ESPN Top 100

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I would rank Williams in the top 5. I don't disagree with you at all about him. Our only disagreement is on Trout and my point there is that, in the first decade of his career, pretty much from the start (and yes, he was injured most of last year), he's been easily the best player in baseball and you'll be hard pressed to find many who would disagree. 3 MVPs and 4 2nds attest to that. Not many guys can make that claim about a decade.

...and to that point....and as I stated....there was a definite lull in talent from 2010 to 2019. How many hitters from that time frame are in the Top 100?

I know Harper.

Pujols and Cabrera were already on their downswings by then. Trout is a very good player, but way over-hyped, and benefited from lack of other Top players when he was playing. I mean he's beating Cano, Brantley, Donaldson, Nelson Cruz out for the MVP, c'mon.

And if you say Betts & Altuve.....I'll say ok, I'd probably take both over Trout......I like their jewelry too.

Trout ain't Top 30 all time, sorry. And looking again at the list not probably not Top 40.

So answer the question. Is he too high (or low) ranked at 15? Where would you put him?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

...and to that point....and as I stated....there was a definite lull in talent from 2010 to 2019. How many hitters from that time frame are in the Top 100?

I know Harper.

Pujols and Cabrera were already on their downswings by then. Trout is a very good player, but way over-hyped, and benefited from lack of other Top players when he was playing. I mean he's beating Cano, Brantley, Donaldson, Nelson Cruz out for the MVP, c'mon.

And if you say Betts & Altuve.....I'll say ok, I'd probably take both over Trout......I like their jewelry too.

Trout ain't Top 30 all time, sorry. And looking again at the list not probably not Top 40.

So answer the question. Is he too high (or low) ranked at 15? Where would you put him?

First point, Trout was playing great in 2021 when he went down. He was hitting .333 and I think his other stats were quite good too. So it's not at all correct to say he was pushed down by an influx of talent. You are confusing a mostly-missed year due to an injury with a fall off in performance. I don't think we can call a decline yet.

Second, as to where I would rank him, I acknowledged he's getting a bit of a boost for projected future performance. If his career ended today, would I rank him 15? No. But based on his dominance over the 2010s, MVPs, advanced metrics, probably 25 or so.

Betts or Altuve over Trout? No way lol.

[BobC]

The nice thing about this Trout debate is that we will actually get an answer as his career unfolds. He's already set the base, but can he get completely healthy and return to many more stellar years, or do nagging injuries and ever increasing age start to take their toll on him now. Time will tell.

Personally, I don't think you put someone on an all-time list until they're actually done putting all their time on the playing field in. Just like you don't put someone in the HOF till their career is actually over. It is already truly impossible to accurately compare and rate players from different times and eras against each other. But to then include comparisons of players for whom we don't yet have a complete picture of how their entire careers will actually turn out, that is just absurd.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

The nice thing about this Trout debate is that we will actually get an answer as his career unfolds. He's already set the base, but can he get completely healthy and return to many more stellar years, or do nagging injuries and ever increasing age start to take their toll on him now. Time will tell.

Personally, I don't think you put someone on an all-time list until they're actually done putting all their time on the playing field in. Just like you don't put someone in the HOF till their career is actually over. It is already truly impossible to accurately compare and rate players from different times and eras against each other. But to then include comparisons of players for whom we don't yet have a complete picture of how their entire careers will actually turn out, that is just absurd.

So to repeat my example, it would have been absurd to put Brady on a list of all time greats a month ago?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So to repeat my example, it would have been absurd to put Brady on a list of all time greats a month ago?

Technically, yes!

Brady is in a completely unique situation though, unlike Trout, Harper, and anyone else still playing in the midst of their careers. He has already achieved seasonal and all-time records and accomplishments that put him at or near the top. (I would argue there is another QB that could/should be in the conversation that virtually no one has ever given full and proper credit to as the GOAT, but should - Otto Graham!)

Anyway, as others had already pointed out, despite his overall great numbers, Trout hasn't really ever led the majors in anything, except maybe MVP voting. And as was also pointed out by others, that is likely due to their not being a lot of really great talent in the majors over this past decade. Putting Trout on any all-time list without knowing how he'll finally end up is foolish. Wait till a player's career is done so when you compare them with others, you can properly compare their entire careers, not just one player's career against parts of another's.

And if Brady is so unquestionably the GOAT, why didn't they just put him in Canton right after winning his 7th Super Bowl last year?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Technically, yes!

Brady is in a completely unique situation though, unlike Trout, Harper, and anyone else still playing in the midst of their careers. He has already achieved seasonal and all-time records and accomplishments that put him at or near the top. (I would argue there is another QB that could/should be in the conversation that virtually no one has ever given full and proper credit to as the GOAT, but should - Otto Graham!)

Anyway, as others had already pointed out, despite his overall great numbers, Trout hasn't really ever led the majors in anything, except maybe MVP voting. And as was also pointed out by others, that is likely due to their not being a lot of really great talent in the majors over this past decade. Putting Trout on any all-time list without knowing how he'll finally end up is foolish. Wait till a player's career is done so when you compare them with others, you can properly compare their entire careers, not just one player's career against parts of another's.

