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.

Although, I will give you that at least when Mantle signed his card, it was a legible signature. If it were up to me, Topps would cut the number of signed cards down to about 1/5 so the person signing would take their time so you could actually read who it is signing. Trout's not even the worst signature out there, as sad as that may be.

The difference speaks volumes, to me. A 21 year old being paid megamilions can't even bother to sign his 9 letter name. Pathetic.

IMHO, steroids killed the bunt. Yes, managers are still stupid enough too call for position players to lay down a sac bunt but most of them can't even do that.

In the pre-steroid era, guys knew the strengths and weaknesses and also their place on the team. Little guys with no power were supposed to make contact and either get on base or move guys over for the power guys. The power guys were supposed to swing for the fences and not take marginal pitches that may or may not be called balls.

Then the Steroid Era happened.

After that, EVERYBODY was swinging for the fences. They didn't care about fundamentals only get extra base hits. Why? MONEY!!!!!

The more power you displayed, the bigger your arbitration raises were, the bigger your free agent contracts were, the bigger your contract extensions were and the more likely you were to be able to stick around a few years after you normally would have retired.

So, for almost 20 years, guys got into the habit of swinging away and NOT caring about striking out or doing things fundamentally right. Why should they? Doing things the fundamentally RIGHT way took real work and practice. Not much work or practice needed to take steroids, lift weights and then swing from the heels EVERY plate appearance.

Because of that, the same attitude has trickled down to the lowest levels of baseball. Young kids now don't want to work at things. They just want to swing away.

This is why if I were an owner of a MLB team, I would MAKE guys at the lowest level learn how to bunt, at least for hits. If they didn't or couldn't, I would either trade them away or ORDER the managers to NOT have them try and bunt.

David

Seems like your referencing Stairs or Brady Anderson :). I pretty much disagree with everything you have said, literally everything.

Have you ever been to a professional practice? Have you ever seen these coaches teach these kids on the field? I have and you're way off. Saying they don't learn to bunt is absurd, and bunting is a huge part of the game still today. How do you think the smaller market teams have success, playing the right way with fundamentals and small ball strategy. My Twins have been doing it for over a decade.

Guys still know their rolls, it's not like you have a Willie Mays Hays lead off hitter swinging out if his britches. Look at the reinvention of Dee Gordon, that has been fun to watch. This was his make or break season. Kid literally can't hit, but because of proper COACHING and the teaching of FUNDAMENTALS he is running mad, and getting on base. I believe he has over 50 infield hits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Brent, everything you say is of course true;however, the smaller market teams also have MUCH lower payrolls, meaning a lot of guys who know basic small-ball skills that don't translate to HR's and thus high salaries. The big-market teams like the Yankmees have the more popular HR-hitters that cost a lot of money. They can afford them and they can afford to lose to your small-ball Twins (or similar), because they are big market and bring in the associated bucks. If bunting and other small-ball skills (and actual team play) were rewarded with $$$, then the Yankees would be going that route, but unlike the Twins, they don't have to. Funny how all that money doesn't translate directly to championships anymore. That should tell us something.

I think it's that players are playing for individual accomplishments rather than focusing on winning. That's just what I've taken from it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I remember Miguel Tejada a few years back when he was with the SF Giants and he was asked to bunt. You could see on his face the displeasure and insult he felt being asked to bunt. Like it was below a former MVP. I think he failed on purpose to swing away. He was released by the Giants soon after.

You know I was just giving you a hard time. We're on the same page. Though, I don't know how much of the fault I'd lay at Trout's feet. When they had him come in to sign, he likely did the nearly 3,000 Bowman Chrome cards in one sitting. Then he had to do the Bowman Sterling and Platinum stickers, though they were probably done at a different time.

I think the most blame should be laid at the feet of the card companies. Autos sell their ridiculously expensive boxes. Something like Topps Museum, or Topps Tier 1, will cost upwards of $200 a box. And you get like 8 cards per box.

Topps owns Bowman. They are the only company with the MLB license agreement. The other card companies cannot use team logos. So Topps can print as many different sets as they want every year, and they're out of control. Per my count (and I may be missing something), Topps will have released a total of 25 different baseball lines by the end of the season. Think I'm kidding?

Sports Card Radio release calendar 2014

Bowman, Bowman Chrome, Bowman Draft Picks & Prospects
Bowman Sterling
Bowman Platinum
Topps Chrome
Topps Series 1 & 2
Topps Elite
Topps Museum
Topps Tier 1
Topps Heritage
Allen & Ginter
Topps Tribute
Topps Turkey Red
Gypsy Queen
Topps Opening Day
Topps MLB Chipz
Topps Pro Debut Baseball
Topps Archives Baseball
Topps Finest Baseball
Topps Heritage Minor League
Topps Supreme Baseball
Topps Update Baseball
Topps Stadium Club Baseball
Topps Dynasty Baseball
Topps High Tek Baseball
Topps Five Star Baseball

And almost all these lines will want Trout to sign. Yes, Trout signs the contract, but think of how many stupid autos he has to sign. It's ridiculous.

