Mike Trout versus Mookie Betts -- who would you rather?
 

So I'm glad that Mike Trout is still healthy. He's a Jersey guy, so always rooting for him.

I was thinking whether I'd rather have his career or that of Mookie Betts. I mean, Mookie is still going, so who knows where he ends up. But I'm guessing that Trout ends his career with a much better overall individual career (WAR, awards) and is probably closer to the inner circle of the Hall of Fame than Betts.

But Mookie's got 2.5 rings (partial credit for the Covid ring) and a reasonable amount of individual hardware himself.

Maybe it's recency bias, but I think I'd go with Mookie.

Can't go wrong with either. Both will be first ballot HOF inductees. Trout's 162/AVG for most offensive stats are slightly better, Betts can play 5+ positions at a Gold Glove level. If I had to pick a career I guess I would go with Mookie since he's got the rings, although it's not Trout's fault he's played for Angels.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...e54f9b15_c.jpghttps://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...fc466d44_c.jpg

Mookie is not exactly Cal Ripken Jr.., but I take him for availability and versatility over Trout, which I think are two things that are still under-rated in this game.

Just a hare-brained theory, and I'm certainly not going to research it any further ;), but if you had to average in the WAR of the bench player's that had to replace Trout's spot in the lineup with the player's who had to replace Mookie, I'd wager their WAR totals would be closer together then they are...and they're NOT THAT far apart, considering Trouts career started 3 years before Mookie.

I take Trout. Mookie is a great player but winning three MVPs puts Trout in rarified air that I think Mookie is unlikely to reach himself. When you look at the list of players who have won three MVPs, you can't ignore any name on the list.

If Trout didn't have the health issues he's had I would take him in a heartbeat but you need to be on the field to perform. Mookie being the great player that he is with the playoff success and longevity would lead me in his direction

Trout / Betts

Position: CF / RF
1st full season: 2012 / 2015
WAR: 85.9 / 70.9
AB: 5550 / 5536
H: 1655 / 1628
HR: 381 / 274
BA: .298 / .294
R: 1129 / 1081
RBI: 962 / 839
SB: 213 / 189
OBP: .410 / .373
SLG: .580 / .524
OPS: .990 / .897
OPS+: 172 / 139
oWAR: 86.6 / 54.0
dWAR: 2.2 /15.1
WAR7: 64.8 / 55.6
Games: 1441 / 1429

On average, this shouldn't make any difference. Replacement level is intended to be the level of the last guy off the bench, so you should expect (PLAYER'S WAR + REPLACEMENT'S WAR) to just equal PLAYER'S WAR. Now, that's just on average, and a given team might have a stronger bench than average, and maybe the Red Sox/Dodgers had a better bench than the Angels. But it's hard to see how that should change your evaluation of Trout/Betts (as opposed to the BOS/LAD vs. LAA front office that constructs the roster).

As for the question of which career would you rather have: even though Trout is the greater player, I think I'd go with Mookie. It must be incredibly frustrating to get injured over and over again and have to sit on the sidelines for, effectively, years on end.

I was thinking about this recently. With Mookie finishing his 10th full season, I was adding him to my top 100 players list and I was a little surprised at how good he has been when I dug down into the numbers. I have Trout ahead of Mookie, but Mookie could easily pass Trout up if he keeps going strong while Trout struggles.

I think I worded it poorly, but my point was that Trout has had to be replaced by a bench player, far more often than Betts. You can see that, in that they’ve played an almost identical number of games, despite Trout being in the League for 3 more seasons. That’s lost value for a team.

On top of that, due to his versatility, Betts has actually been able to fill in for other starters in other positions when needed. I have no idea how to quantify that statistically, but I imagine it’s positively impactful to a team.

Of course, all things being equal, if Trout had been even relatively healthy throughout his career, just on the level of Betts, who I mentioned earlier is not exactly an Iron Man himself, then he certainly would have been my choice.

Trout is in decline with major injury problems the last few years and any given year doubtful he will make it to the next month. Betts is in his prime. Peak for peak there is no comparison, but at the end of the day, Betts may prove beter.