And if Brady is so unquestionably the GOAT, why didn't they just put him in Canton right after winning his 7th Super Bowl last year?

Pujols is still active. Are you suggesting we can't assess him yet?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Pujols is still active. Are you suggesting we can't assess him yet?

Everybody else can do what they want. I just feel you need to wait till they are finally done so you can compare complete careers to complete careers - apples to apples. Obviously the closer to the end of their career a player is, the more you know of what they've done and how those accomplishments compare to others in history. But Trout is barely halfway through his career, assuming he comes back 100% healthy and continues playing for many more years, but there is no guarantee that is going to happen. So for now, Trout appears to be getting a lot of credit for how people think he's going to be doing in the future, which isn't fair to those who completed their careers and for whom their final accomplishments are known. And while a player is still playing, you really don't know how much longer they'll continue to play. So how do you decide when they're close enough to the end of their careers to start properly comparing their careers with others, especially when you don't normally know much in advance when they will end their careers. And rather than trying to pick some arbitrary date to be able to start comparing an active player's career to those of retired players, like one year, or maybe two years, before they finally retire, I'm for not guessing at all, and just waiting till they actually retire. Just makes sense to me.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Betts or Altuve over Trout? No way lol.

No way?

Both have played exactly 11 years so let's compare

Altuve career BA - .308
Trout career BA - .305

Altuve SBs - 261
Trout SBs - 203

Altuve Hits - 1777
Trout Hits - 1419

Altuve HRs - 164
Trout HRs - 310 - but lets not forget Jose is 5' 5" a buck 60 Trout 6' 2" 235

Altuve Walks - 443
Trout Walks - 865 (I like to call this, swing the fucking bat Mike!)

Altuve K's - 753
Trout K's - 1215 (whoops, maybe take the walk Mike)


So again, "no way?" Way. It's a lot closer than you think. And if you bring in the postseason, then I agree with you, "No way", No way I'd take Trout.

Playoff Games
Altuve - 79
Trout - 3

World Series
Altuve - 3
Trout - 0

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

No way?

Both have played exactly 11 years so let's compare

Altuve career BA - .308
Trout career BA - .305

Altuve SBs - 261
Trout SBs - 203

Altuve Hits - 1777
Trout Hits - 1419

Altuve HRs - 164
Trout HRs - 310 - but lets not forget Jose is 5' 5" a buck 60 Trout 6' 2" 235

Altuve Walks - 443
Trout Walks - 865 (I like to call this, swing the fucking bat Mike!)

Altuve K's - 753
Trout K's - 1215 (whoops, maybe take the walk Mike)


So again, "no way?" Way. It's a lot closer than you think. And if you bring in the postseason, then I agree with you, "No way", No way I'd take Trout.

Playoff Games
Altuve - 79
Trout - 3

World Series
Altuve - 3
Trout - 0

So even in your cherry picked stats we are to dismiss home runs and criticize Trout for walking? Let's be reasonable.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by G1911

So even in your cherry picked stats we are to dismiss home runs and criticize Trout for walking? Let's be reasonable.

Cherry picked? These are very common stats HRs BBs K's BA.......sorry I'm not into calculator & formula stats I like the good old fashioned raw numbers.

And I'm not dismissing HR's and Walks, I listed them. Trout has more, just like Altuve has the better BA, more steals, more hits, and less K's. Cherry picking would be to leave them off and just pick every stat that Altuve is better then him at.

And my original comment was I said "I might even take Altuve and Betts over Trout." Go back and read it Poster who's afraid to list their own name.

Like Bob C and others have said these careers need to play out. I'm not the one anointing him the next Jesus Christ.

Maybe if I saw more of him in the playoffs when I watch every pitch I might drool over him like you guys, but he's never there.

[Peter_Spaeth]

WAR. One is 76 and one is 41. Guess?

One has a 181 point lead in OPS. That's right 181. Guess?

One has an MVP. One has 3 plus 4 second places. Guess?

Paul, you're really on a limb of your own making here. I like Altuve, I think he is obviously on track for the Hall, but he's not in the same discussion as Trout.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

WAR. One is 76 and one is 41. Guess?

One has a 181 point lead in OPS. That's right 181. Guess?

One has an MVP. One has 3 plus 4 second places. Guess?

Paul, you're really on a limb of your own making here. I like Altuve, I think he is obviously on track for the Hall, but he's not in the same discussion as Trout.

Coming from a guy who says Brady is not an all time great......that means
..... not a whole lot......thanks though I'm done with this.

Check your own posts in this thread. I'll give ya 3 hours to do that.

Early on you listed all the overrated guys in your view (post #98), yet didn't list Trout, then after I spoke my peace, you moved him down 10 spots to 25 (post #25).

I have him more around 40, but I'm just glad you admit he's overrated.

