The future of Mike Trout

[G1911]

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.

[RCMcKenzie]

Right, so, I'm not a solemn person. I joke around a lot, and this is a baseball card board. I named Victor Martinez because the baseball stat website algorithm generated his name when I was looking at Trout's numbers, and I thought it was funny.

I started naming better and better players, and I got the sense that some were insulted until I said Aaron, Mays and Ruth.

Griffey Jr, Bagwell, Kiner, Snider, Ramirez, and as James says, Mantle, are all-time greats. Trout would be proud to be mentioned with these names.

Trout has 2 years to pass Bagwell in runs, hits, doubles, homers, rbi. They are basically tied in stolen bases and batting average.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

Right, so, I'm not a solemn person. I joke around a lot, and this is a baseball card board. I named Victor Martinez because the baseball stat website algorithm generated his name when I was looking at Trout's numbers, and I thought it was funny.

I started naming better and better players, and I got the sense that some were insulted until I said Aaron, Mays and Ruth.

Griffey Jr, Bagwell, Kiner, Snider, Ramirez, and as James says, Mantle, are all-time greats. Trout would be proud to be mentioned with these names.

Trout has 2 years to pass Bagwell in runs, hits, doubles, homers, rbi. They are basically tied in stolen bases and batting average.

As you do not mean them, then surely you understand precisely why I said they are "devoid of reality" and it is not a "rational discussion", and need not object to that in 65 and come up with false arguments to argue against that not a single person actually made.

[RCMcKenzie]

I meant all of my posts. My opinion is that his ceiling is 2nd tier hofer, and his floor is borderline hofer. To be mentioned with Aaron he needs to play well for 15 more years.

You didn't reply with any serious thoughts until I said "Ruth". It's like the movie analogy. I'm not going to change your mind. You could change my mind if you had an argument like he led the league in RBI 8 years in a row or something.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

I meant all of my posts. My opinion is that his ceiling is 2nd tier hofer, and his floor is borderline hofer. To be mentioned with Aaron he needs to play well for 15 more years.

You didn't reply with any serious thoughts until I said "Ruth". It's like the movie analogy. I'm not going to change your mind. You could change my mind if you had an argument like he led the league in RBI 8 years in a row or something.

Of course you won't, the argument Trout is, in his best outcome, a 2nd tier HOFer and his floor is borderline HOFer is completely disconnected from objective reality and is nonsensical hot take. He gets elected in five years on the first ballot if he never plays another game, and we all know it. Your opinion is contrary to the math and objectivity. 3 MVP's, probably deserved another 1 or 2, 174 OPS+, 85.2 WAR, .301/.412/.582, OPS+ crown five years in a row. He is obviously one of the greats.

I swear we could have a thread asking if the sun rises in the morning and somebody will argue it doesn't