Remember when you collected as a kid, Peter? Remember when it was possible to do a master collection of your favorite player? You may have had only Topps. You may have had Topps, Donruss and Fleer. You may have also had Upper Deck. But each released one set. It wasn't hard to get the 4 cards for your favorite player.

Now it's next to impossible to get all the players, or even anywhere near all the players. Trout is in his third season. Know how many cards are listed on his Beckett checklist?

2,282
The number of Mike Trout cards in Beckett's database.

Good luck trying to get those, kid.

I have a few close friends in MLB and the NFL, and how the card signings goes are that they literally give them stacks of whatever that set is, all of the cards. Then, the company gives them a deadline for them ALL to be signed by. So they can do this at their own leisure. That is why you see late additions in sets, also if cards "run out" from a company that you had a redemption for, it is because that player did not sign the quantities needed.

Then, off the to next cards or stickers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True Hobby Bliss ended with the 1981 issues...how appropriate there was also a players strike that year.

2282
 

Bill, that is startling, truly. And I thought 2001 and the number of Pujols cards was out of control -- last time I paid any attention to the shiny stuff.

Trout vs Mantle : Great Post/Question...
 

I have not read through all the posts, so if the facts/comparison have been posted on their careers thus far, then please pardon me if this is repeat info... I am very curious regarding the OP's post, so I went to BR for a comparison.

Trout & Mantle both started at 19 years old, so we have 4 years to look at, with Mantle having 100 more AB's at this point. (The AB's should be about even by end of season, so we can update these stats, as Trout will accrue more stats over the next 100 AB's) :

Mantle (5 ft 11 - 195 lbs):

AB's 1,894
Hits 561
Home Runs 84
RBI's 346
Runs 389
SB 25
OBP. .387
BA. .267, .311, .295, .300
SLG .443, .530, .497, .525
OPS .792, .924, .895, .933
K's 382

Trout (6'1 - 210 lbs) :

AB's 1781
Hits 547
Home Runs 92
RBI's 290
Runs 349
SB 99
OBP .372
BA. .220, .326, .323, .290
SLG .390, .564, .557, .559
OPS .672, .963, .988, .934
K's 453

- My opinion after comparing stats is these 2 players are mirrors of each other after 4 years of play. One bloated category that Trout has over Mantle is Stolen Bases, but Mantle makes up for the SB's with less K's by a reasonable margin. The remaining stat categories are about the same. Obviously Mantles legend is incredible, and we know that Trout is the best overall player in the game at present, and I have been watching ball for 35 years and have not seen a better all around player in their first 4 years. (I would put Pre-PED Bonds right behind Trout) With that being said, I will have to defer to the guys who saw Mantle play the OF on a regular basis for comparisons in the field. I know Trout is an absurd athlete who is incredible in the field, so I am guessing they are either a push in the OF or Trout is slightly better. (You weigh in...)

Final Conclusioin = We are witnessing a modern day Mickey Mantle. Both are tit for tat through 4 years. The only question for me, is can Trout do it for 10 more years?

thru 4 years there is no comparison, trout has been the better player ainec. it's like comparing pre-juicing bonds to a ped-bonds (and bonds was pretty great pre-juice!)

I think a better comparison would be to compare Trout to Griffey Jr.

There was only one Mickey Mantle. Period.

+1....

Hi, Scott. The "logic" behind it is that if you get a hot card, preferably with a very low print run, of a player who seems at a very early stage to have top flight HOF potential, pick a number to sell it for immediately, then put 4 zeros behind that number before the player sustains a serious injury, simply loses it overnight as the pitchers adjust to him and he fails to return the favor, or he is exposed as a PED user! Prices are based upon speculation (with an overly large % of buyers intending not to keep the card for a collection, but to flip it for profit asap), or transient demand which is quick to depart for the next latest and greatest thing! IMHO, if you're going to buy current players, buy them when they are in their downslide in their late 30's (assuming they are good enough to still be around by then), when most of the above transient demand has departed the scene.

Best of luck,

Larry

A collecting friend of mine had a discussion similar to this back in the early to mid-nineties. One problem with Trout cards is that there are so many of them, which unavoidably fragments demand. You can't look at a gold refractor rookie and say, "well, there's only 50 of them" and have that fact be meaningful, when he may have 89 other "rookies," which will satisfy the demand for many collectors. Our conclusion was that it essentially does not matter if you produce a million of the same card for the player's rookie, or a million different cards, one of each. The value will be the same.