My work is done here.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Cherry picked? These are very common stats HRs BBs K's BA.......sorry I'm not into calculator & formula stats I like the good old fashioned raw numbers.

And I'm not dismissing HR's and Walks, I listed them. Trout has more, just like Altuve has the better BA, more steals, more hits, and less K's. Cherry picking would be to leave them off and just pick every stat that Altuve is better then him at.

And my original comment was I said "I might even take Altuve and Betts over Trout." Go back and read it Poster who's afraid to list their own name.

Like Bob C and others have said these careers need to play out. I'm not the one anointing him the next Jesus Christ.

Maybe if I saw more of him in the playoffs when I watch every pitch I might drool over him like you guys, but he's never there.

1) Yes. Cherry picked. Let's use slugging, OBP, OPS. My stats are cherry picked too. That's how it works when we selectively choose the ones we like.

2) Yes, you are dismissing walks (the word I actually used in reference to walks was 'criticized'). You did indeed list them, which I did not dispute. You did so with the note of "(I like to call this, swing the fucking bat Mike!)"

3) Yes, I read your original comment. I do not agree with it.

4) I don't see anyone anointing him the next Jesus Christ. I also have said he is way overrated on this list.

5) I'll post yet again that my name has nothing whatsoever to do with claims of fact. An argument holds weight on the logical merit of the argument itself and not by virtue of the authority of the person stating it. An appeal to authority or person is a fallacy. If you'd like to bash my person instead, DM me and I'll give you my email with my name in it.

[Shoeless Moe]

Final Final comment on Mr. 15......what a joke.......I'm not gonna comment on the guy who cherry picked all the stats Trout leads over Altuve, I posted the main categories and was fair for both sides, he picked every one Trout leads, I could do the same for Altuve, but what's the point, or how he comments on a cold streak or 2 for Altuve in the Playoffs (who by the way has a .286 lifetime Postseason average with 23 HRs) yet says "Trout went 1 for 12 in 3 games in the playoffs, it happens".....double standard? white privilege much?.......and Mr No Name who say's I'm the cherry picker, yet doesn't comment on the real cherry picker who I just mentioned, so not going to respond to No Name, grow a pair then we'll talk.

I'll leave y'all with this to contemplate:

Lifetime vs. the Top 100 pitchers:

Mike Trout (#15) vs Clayton Kershaw (#52) - .200 BA (4 for 20)
Mike Trout (#15) vs Justin Verlander (#72) - .125 (5 for 40)
Mike Trout (#15) vs Max Scherzer (#65) - .188 (3 for 16)

total - 12 for 76 = .157 - not quite the Golden Boy..........oh and Williams hit .347 lifetime against Feller in 124 ABs.

...and not that it matters, because we are talking about Trout, but for comparison sake:

Jose Altuve vs Clayton Kershaw - .333 (6 for 18)
Jose Altuve vs Justin Verlander - .563 (9 for 16)
Jose Altuve vs Max Scherzer - .143 (2 for 14)

total - 17 for 48 = .354

No cherry picking there, those are what are called.................FACTS!

"WOOOOOOOOOOO"

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

No way?

Both have played exactly 11 years so let's compare

Altuve career BA - .308
Trout career BA - .305

Altuve SBs - 261
Trout SBs - 203

Altuve Hits - 1777
Trout Hits - 1419

Altuve HRs - 164
Trout HRs - 310 - but lets not forget Jose is 5' 5" a buck 60 Trout 6' 2" 235

Altuve Walks - 443
Trout Walks - 865 (I like to call this, swing the fucking bat Mike!)

Altuve K's - 753
Trout K's - 1215 (whoops, maybe take the walk Mike)


So again, "no way?" Way. It's a lot closer than you think. And if you bring in the postseason, then I agree with you, "No way", No way I'd take Trout.

Playoff Games
Altuve - 79
Trout - 3

World Series
Altuve - 3
Trout - 0

Comparing numbers of playoff games and World Series is dumb. Sorry, there's no other way to put it. Trout hasn't had Justin Verlander, Gerritt Cole, and a lineup of MVP candidates around him.

He also hasn't, you know, HAD AN ELECTRONIC CHEATING SYSTEM IN PLACE to boost his playoff performances.

Ignoring that, let's look at other stats:

Runs:
Altuve - 883
Trout - 967

Triples:
Altuve - 29
Trout - 49

OBP:
Altuve - .360
Trout - .419

SLG:
Altuve - .462
Trout - .583

OPS:
Altuve - .821
Trout - 1.002

OPS+:
Altuve - 125
Trout - 176

And one that surprised me a bit:

GiDP (ground into double plays):
Altuve - 158
Trout - 58



I'll take the guy that gets on base A LOT more often with A LOT more power all day, every day. Altuve's small lead in batting average is more than offset by the 100(!) extra outs he created through double plays.

Jose is a great player, albeit one tarnished significantly by the cheating. He's a HOFer, without a doubt. But...he's not close to Trout.