under be on the # of times Trout Plays in the Playoffs/