Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabe
Not sure where this idea that Trout hasn't led the majors in anything is coming from. He's led the majors in runs 3 times, walks 1 time, OBP 3 times, slugging 2 times, and OPS 2 times. And he's led the AL in multiple categories multiple other times.
No, he's not leading the league in homers. But he's hitting 40+ when he's healthy. No, he's not leading in RBI (which is a dumb stat to worry about in the first place) but batting 1st or 2nd in the lineup for 3/4 of his career PROBABLY has something to do with that.
Again, 1st or 2nd in MVP EVERY time he plays 120 games. Nobody else can say that.
|
I was working off things stated in post #120 mostly. If they were not factual, my bad for not doing additional research and trusting what others posted without doing my own independent verification. And do not dispute or disagree with your comments regarding the MVP voting, but do tend to agree with statements by others that his competition during his tenure is possibly not as strong as others have faced in earlier periods.
I have no real problem if others want to go ahead and already give him their rankings on the all-time greatest list, but realize his career is far from over and that what happens in the coming years can likely have a major impact on how he will be viewed and rated in the future. Especially given the injury question and how well he can come back and perform going forward. In his so far 11 year career, Trout has really only had what I'd call 8 regular, full seasons of play. In my personal thinking, I tend to discount, or completely ignore statistics and performances in such severely truncated seasons, regardless of the reason(s) why, because they do not represent a typical player's normal, full season of play and are therefore likely to misrepresent how they would typically perform. He technically has met the 10 year requirement for induction into Cooperstown, so if he were to never play another game, he will almost certainly get into the HOF, especially given his clean-cut, wholesome, all-American likeability, overall favor with the fans and the media, and complete lack of virtually any scandalous or illegal activities, or even rumors thereof. (This is the kind of guy Fathers want their sons to grow up to be, and Mothers want their daughters to grow up and marry.)
But do those 8 really good years all by themselves truly propel him into the ranks of the greatest players of all-time, or are we getting into another one of those "peak performance" type of arguments, because that's what this is beginning to look and feel like. And that's when the arguments start to revolve around things like is 8 years enough compared and comparable to those who performed at a somewhat equally high level for say 10, 15, or even more years. And everyone has their own idea of what to them is enough time or years to qualify for such acceptance of a player's record to qualify them for consideration as an all-time great. And they are all completely arbitrary with absolutely no consensus on what is or isn't an appropriate peak period of time sufficient to afford such consideration for a player. I mean come on, if you're just going to look at peak performances then why aren't Maris, Vander Meer, and Larsen near the top of this list? Oh wait, what's that, they didn't perform at that high a level long enough to qualify. Okay, so what is long enough, one year, five years, ten, or maybe even more years? And why is what you think may be the proper length of time for such consideration make you believe it might be any better, accurate, or more appropriate than what anyone else may think? The simple answer is, it isn't! It's simply each person's own damn opinion.
So to me, rather than just being arbitrary, I've always felt it best to simply wait till a player's career is actually over so you have all the information and statistics in front of you to better weigh and compare against similar career information for others. But that's just me using using logical, common sense.
Here's another way to look at it that I think the attorneys in the audience will appreciate. People are called to form juries so as to weigh facts and evidence to then make an unbiased decision, based on ALL the evidence and information made available and presented to them. They are questioned beforehand so as to determine that they in fact do NOT have any pre-formed or biased opinions prior to being selected for a jury that would impair their ability to be fair and impartial in rendering such a decision, and are normally immediately excused from that jury if it is found to not be the case. So how in Trout's case, where all the facts and evidence of his career performance are not yet known and available, could you possibly ever consider letting someone who already has a pre-formed opinion of him, based on only partial information and evidence from his career and statistics so far, be part of a jury now deciding if he's one of the all-time greats of baseball, and about where he should rank on that list? I'm not sure you can arguably find a more logical and higher standard than what I'm presenting for determining who maybe should or shouldn't be deciding Trout's place in baseball history, and for waiting till ALL the facts, evidence, and information about his career are available. But if others want to put down what is simply my opinion on this because I have higher standards and thinking, well..............that's on them!
