Can we have a honest conversation about psa

[Dandor]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

While what you are saying isn't dead wrong, Trout is one of the worst examples to make a point in terms of players breaking down at that age. He's likely already a HOF'er by virtue of the stats he has garnered so far. If he plays until he's 40 with the same stats he's got now - he could be close to 700 home runs and who knows what his OPS and other numbers will be by then. But even if he trails off - very likely he still gets to 500 homers. Short of a Pete Rose or O.J. Simpson type situation off the field, I think he remains the marquee player of his era. Agree with you on falling if someone is not the next Mick - but if anyone is in this era - it's Trout.

No way he ends up with 700 or even 600 homeruns. He will be much closer to the 500 mark. I agree with even 500 homers and the advanced metrics we use, he is the iconic player of his generation. 7 years of winning the MVP or coming in second can't be overlooked. I think his career stats will look very much like Mantle's. He will be way short of the 3000 career hits, his batting average will fall under the .300 mark, and it will always be the "what if" he stayed healthy. However, just like Mantle he will have that collectability. The name Mike Trout right now means the best player in baseball. Stats be damned. Mickey Mantle broke down and he is more valued over Hank Aaron who accumulated ridiculous stats.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Dandor

No way he ends up with 700 or even 600 homeruns. He will be much closer to the 500 mark. I agree with even 500 homers and the advanced metrics we use, he is the iconic player of his generation.

I would agree it's an extreme long shot for him to reach those HR totals, just saying as of right now it's possible. Rare is the player like a Henry Aaron who can just continue busting out 30, 40 homers a year in his late 30's. Aaron just kept on going at that stage of his career where even like a Mays began to trail off earlier. Always kind of makes me cringe when people say things like "Well, he's a HOF'er now..." about anyone because of course who knows what can happen. My point was simply if anyone has it in the bag today, it's Trout. I'm sitting here looking at a '71 Topps Bench, on the back it says "A future Hall of Famer at 23." One of the instances where they were totally right of course, but you've got to imagine those kind of calls are wrong way more often than they are right.

[Tomi]

Statistically Pujols should have it "in the bag" , has all time numbers and should be way ahead of Trout in card prices per performance, but no. I think hype drives the market more than anything. Aaron Judges career numbers by age 30 are horrible, but he is collected as a future HOFer. Not saying Trout is hype, but his career numbers aren't really much (so far) compared to guys like Pujols and other all time greats.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Tomi

Statistically Pujols should have it "in the bag" , has all time numbers and should be way ahead of Trout in card prices per performance, but no. I think hype drives the market more than anything. Aaron Judges career numbers by age 30 are horrible, but he is collected as a future HOFer. Not saying Trout is hype, but his career numbers aren't really much (so far) compared to guys like Pujols and other all time greats.

Pujols is definitely undervalued. But is it really different than say, comparing the popularity of a Mantle to an underrated contemporary like Frank Robinson? Same with Trout, IMO.

Mantle isn't hype either, but due to circumstances like time and hobby popularity he's out of proportion anymore to many if not most of his contemporaries.

[Tomi]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Pujols is definitely undervalued. But is it really different than say, comparing the popularity of a Mantle to an underrated contemporary like Frank Robinson? Same with Trout, IMO.

Mantle isn't hype either, but due to circumstances like time and hobby popularity he's out of proportion anymore to many if not most of his contemporaries.

Mantle definitely is very far ahead of his contemporaries, but I wonder how much his off field exploits play into his popularity in the hobby. Its like everyone from his era has a story to tell. Still a monster in his prime peak years but the guy was like Ruth, everyone knew him.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Tomi

Mantle definitely is very far ahead of his contemporaries, but I wonder how much his off field exploits play into his popularity in the hobby. Its like everyone from his era has a story to tell. Still a monster in his prime peak years but the guy was like Ruth, everyone knew him.

Mantle was larger than life, and for areas of the country who didn't have a MLB team in the 50's and 60's, he was their guy by default in addition to those in the baseball capital of the world in NY. When these same baby boomers took the card hobby retail in the early 1980's - Mantle was still their guy and thusly the most popular card in any set by default. Nothing has changed since. Ruth may be the greatest player in MLB history, but Mantle is the absolute undisputed king of the hobby.

[Tomi]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Mantle was larger than life, and for areas of the country who didn't have a MLB team in the 50's and 60's, he was their guy by default in addition to those in the baseball capital of the world in NY. When these same baby boomers took the card hobby retail in the early 1980's - Mantle was still their guy and thusly the most popular card in any set by default. Nothing has changed since. Ruth may be the greatest player in MLB history, but Mantle is the absolute undisputed king of the hobby.

Agreed, but I truly think a healthy Mantle would overtake Ruth as greatest player ever. Mantles knee was destroyed in his rookie year. I don't think he had even 1 "healthy" season.