The future of Mike Trout
 

He's been OK this year so far but not his usual spectacular self. Are we seeing the next Albert Pujols -- an absolutely unreal first ten years followed by another ten years at a much reduced level -- or will he turn it around and stay among MLBs handful of best players for at least a few more years?

We're never again seeing the version of him from 7-10 years ago, but I think he will produce better than Pujols down the stretch of his career.

Agreed. Guy played like a first ballot hall of famer and more for the first half of his career and will play like a really good player for his second half. Not a bad gig if you can get one.

I think he has another MVP in him. I guess it can be said this season is his "worst" season statistically but he's still pretty good with his 132 OPS+. I think he snaps out of it too and ends the season hitting closer to 280 than 250.

Great player and I think he will keep producing but not at his Prime Levels but his years will still be better than most players

The Key is health. As long as he stays healthy he will keep producing

Just a shame his first year in the playoffs is this year(if they make it as they are playing well but on the bubble)
Would love to have seen him in the playoff in years past.

He's talked this year about the fact that he knows he's not performing like his usual self, and he thinks it's a mechanical issue. It's funny because a "down" year for Trout, is better than most of baseball produces at their best. I'll reserve judgment until the season is over, on his overall performance.

I'm not concerned with his future, I think if he put together two to three years in a row of this, then that would be a cause for concern. However we've seen with plenty of players them having an off year, only to storm back and put up numbers like they normally do. One recent example of this that I can think of is Goldschmidt.

I don't think he has much time left in Centerfield. Maybe a move to a corner outfield spot is in order, or eventually first base. I'd say to DH him more, but Ohtani currently occupies that spot, and that won't change unless the Angels lose him in free agency.

EDIT:

Looking at his numbers, assuming he has his health for the rest of his contract, he could join the elite group of 3000 hits and 500 Homers. Perhaps even more home runs, if he's able to keep his power performance up.

I hope his future is in Philly.

Agreed I would take him on my team even with his “down year”

He signed a 10 year deal with the Angels in 2019.

I think he's an Angel for life, unless they really don't come close to winning anything within the next five or so years and they trade him to a contender to give him a shot at winning a ring, at the tail end of his career.

I know about the contract. But via trade maybe. I do not think he would block a trade to the Phils.

Trout for Harper!!

Just hasn’t been the same since the back injuries started and I definitely think the best is well behind him. I see his career taking a similar path as Miguel Cabrera for the future.

Those of you who are not getting old need to learn more about aging.

I'm lucky though for I hit as many dingers at 75 as I did at 35 --- Zero :eek:

Should probably give it another year before making a judgment call. A lot of the greats have had down years and bounced back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I doubt he has a Pujols trajectory. Pujols was below leave average bat for half of his Angels stint; a truly worthless player considering he was a 1B/DH below league average. The second half of his career would have been half as long if he wasn't named Albert Pujols and was treated based on performance. Unlike Pujols, Trout remembers the age he claims to be and even in this bad season is 32% over league average bat while not being a 1B/DH.

Almost nobody is likely to be as good in their age 31-40 seasons as they were in their 21-30 seasons in physical male prime. That's not a Pujols trajectory, it's normal.

As has been discussed, Pujols' counting stats were enhanced because he hit behind Trout who kept racking up absurd on base percentages. And I would push back the expected age of decline to 35 or so, I think countless non users have still been in their primes in their early 30s.

Well yes. My Division comes from the stipulations of the OP, two halves of a career. If we are talking about 2 halves of a career ones early 30’s are not a half. If you’d like to cut a career into fourths or eighths instead then obviously things will look different. That, if you are cutting in half, the half constituting ones 20’s is likely to be better than the half constituting ones 30’s is difficult to debate.

Pujols, though, dropped off dramatically once he hit the second half, and at least so far it seems Trout is doing the same. So my question really was is the same thing going to happen to Trout? Granted, normal careers involve a more gradual tapering.

Yes I get the question. As I said, I think the answer is no. Pujols trajectory is much more extreme than normal for a star player, and is probably influenced by his age being significantly inaccurate. Pujols himself couldn’t keep his story on his age straight and appears to be about +3 years older than he is. As I said, Pujols trajectory is highly abnormal if you take his most frequently claimed age to be accurate. As I said, there is no reason to think that Trout will have a Pujols trajectory rather than a normal decrease in production in his 30’s.

Injuries risks his future as always

And last night he gets a freak wrist injury

I hope it is not serious and I hope he does not lose to much time

Right on cue, unfortunately. I am surprised there is no word yet.

He'll come back hit 9 hr in 9 games and the Angel's will go 0-9

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Fracture. 3-7 weeks is being reported.

More details but expected to be out passed the trade deadline

Los Angeles Angels outfielder Mike Trout suffered a fracture of the hamate bone in his left hand during Monday's game against the San Diego Padres (SD 10, LA 3), the Angels announced. Trout suffered the injury when he fouled back an 0-1 pitch from Nick Martinez in the seventh inning. Hamate fractures typically require surgery and come with a 3-7 week recovery.

