The future of Mike Trout

[G1911]

I doubt he has a Pujols trajectory. Pujols was below leave average bat for half of his Angels stint; a truly worthless player considering he was a 1B/DH below league average. The second half of his career would have been half as long if he wasn't named Albert Pujols and was treated based on performance. Unlike Pujols, Trout remembers the age he claims to be and even in this bad season is 32% over league average bat while not being a 1B/DH.

Almost nobody is likely to be as good in their age 31-40 seasons as they were in their 21-30 seasons in physical male prime. That's not a Pujols trajectory, it's normal.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I doubt he has a Pujols trajectory. Pujols was below leave average bat for half of his Angels stint; a truly worthless player considering he was a 1B/DH below league average. The second half of his career would have been half as long if he wasn't named Albert Pujols and was treated based on performance. Unlike Pujols, Trout remembers the age he claims to be and even in this bad season is 32% over league average bat while not being a 1B/DH.

Almost nobody is likely to be as good in their age 31-40 seasons as they were in their 21-30 seasons in physical male prime. That's not a Pujols trajectory, it's normal.

As has been discussed, Pujols' counting stats were enhanced because he hit behind Trout who kept racking up absurd on base percentages. And I would push back the expected age of decline to 35 or so, I think countless non users have still been in their primes in their early 30s.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As has been discussed, Pujols' counting stats were enhanced because he hit behind Trout who kept racking up absurd on base percentages. And I would push back the expected age of decline to 35 or so, I think countless non users have still been in their primes in their early 30s.

Well yes. My Division comes from the stipulations of the OP, two halves of a career. If we are talking about 2 halves of a career ones early 30’s are not a half. If you’d like to cut a career into fourths or eighths instead then obviously things will look different. That, if you are cutting in half, the half constituting ones 20’s is likely to be better than the half constituting ones 30’s is difficult to debate.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Well yes. My Division comes from the stipulations of the OP, two halves of a career. If we are talking about 2 halves of a career ones early 30’s are not a half. If you’d like to cut a career into fourths or eighths instead then obviously things will look different. That, if you are cutting in half, the half constituting ones 20’s is likely to be better than the half constituting ones 30’s is difficult to debate.

Pujols, though, dropped off dramatically once he hit the second half, and at least so far it seems Trout is doing the same. So my question really was is the same thing going to happen to Trout? Granted, normal careers involve a more gradual tapering.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Pujols, though, dropped off dramatically once he hit the second half, and at least so far it seems Trout is doing the same. So my question really was is the same thing going to happen to Trout? Granted, normal careers involve a more gradual tapering.

Yes I get the question. As I said, I think the answer is no. Pujols trajectory is much more extreme than normal for a star player, and is probably influenced by his age being significantly inaccurate. Pujols himself couldn’t keep his story on his age straight and appears to be about +3 years older than he is. As I said, Pujols trajectory is highly abnormal if you take his most frequently claimed age to be accurate. As I said, there is no reason to think that Trout will have a Pujols trajectory rather than a normal decrease in production in his 30’s.

[mrreality68]

Injuries risks his future as always

And last night he gets a freak wrist injury

I hope it is not serious and I hope he does not lose to much time

[Peter_Spaeth]

Right on cue, unfortunately. I am surprised there is no word yet.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by G1911

I doubt he has a Pujols trajectory. Pujols was below leave average bat for half of his Angels stint; a truly worthless player considering he was a 1B/DH below league average. The second half of his career would have been half as long if he wasn't named Albert Pujols and was treated based on performance. Unlike Pujols, Trout remembers the age he claims to be and even in this bad season is 32% over league average bat while not being a 1B/DH.

Almost nobody is likely to be as good in their age 31-40 seasons as they were in their 21-30 seasons in physical male prime. That's not a Pujols trajectory, it's normal.

At the same age Albert Pujols was 48% above league average and the next season he was 38% above league average. So right now Trout is below Pujols levels and is now injured again. After that, Pujols had 4 more decent seasons before falling off badly So let's see what Trout does the next 6 years in comparison to Pujols before saying no. And the way he keeps getting injured, Trout may never come close to Pujols counting numbers or longevity. Below league average is still better than out of the league.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by rats60

At the same age Albert Pujols was 48% above league average and the next season he was 38% above league average. So right now Trout is below Pujols levels and is now injured again. After that, Pujols had 4 more decent seasons before falling off badly So let's see what Trout does the next 6 years in comparison to Pujols before saying no. And the way he keeps getting injured, Trout may never come close to Pujols counting numbers or longevity. Below league average is still better than out of the league.

Well obviously if we wait to see what actually happens, that will be more accurate than guessing. No shit. That is true everywhere in every scenario all of the time. We know this. It’s a prediction thread.

The odds that Trout performs as badly as Pujols did in his second half is low. Pujols is a historically huge decline outside the normal decreasing route. Could it happen? Sure. Is it likely? No.

