Quote:
Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie
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.
|
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
. 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.