The question about whose career you'd rather have opens up all kinds of strange propositions. Take Clay Bellinger, for example. He played in only 183 career games but was on the roster of three World Series championship teams: 1999 Yankees, 2000 Yankees, and the 2002 Angels, where he struck out in his lone regular season at bat.

I'm pretty sure Mike Trout made more money YESTERDAY, then Bellinger did his entire career. :D

I think I'd rather be a contributor on a losing team, then a spectator on a winning team.

...and did they actually give Bellinger a Ring for the Angels? He only played 2 games for them and was in AAA most of the year, and I don't think he was on the postseason roster.

According to Wikipedia and the BR Bullpen, Bellinger did not receive a championship ring in 2002.

Every team is different. A lot of teams issue rings to anyone who appeared in a game. Others don't. He has at least two rings and the pinnacle of your career as a MLB player is to win a title. Success comes in different forms.

Betts has 3 WS rings, 4 if you count this upcoming season.

And good chance the Dodgers could win 2 or 3 of the next few years.

So will Betts finish with 5 or 6 rings?

If 6, that's the most since the likes of Mantle, Berra and Ford.

Rare air.

Unless Trout gets traded to the Dodgers in the next few years, he finishes with ZERO. That's gotta sting a little.

I'll take Betts when it's all said and done.

Never understood this logic. How many rings does Mookie win on the Angels? How many would Yogi have won with the Browns or the A's?

Cobb + Ted Williams + Bonds agree with your point. Teams win baseball championships.

So Steve Carlton in 1972, who had over 97% of the team's total pitching WAR (12.1 out of 12.4) was a POS because the rest of the staff only won 5 more games than he did. I would gladly compare him with any other pitcher that year even with his naked ring finger. :D

Yes! Vida Blue, Ken Holtzman, Dave Hamilton and the rest of the 1972 A's pitching staff all had a better season than Carlton :)

How many did Mays win?

According to b-r, one. Two less than Betts.

Debatable. The three you mention had a combined WAR of less than 6. Carlton was 12.1. How many times has a pitcher won 27 games for a last place team. Your three boys and Catfish had a far better supporting cast. My vote stays in Philadelphia.

Yeah I believe the '72 A's pitching staff had a combined 15.9 WAR. My post was tongue in cheek. To be clear, I agree with you :)

30 complete games for Carlton.

Never understood this logic. "What if" as opposed to "what is". He's not on Angels. He's on the Dodgers (& formerly Red Sox), putting up HOF #'s AND winning rings. 3 so far. Trout is putting up HOF numbers and not winning rings because he is a moron and choose the money over a chance at winning. You're not figuring in that Trout is a moron.

Thus I'd rather have Betts career, no brainer really. Plus Trout's been hurt for half his career, you'd take that over achieving full potential.

Betts.

Why bring Steve Carlton into this conversation? It's about Betts vs Trout.

I'd rather have Randy Johson's career than Carlton since you didn't ask.

It is not like Betts has contributed much in the postseason, .259/.345/.416 or World Series .254/.345/.448. For king of the regular season, Trout has been better than Betts. If you want to win a championship, neither.

I dunno about that. Betts' hustle to first base during that fateful 5th inning of Game 5 last year was pivotal. How many guys hustle to first base on a ground ball like that? He also drove in the WS-winning run later in the same game. I don't think postseason stats are as telling as performance during key moments.

I look at a guy like Jesse Orosco. Journeyman career, but someone who hasn't bought a drink in New York in nearly 40 years. There are a lot of relievers who are better than him, but not many who can claim they delivered in the way he did.

Probably Betts, get paid decent, win championships, less season ending injuries and a pretty good bowler

How ironic that tonight, Trout was involved in a fan interference situation in the right field stands very similar to Betts' play last year. But the difference, apparently, was that the ball was in the stands and once it's out of the field of play, it's anyone's ball and not fan interference. And Trout showed great class, I thought, meeting the guy and his kid after the game and signing the ball.

