Mike Trout versus Mookie Betts -- who would you rather?

[D. Bergin]

Mookie is not exactly Cal Ripken Jr.., but I take him for availability and versatility over Trout, which I think are two things that are still under-rated in this game.

Just a hare-brained theory, and I'm certainly not going to research it any further , but if you had to average in the WAR of the bench player's that had to replace Trout's spot in the lineup with the player's who had to replace Mookie, I'd wager their WAR totals would be closer together then they are...and they're NOT THAT far apart, considering Trouts career started 3 years before Mookie.

[packs]

I take Trout. Mookie is a great player but winning three MVPs puts Trout in rarified air that I think Mookie is unlikely to reach himself. When you look at the list of players who have won three MVPs, you can't ignore any name on the list.

[maniac_73]

If Trout didn't have the health issues he's had I would take him in a heartbeat but you need to be on the field to perform. Mookie being the great player that he is with the playoff success and longevity would lead me in his direction

[tiger8mush]

Trout / Betts

Position: CF / RF
1st full season: 2012 / 2015
WAR: 85.9 / 70.9
AB: 5550 / 5536
H: 1655 / 1628
HR: 381 / 274
BA: .298 / .294
R: 1129 / 1081
RBI: 962 / 839
SB: 213 / 189
OBP: .410 / .373
SLG: .580 / .524
OPS: .990 / .897
OPS+: 172 / 139
oWAR: 86.6 / 54.0
dWAR: 2.2 /15.1
WAR7: 64.8 / 55.6
Games: 1441 / 1429

[nat]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Just a hare-brained theory, and I'm certainly not going to research it any further , but if you had to average in the WAR of the bench player's that had to replace Trout's spot in the lineup with the player's who had to replace Mookie, I'd wager their WAR totals would be closer together then they are...and they're NOT THAT far apart, considering Trouts career started 3 years before Mookie.

On average, this shouldn't make any difference. Replacement level is intended to be the level of the last guy off the bench, so you should expect (PLAYER'S WAR + REPLACEMENT'S WAR) to just equal PLAYER'S WAR. Now, that's just on average, and a given team might have a stronger bench than average, and maybe the Red Sox/Dodgers had a better bench than the Angels. But it's hard to see how that should change your evaluation of Trout/Betts (as opposed to the BOS/LAD vs. LAA front office that constructs the roster).

As for the question of which career would you rather have: even though Trout is the greater player, I think I'd go with Mookie. It must be incredibly frustrating to get injured over and over again and have to sit on the sidelines for, effectively, years on end.

[rats60]

I was thinking about this recently. With Mookie finishing his 10th full season, I was adding him to my top 100 players list and I was a little surprised at how good he has been when I dug down into the numbers. I have Trout ahead of Mookie, but Mookie could easily pass Trout up if he keeps going strong while Trout struggles.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by nat

On average, this shouldn't make any difference. Replacement level is intended to be the level of the last guy off the bench, so you should expect (PLAYER'S WAR + REPLACEMENT'S WAR) to just equal PLAYER'S WAR. Now, that's just on average, and a given team might have a stronger bench than average, and maybe the Red Sox/Dodgers had a better bench than the Angels. But it's hard to see how that should change your evaluation of Trout/Betts (as opposed to the BOS/LAD vs. LAA front office that constructs the roster).

As for the question of which career would you rather have: even though Trout is the greater player, I think I'd go with Mookie. It must be incredibly frustrating to get injured over and over again and have to sit on the sidelines for, effectively, years on end.

I think I worded it poorly, but my point was that Trout has had to be replaced by a bench player, far more often than Betts. You can see that, in that they’ve played an almost identical number of games, despite Trout being in the League for 3 more seasons. That’s lost value for a team.

On top of that, due to his versatility, Betts has actually been able to fill in for other starters in other positions when needed. I have no idea how to quantify that statistically, but I imagine it’s positively impactful to a team.

Of course, all things being equal, if Trout had been even relatively healthy throughout his career, just on the level of Betts, who I mentioned earlier is not exactly an Iron Man himself, then he certainly would have been my choice.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Trout is in decline with major injury problems the last few years and any given year doubtful he will make it to the next month. Betts is in his prime. Peak for peak there is no comparison, but at the end of the day, Betts may prove beter.

[packs]

The question about whose career you'd rather have opens up all kinds of strange propositions. Take Clay Bellinger, for example. He played in only 183 career games but was on the roster of three World Series championship teams: 1999 Yankees, 2000 Yankees, and the 2002 Angels, where he struck out in his lone regular season at bat.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by packs

The question about whose career you'd rather have opens up all kinds of strange propositions. Take Clay Bellinger, for example. He played in only 183 career games but was on the roster of three World Series championship teams: 1999 Yankees, 2000 Yankees, and the 2002 Angels, where he struck out in his lone regular season at bat.

I'm pretty sure Mike Trout made more money YESTERDAY, then Bellinger did his entire career.

I think I'd rather be a contributor on a losing team, then a spectator on a winning team.

...and did they actually give Bellinger a Ring for the Angels? He only played 2 games for them and was in AAA most of the year, and I don't think he was on the postseason roster.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

I'm pretty sure Mike Trout made more money YESTERDAY, then Bellinger did his entire career.

I think I'd rather be a contributor on a losing team, then a spectator on a winning team.

...and did they actually give Bellinger a Ring for the Angels? He only played 2 games for them and was in AAA most of the year, and I don't think he was on the postseason roster.

According to Wikipedia and the BR Bullpen, Bellinger did not receive a championship ring in 2002.