Sincerely,

Larry

Well put. The manufacturers seem to have done a good job of creating artificial demand for cards artificially limited in supply, but I have my doubts whether those values will really persist. For example, there's nothing particularly valuable about a Mike Trout autograph, I am sure by the time he's done he will have signed countless times, if he has not already. And there's nothing inherently meaningful about a gold versus silver versus blue card; one could create the same artificial scarcity by putting out a regular version of a card and a few with a red dot. So what?

A huge DITTO to what Bob says here.


Fortunately, I'm old enough to have seen Mickey play when I was growing up (1951-1968). He generated a lot of excitement when he came to bat (Lefty or Righty).

Like Babe Ruth....Mantle hit some of the longest HR's ever hit in the game. For example, I recall this tremendous drive (shown in this photo) that Mantle hit in the bottom of the 11th
inning of a 7-7 game (May 22, 1963). As the ball soared into the night sky, we thought it was going out of the park. But, it hit the RF roof facade in Yankee Stadium. It was projected
that it would have traveled 700+ feet if it had cleared Yankee Stadium.



http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...nkeeStad25.jpg



Here's another "monster HR" at old Griffith Stadium (April 12, 1953) that traveled 565 feet.

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...xMantle50x.jpg


For sheer excitement......it just doesn't get any better than these events. .


Look guys, comparing "stats numbers" just doesn't do it......you had to see Mickey play in order to appreciate this man......and, what he brought to the game.
And, it's irrelevant whether you are a Yankees fan, or not.

As far as I am concerned....for now, this debate is over....and DONE ! Only time will tell us if Trout was as good as Mantle.



TED Z
.

Ted -- sorry to throw a little cold water on the Paul Bunyan story but here is SABR's analysis of that home run.

One other aspect of misrepresentation should be explored. Again, the vast talents of Herculean Mickey Mantle have been comprised by individuals who have unwittingly perpetrated a hoax. Let it be emphasized that the mighty Mick was undoubtedly one of baseball's all time longest hitters. He was an honest, sometimes even self-effacing individual, who was never known to overstate his accomplishments. It is due to his immense popularity and constant involvement in the tape measure process that he is often thrust into the muddle of misrepresentation. By his own account he hit the longest home run of his career on May 22, 1963 at Yankee Stadium. The ball struck the facade on the right-field roof approximately 370 feet from home plate and 115 feet above field level. Almost everyone in attendance believed that the ball was still rising when it was interrupted in midflight by the roof structure. Based upon that belief, this drive has commonly been estimated at about 620 feet if left unimpeded. However, the reality is that the ball was already on its way down, and those reporting the trajectory were victimized by a common optical illusion. It is a scientific fact that if Mantle, or anyone else, had sufficient strength to hit a ball that was still traveling upward when it met the towering facade, he would also have enough strength to clear that same facade by a distance of at least 100 feet. In order for the ball to be rising at roof level, it would have to have been traveling at a lower angle than that which produces maximum distance. If Mantle had provided the same power or velocity, but had launched the ball at a higher and more efficient angle, it would have passed out of Yankee Stadium at a height of over 200 feet! Mantle hit the facade on two or perhaps three occasions, but never cleared it. By his own admission, during his 18-year career at Yankee Stadium, which included thousands of swing variables, he hit several balls to right field in an optimum manner. If he had the power to clear the roof by over 100 feet, he surely would have cleared it marginally on many occasions.

Peter
 

Hey guy, don't be sorry to" throw a little cold water"....with the high humidity this week, I would appreciate it :)

I recall that tremendous blast; and, I thought at its highest point that it had leveled off. Against the dark nite sky this was quite easy to see. So, I'm not sure of
the reports that the trajectory of the ball was starting to drop.

In any event, it was one of the most extraordinary prodigious drives of a baseball ever seen. And, what made it more exciting was that it was (using the current
popular expression) a "walk-off" HR to finalize a long night at Yankee Stadium.

620 feet was the projected distance back in May 1963. However, over the years its been extended to "700+ feet" by some who have embellished this event.

So, whatever the number is, one thing is for certain, it was one of the most dramatic HR's ever hit in BaseBall history.


TED Z
.

Thanks Larry - I didn't realize it was so simple!