A well below league bat and playing DH is not better than out of the league. That’s negative value to the team, not positive. He wasn’t a net negative from 2013-2016, just pretty bad. From 2017-2021 he was a negative actively hurting his team.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Well obviously if we wait to see what actually happens, that will be more accurate than guessing. No shit. That is true everywhere in every scenario all of the time. We know this. It’s a prediction thread.

The odds that Trout performs as badly as Pujols did in his second half is low. Pujols is a historically huge decline outside the normal decreasing route. Could it happen? Sure. Is it likely? No.

A well below league bat and playing DH is not better than out of the league. That’s negative value to the team, not positive. He wasn’t a net negative from 2013-2016, just pretty bad. From 2017-2021 he was a negative actively hurting his team.

The only thing more astonishing to me than how bad Pujols really was for those 5 years was how good he suddenly became again in 2022 especially towards the end when he needed some completely improbable productivity to reach certain milestones and somehow delivered. I will never be convinced he wasn't getting some grooved pitches in there.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The only thing more astonishing to me than how bad Pujols really was for those 5 years was how good he suddenly became again in 2022 especially towards the end when he needed some completely improbable productivity to reach certain milestones and somehow delivered. I will never be convinced he wasn't getting some grooved pitches in there.

Oh yes. Pujols was a sandbagger in So Cal until the end was in sight and he needed a few more dingers.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by rats60

At the same age Albert Pujols was 48% above league average and the next season he was 38% above league average. So right now Trout is below Pujols levels and is now injured again. After that, Pujols had 4 more decent seasons before falling off badly So let's see what Trout does the next 6 years in comparison to Pujols before saying no. And the way he keeps getting injured, Trout may never come close to Pujols counting numbers or longevity. Below league average is still better than out of the league.

LOL, Trout has ZERO chance of getting even close to Pujols counting numbers.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

LOL, Trout has ZERO chance of getting even close to Pujols counting numbers.

You are correct sir. Let us not forget Trout only played in 114 games in 2017, 134 games in 2019, 36 games in 2021, and 119 games in 2022. Not to mention 2020 though he was healthy. Those are huge swaths of games and likely stats already missed. He was well off the pace even before this latest.

[packs]

I think you can pick any player you want and say they won't come close to Pujols counting stats. Not sure how much about performance can be gleaned from something like that.

There are only three other players with 700 homers, for example.

[mrreality68]

They are both great players and both future HOFers some of Pujols down years were still better than many in MLB just compared to his prime they were not to his standards.

Trout in many was is the same way. He is not yet trending down as fast as Pujols and is still putting up good numbers but as mentioned earlier his health is the issues and misses chunks of games to often in to many years

He had the surgery on Wednesday and now it is just recovery time. But he will miss a large number of games. Then as usual he will come back and produce and the overall year will look respectable but never healthy enough to get the games to get the overall stats (BESIDES WAR) as Pujols did. (but 101.6 career for Pujols is still fantastic) and trout may pass it in the coming years but I will take Pujols on my team in his prime and beyond

[RCMcKenzie]

Upside-- Griffey Jr., Bagwell

Downside-- Victor Martinez, Michael Young, Joe Mauer

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bnorth

LOL, Trout has ZERO chance of getting even close to Pujols counting numbers.

It depends on what counting stats you are referring too. WAR Trout 85.3 Pujols 101.5 Walks Trout 964 Pujols 1373. The only things that matter to the modern player are walks, HR and WAR and Trout does have a chance to pass Pujols in two of the three.

I think you missed the memo that winning games no longer matters, theoretical wins is all that we care about now, it's called WAR. It is more important that Trout is worth more than 9 theoretical wins per 162 games than the fact that the Angels only win 2 more real games per 162 with Trout in the lineup than with him out.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by rats60

It depends on what counting stats you are referring too. WAR Trout 85.3 Pujols 101.5 Walks Trout 964 Pujols 1373. The only things that matter to the modern player are walks, HR and WAR and Trout does have a chance to pass Pujols in two of the three.

I think you missed the memo that winning games no longer matters, theoretical wins is all that we care about now, it's called WAR. It is more important that Trout is worth more than 9 theoretical wins per 162 games than the fact that the Angels only win 2 more real games per 162 with Trout in the lineup than with him out.

WAR is not a counting stat. A successful baseball team depends on more than just 1 player. Having someone like Trout with an individual WAR of 9 or 10 doesn't mean they're winning the World Series or even making the playoffs. Ted Williams career WAR is 121.8 and he played in 1 World Series. I don't think anyone would argue he's not an all time great. I'm not saying Trout is as good as Williams, but it's hard to argue that the Angels would have been better off without him than with him throughout his career.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Trout surpassed Bagwell, Snider and do I even need to say it Kiner quite some time ago. Maybe next we can argue Kershaw still has a ways to go to match Jamie Moyer or Bartolo Colon.