The future of Mike Trout

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

WAR, not the be all and end all I understand, agrees with Peter. Trout is already pretty darn elite and certain way above the floor guys here. Heck, he’s actually at or above the ceiling guys.

3 MVPs, 3 2nds, and probably deserved to win 4 or even 5.

[RCMcKenzie]

Michael Young played almost all 162 games each season in his prime. Here are their current career numbers. I am showing traditional stats. Trout looks better in the advanced stat comparison. I am joking in the sense that these numbers are far, far closer than many fans buying Trout cards realize. Trout will need to grind until 2030 to reach Mantle's numbers.

[packs]

I'm guessing the Bagwell comment had to do with his seasons after age 31?

Otherwise it's truly a mystery as to why his name would be brought up.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by packs

I'm guessing the Bagwell comment had to do with his seasons after age 31?

Otherwise it's truly a mystery as to why his name would be brought up.

That's what I'm assuming, In terms of how Trout might age?

Honestly we can speculate until we're blue in the face, we have no idea what might happen. I remember thinking David Ortiz was cooked after 2008, and he went on a pretty solid run afterwards. Similarly I thought Miguel Cabrera found his groove again, after his 2016 season, and he fell off a cliff. Time will tell, with Mike Trout.

[RCMcKenzie]

If someone's favorite movie is Smokey and the Bandit, I'm not going to be able to convince them that Five Easy Pieces is better, but it's still fun to debate.

Trout has a long way to go and a short time to get there, to catch Baggy.

Kiner is a comp if Trout decides to retire this offseason.

[Peter_Spaeth]

IMO Kiner is not the best comp, because counting numbers have to be considered in context. Also Trout has 20 points on him in batting average. That said, Kiner may be a better hitter than he usually gets credit for, being often mentioned as one of the least deserving HOFers. He isn't that bad.

[RCMcKenzie]

Kiner was a great player. Attendance is part of the grade. Like Kiner, the Angels can finish in last place with or without Trout.

It's why I brought up the movie analogy. It's like political opinion to say it's not a comp.

[RCMcKenzie]

I don't understand, but I'll move on after this. I haven't put Bonds numbers on here because it's not fair to Trout. The numbers are vastly greater for Bonds.

Look at the numbers for Bagwell , runs, hits, 2b, HR, RBI etc


How has Trout surpassed Bagwell? That's why I said, "Charisma". Trout is better than Bagwell, not by a numbers-based argument, but, rather it's some sort of position that Trout has a je ne sais quoi, that Bagwell never had.

[Peter_Spaeth]

WAR is not perfect but probably the best tool we have for comparing players relative to their time. Trout's 162 game average is 9.3 Bagwell's was 6.0. That's a huge delta.

Trout has won 3 MVPs, finished 2nd 3 times, and 3rd once. He is absolutely the dominant player of his time, so far. Who is even close? Bagwell I believe won 1 MVP and might have finished 3rd a couple of times. He was not close to being the best player of his time. Off the top of my head, Bonds, Griffey, and ARod were better, at a minimum. And likely others. Manny Ramirez probably although I haven't studied his numbers. Maybe Frank Thomas.