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

[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.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by 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.

Never understood this logic. How many rings does Mookie win on the Angels? How many would Yogi have won with the Browns or the A's?

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Never understood this logic. How many rings does Mookie win on the Angels? How many would Yogi have won with the Browns or the A's?

Cobb + Ted Williams + Bonds agree with your point. Teams win baseball championships.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Never understood this logic. How many rings does Mookie win on the Angels? How many would Yogi have won with the Browns or the A's?

Never understood this logic. "What if" as opposed to "what is". He's not on Angels. He's on the Dodgers (& formerly Red Sox), putting up HOF #'s AND winning rings. 3 so far. Trout is putting up HOF numbers and not winning rings because he is a moron and choose the money over a chance at winning. You're not figuring in that Trout is a moron.

Thus I'd rather have Betts career, no brainer really. Plus Trout's been hurt for half his career, you'd take that over achieving full potential.

Betts.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Never understood this logic. "What if" as opposed to "what is". He's not on Angels. He's on the Dodgers (& formerly Red Sox), putting up HOF #'s AND winning rings. 3 so far. Trout is putting up HOF numbers and not winning rings because he is a moron and choose the money over a chance at winning. You're not figuring in that Trout is a moron.

Thus I'd rather have Betts career, no brainer really. Plus Trout's been hurt for half his career, you'd take that over achieving full potential.

Betts.

It is not like Betts has contributed much in the postseason, .259/.345/.416 or World Series .254/.345/.448. For king of the regular season, Trout has been better than Betts. If you want to win a championship, neither.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by 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.

So Steve Carlton in 1972, who had over 97% of the team's total pitching WAR (12.1 out of 12.4) was a POS because the rest of the staff only won 5 more games than he did. I would gladly compare him with any other pitcher that year even with his naked ring finger.

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

So Steve Carlton in 1972, who had over 97% of the team's total pitching WAR (12.1 out of 12.4) was a POS because the rest of the staff only won 5 more games than he did. I would gladly compare him with any other pitcher that year even with his naked ring finger.

Yes! Vida Blue, Ken Holtzman, Dave Hamilton and the rest of the 1972 A's pitching staff all had a better season than Carlton

[Peter_Spaeth]

How many did Mays win?

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

So Steve Carlton in 1972, who had over 97% of the team's total pitching WAR (12.1 out of 12.4) was a POS because the rest of the staff only won 5 more games than he did. I would gladly compare him with any other pitcher that year even with his naked ring finger.

Why bring Steve Carlton into this conversation? It's about Betts vs Trout.

I'd rather have Randy Johson's career than Carlton since you didn't ask.