At the same age Albert Pujols was 48% above league average and the next season he was 38% above league average. So right now Trout is below Pujols levels and is now injured again. After that, Pujols had 4 more decent seasons before falling off badly So let's see what Trout does the next 6 years in comparison to Pujols before saying no. And the way he keeps getting injured, Trout may never come close to Pujols counting numbers or longevity. Below league average is still better than out of the league.

Well obviously if we wait to see what actually happens, that will be more accurate than guessing. No shit. That is true everywhere in every scenario all of the time. We know this. It’s a prediction thread.

The odds that Trout performs as badly as Pujols did in his second half is low. Pujols is a historically huge decline outside the normal decreasing route. Could it happen? Sure. Is it likely? No.

A well below league bat and playing DH is not better than out of the league. That’s negative value to the team, not positive. He wasn’t a net negative from 2013-2016, just pretty bad. From 2017-2021 he was a negative actively hurting his team.

The only thing more astonishing to me than how bad Pujols really was for those 5 years was how good he suddenly became again in 2022 especially towards the end when he needed some completely improbable productivity to reach certain milestones and somehow delivered. I will never be convinced he wasn't getting some grooved pitches in there.

Oh yes. Pujols was a sandbagger in So Cal until the end was in sight and he needed a few more dingers.

LOL, Trout has ZERO chance of getting even close to Pujols counting numbers.

You are correct sir. Let us not forget Trout only played in 114 games in 2017, 134 games in 2019, 36 games in 2021, and 119 games in 2022. Not to mention 2020 though he was healthy. Those are huge swaths of games and likely stats already missed. He was well off the pace even before this latest.

I think you can pick any player you want and say they won't come close to Pujols counting stats. Not sure how much about performance can be gleaned from something like that.

There are only three other players with 700 homers, for example.

They are both great players and both future HOFers some of Pujols down years were still better than many in MLB just compared to his prime they were not to his standards.

Trout in many was is the same way. He is not yet trending down as fast as Pujols and is still putting up good numbers but as mentioned earlier his health is the issues and misses chunks of games to often in to many years

He had the surgery on Wednesday and now it is just recovery time. But he will miss a large number of games. Then as usual he will come back and produce and the overall year will look respectable but never healthy enough to get the games to get the overall stats (BESIDES WAR) as Pujols did. (but 101.6 career for Pujols is still fantastic) and trout may pass it in the coming years but I will take Pujols on my team in his prime and beyond

Upside-- Griffey Jr., Bagwell

Downside-- Victor Martinez, Michael Young, Joe Mauer

Agreed

Spot on

I don't follow. If he never comes to the plate again, Trout has far surpassed those three players, and is already an easy HOF pick.

Trout's career seems to be mirroring someone who he was compared to quite often in his 20's, Mickey Mantle. It's unfortunate, but History does indeed repeat itself.

In terms of his counting numbers, assuming a decent bill of health, over the last 7 years of his contract, I would think he easily surpasses 500 Homers. 3000 hits is possible, but he would essentially have to play 150+ games every year from next year until the end of his current deal, in 2030.

WAR, not the be all and end all I understand, agrees with Peter. Trout is already pretty darn elite and certain way above the floor guys here. Heck, he’s actually at or above the ceiling guys.

I assumed the comparison is a joke but we have a +1 for it. I’d love to read a rational argument as to how Mike Trout and Michael Young are comparable performance players.

Ah maybe it sailed right over my head.

3 MVPs, 3 2nds, and probably deserved to win 4 or even 5.

Michael Young played almost all 162 games each season in his prime. Here are their current career numbers. I am showing traditional stats. Trout looks better in the advanced stat comparison. I am joking in the sense that these numbers are far, far closer than many fans buying Trout cards realize. Trout will need to grind until 2030 to reach Mantle's numbers. :)

I'm guessing the Bagwell comment had to do with his seasons after age 31?

Otherwise it's truly a mystery as to why his name would be brought up.

That's what I'm assuming, In terms of how Trout might age?

Honestly we can speculate until we're blue in the face, we have no idea what might happen. I remember thinking David Ortiz was cooked after 2008, and he went on a pretty solid run afterwards. Similarly I thought Miguel Cabrera found his groove again, after his 2016 season, and he fell off a cliff. Time will tell, with Mike Trout.

If someone's favorite movie is Smokey and the Bandit, I'm not going to be able to convince them that Five Easy Pieces is better, but it's still fun to debate.

Trout has a long way to go and a short time to get there, to catch Baggy.

Kiner is a comp if Trout decides to retire this offseason.

IMO Kiner is not the best comp, because counting numbers have to be considered in context. Also Trout has 20 points on him in batting average. That said, Kiner may be a better hitter than he usually gets credit for, being often mentioned as one of the least deserving HOFers. He isn't that bad.

Kiner was a great player. Attendance is part of the grade. Like Kiner, the Angels can finish in last place with or without Trout.

It's why I brought up the movie analogy. It's like political opinion to say it's not a comp.

At 31 years old Trout has nearly twice the career WAR of Kiner and a higher career WAR than Bagwell. His OPS+ is almost 30 points higher than both Bagwell and Kiner as well.

Big assumption and His health history does not make that seem realistic

The 3000 hits? I would agree, it's a long shot at this point, unless if he did what I outlined.

500 Homers? He would pretty much have to replicate the current season, he is having 7 more times, which I think he's capable of doing.

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.