Does anyone here believe Ted stopped growing up in 1968? :)

Mantle was already LEGENDARY when I was a kid in the early '60s, as was Willie Mays. Even at the tail-end of his career, the word 'Mantle' or 'Mays' meant something other-worldly to kids my age. Of course, 'Maris' had almost-similar status until he got traded to the Cardinals, as it took quite a long time for the '61' thing to wear off. 'BABE RUTH' was the other legendary baseball name, but you could still get a Mickey Mantle or Willie Mays baseball card when I was a kid, which made them even more special. As far as comparing Trout to Mantle, versus Mays, I think Mays would also be a valid comparison. I really don't understand how a lot of people put Mays and Mantle in different categories as far as 'legendariness' (coined term - one nickel to me if you decide to use it). Kids my age were awed by both equally, but maybe that was only in Texas since we had no particular affinity for things from either coast. And race really played no part in it - the pitchers who inspired us were Marichal, Gibson, Drysdale and Koufax, and Denny McLain for the one big year.

I've said this before, and I don't think anyone really gets it - if the kids weren't all that excited about pulling a player's card from a wax pack, then he shouldn't even be considered for the HOF. I know, it's not based on statistics, but believe me - kids took their statistics very seriously, so that also played into it. I can't remember a kid ever saying, "But Niekro for Drysdale is a great deal - look at how steady Niekro is performing over a long period with a team that no one cares about", or "Oh boy! I pulled a Blyleven!!!" Didn't happen.

I digress, but my point is that Mantle was the man (as was Mays). If Trout is 'the man' 10 years from now, and his name is mentioned in the same sentence as either Mantle or Mays, then you've got your answer. Hopefully we won't be hearing it mentioned with Bobby Murcer.

I have told this story before but it seems worth telling again. When I was first out of college, had a job and had some money to spend on baseball cards, I put advertisements in small town local papers looking to buy.

I bought two different collections of cards from two different guys. Both had collected the cards as boys and both had collected from the late 1950's until the early 1960's. Both were selling to raise money for one thing or another.

Both collections had star cards and high number cards. Both guys didn't mind selling the star cards and high numbers. However, both guys wanted to keep the cards of one player - Mickey Mantle.

So, even though the Mantle cards were some of the highest value cards and the guys were selling to make money for other things, they just couldn't part with their Mantle's.

David

There was always something magical about pulling a Mantle from a pack. I don't think finding a chunk of gold would have been any more satisfying for a kid back then.

As has been often discussed, Mays of course was just as wondrous a player, and eventually his numbers were better. And he played a number of years in New York. Yet his cards in a typical year sell for a fraction of a Mantle. I suppose one could say race is the difference, but I think (and hope) that it's not that simple.

Peter, 'race' is often the card played when logic eludes. I think 'Yankee' is a more likely explanation. Regarding the card price comparison, it's the same for autographs.

Please, please don't use the "race" card !
 

Peter

Those of us who followed the three New York teams back in the 1940's and 1950's rooted for our teams. Regardless, of which team you favored back then......
everyone in our neighborhood rooted for Jackie Robinson, Roy Campanella, Don Newcombe, Willie Mays, Monte Irvin, Elston Howard, etc, etc.

Furthermore, I'll never forget when (as an 11-year old) in the Fall of 1949 when we were in the schoolyard opening up fresh packs of 1949 Bowman cards; and,
one kid shouted out...."I got a Satchell Paige card" !

http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/t...leroypaige.jpg

This was exciting, as all of us gathered around him to see Paige's rookie card, and hold it, and read his bio. Also, when these Hi #'s were more available, we got
excited to get a Larry Doby card (since he was a local Jersey boy).


As much as he was a fan favorite, the problem with Mays is that he has become quite a bitter person in recent years. And, he is turning off a lot of his fans. I see
Mays in Cooperstown every Summer on HOF weekend, and he is not a "friendly" guy.


TED Z

Ted, I think you are correct, but why did attitude not affect the value of Ted Williams' stuff? (you know - the 'other' Ted :))

Like Mays, I think Hank Aaron has also been the victim of his own attitude. As a kid, his card was just a notch below Mays and Mantle, but when, in later life, I read his negative comments toward Texas, expressed because of the racism he had to endure when playing there, I lost a lot of respect for him. I lived in East Texas, where racism was as bad as anywhere in Texas, and Aaron was just a great baseball player - plain and simple. Perhaps the adults were as bad as he portrayed them, but kids loved him - we didn't realize that to him we were just little racists who hadn't yet grown up to be losers. Guys like Aaron and Mays make you appreciate Jackie Robinson that much more.

Note to Hank and Willie: Old and bitter is no way to spend your golden years.

If the Giants had stayed in New York I have no doubt Willie Mays cards would be valued the same as Mantle.

I disagree. While I do think you have a point that it may have made some difference, still not equal to Mantle...