[ls7plus]

Adam hit the nail squarely on the head with his post re comparing modern players to those playing in past eras. Sabermetrics have devised multiple tools to compare players across eras, WAR among them. Others include Bill James' win shares, and for offensive abilities, runs created compared to league average. OPS+ is also popular for quick reference, as it is readily obtainable thru BaseballReference.com. The later, incidently, bears an approximate 93% or better correlation to runs produced, despite its shorthand character. At the heart of all such stats is the premise that comparing players across eras must be based on the relationship of their performance to that of the average MLB player, and that the latter, while shifting perhaps over time, is flexible enough to serve as a baseline because old time players would improve if magically transported to today's game upon implementation of modern training methods. If a modern player could be transported back into the days of old, i.e., was born in that time and played in that era, he would not have the benefit of those training methods. It is interesting to note in this regard in relation to Ted Williams that based on extrapolation of the Bill James' runs created stat and phrasing it as a % increase over the average player of the day, Ted comes in a very solid, absolute number one of all time, at 250% runs created over the average player during the course of his long career. Ruth is actually second, at 240%.

It is also interesting to note the reference above to Bob Feller's best fastball being clocked at 98.6 mph. Bob quite candidly, if perhaps somewhat immodestly, stated that in order to have his pitch register on the timing device, he had to throw it through a relatively small opening. Hardly having been known for his control (I believe he had 153 walks in his 1946 348K season), Mr. Feller indicated he had to slow his fastball down to get it through the opening. It is certainly quite likely, if not absolutely ascertainable, that Feller threw significantly over 100 mph in the late '30's through the mid-to late forties. Note should also be taken that Nolan Ryan in his prime was clocked at 102 mph in the ninth inning, after throwing more than 150 pitches.

I think it is naive to suggest that old timers could not adjust to the conditions of today's game. Babe Ruth was tested by Columbia University in the '20's, and found to have 20/10 vision, as well as what were termed nearly super-human reflexes and hand-to-eye coordination. He would likely be quite good at detecting the very tight spin on the slider quite early in its journey to the plate (Ted stated he was able to see it and react to it as soon as it left the pitcher's hand). Babe would simply trade in his legendary 48 oz. club for something more like the 32 or 33 ouncer today's sluggers use. In addition, if your big screen, high-def TV has a remote which allows you to slo-mo one of today's hitters going up against a pitcher with an ultra-high velocity fastball, what you will see is that the hitter starts earlier. Rather than starting his stride when the pitcher's arm and hand comes up into a little box above his shoulder, just as he is about to release the ball, today's batter going up against a 100 mph fastball actually starts his hip-cock and stride WHILE THE PITCHER'S ARM IS STILL GOING BACK. Yesterday's hitters would adjust, no question about it.

Sorry to be this verbose, but insofar as the OP in this thread is concerned, IMHO, "Trout's Clout" will markedly diminish over time, starting with the time he hits his down years (at 29, he is in the heart of his prime, yet his OPS+ is 176 to Mantle's 172. Mantle ended up at that figure--one of the best of all time, by the way--after three very bad seasons, 1965, 1967, and 1968). Trout has yet to experience the deterioration of his skills with age, yet the length and lucrative character of his contract all but ensures that he will. My prediction is that he will end up in the low 160's if he is fortunate enough to avoid a career-impairing injury.

And who is to say that Trout will not be like Vern Stephens (7 all-star appearances, multiple top ten MVP vote years), Ted Kluzewski, Rocky Colavito, Dale Murphy, or Cecil or Prince Fielder, among many others, who were top-notch stars only to peter out in their very early thirties?

In any event. Trout will eventually fade from the spotlight and join the ranks of other great, but long-gone players. I politely suggest it would be absurd to suggest that after a generation or two, his star will shine as bright as the Babe's, Ted's, Ty Cobb's, or a number of others. The value of this card will be measured against theirs then, and not be bolstered by the benefit of the grandiose spotlight it enjoys now. And then we have interesting comments from Adam to consider with regard to whether this type of card will weather the ravages of time well (kudos also to Bill Avery's comment that the signature itself looks a lot more like "Mr. 7-up" than "Mike Trout").

Boy, I sure can get really verbose when I get wound up on a topic! Congratulations to those who have made it through all of the above, and especially to puckpaul for his acquisition of the W600 Cobb--great card!.

With great regard,

Larry