In the World Series, all of them. It's pretty telling when Betts postseason career highlight is hustling to first base and not a walk-off HR or clutch 2 out hit.

Fair challenge, but those are WS-winning, game changing highlights. I love Mike Trout. I think he's a class act (as his response to the fan non-interference play further suggests), but I don't even think he even batted .100 in the few playoff games that he was a part of, and those games were in the first round of the playoffs, if recollection serves. How many meaningful games has Trout actually played in?

How does it reflect on Trout if his teams had awful pitching? How many meaningful games did Ted Williams play in after 1946?

Baseball is ultimately a team game, so of course Trout gets a lot of credit for the value he created. And the individual accolades reflect that.

But it's a lot easier to be Mr Regular Season -- like Ted Williams -- than it is to be Mr October, like a Derek Jeter.

Surely if you were starting a team you would not take Derek Jeter over Mike Trout.

I wouldn't take Jeter over Ted Williams either.

I would take Mookie. Heck I would take most better than average players over Trout. He is hurt way too often and makes silly money. A better than average player that plays everyday and doesn't make so much money the rest of the team suffers is better than Trout in my POV.

I would take Jeter over Trout any day of the week and twice on Sunday. One had an amazing career that played most games for a very long time and the other is Mike Trout.:)

What is the premise for that choice though? You're picking an end of career Jeter because he had a long career over a currently active Mike Trout?

If it's Jeter at his peak and Trout at his peak, and those are the parameters, I can't see anyone choosing Jeter.

Trout 3 MVPs 4 second place finishes. Jeter? The silence is deafening.

Trout pre-injuries was in the most elite circle of all time players in my opinion.

Agreed. Generational player.

Caption of the Yankees, a long healthy career, and will have better counting stats than Trout in every category but homeruns. Seriously this list could go on with many many more examples.

Trout is amazing WHEN he plays but sadly that is FAR from day to day. He is the most expensive bench warmer by a mile.:D

Now if we could magically make Mike Trout healthy his entire career he might have been as good as Albert Pujols. So at a magical peak I would choose Trout but with a real world career I take Jeter every time.

Pujols is an interesting choice. Over his final 10 seasons Albert compiled a 9.9 total WAR. Even while hurt the last five seasons Trout has been good for 14 WAR in half the time.

That's why there's SO many guys as great as Ted Williams...

In terms of OPS they might as well be from different planets. Trout at age 33 has significantly higher WAR and that's missing half the last 5 or so years. I love Jeter, but he was not a generational player like Trout. He wasn't even the best player on his team for much of his career.

Jeter - 2,747 games
Trout - 1,533 games

If I could have eithers career on a team, as that career has actually happened and actually existed in the observable real world and not a hypothetical that does not exist in reality, I would probably take Jeter right now. I can fill SS with a star for 2 decades, or have Trout missing half the games but providing much more value in the games he does play.

If we mean the player at their absolute best, it is Trout and not even close.

If it means comparing Jeter to a guess of what Trout's full career will end up being, who knows.



As Trout has played more games than Betts and has been better than Betts, I would take Trout, assuming considering their actual careers as they have happened in reality to date.

Going forward, I'd probably take Betts if both were free agents and I could sign one.

Gazing into a crystal ball and attempting to divine the future to arrive at total career values, I would guess Betts will end up higher than Trout, due to the injuries. At their very best, it is unlikely Betts manages to surpass Trout's peak as Betts is 32 and going strong, but very unlikely to improve.

If I could choose a single player around which to build a post season roster, it would be Derek Jeter. The guy's got a crazy clutch track record.

He played the equivalent of a full season in the post season, 158 games. 650 AB 20 HR 61 RBI .308 BA. Would that be a crazy season?

Mantl4 hit 18 HR in 65 games FWIW.
Manny hit 29 HR in 111 games. 78 RBI.
Altuve has hit 27 in 105 games. 56 RBI.

I could live with Mickey Mantle and his 7 rings. But I've actually seen Jeter play in the 5 World Series that he helped win, so I'm biased. Shortstop, captain. All that experience. If you put a gun to my head, I'd still go with Jeter.