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

[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.

[packs]

Every team is different. A lot of teams issue rings to anyone who appeared in a game. Others don't. He has at least two rings and the pinnacle of your career as a MLB player is to win a title. Success comes in different forms.

[Shoeless Moe]

Betts has 3 WS rings, 4 if you count this upcoming season.

And good chance the Dodgers could win 2 or 3 of the next few years.

So will Betts finish with 5 or 6 rings?

If 6, that's the most since the likes of Mantle, Berra and Ford.

Rare air.

Unless Trout gets traded to the Dodgers in the next few years, he finishes with ZERO. That's gotta sting a little.

I'll take Betts when it's all said and done.