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

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Surely if you were starting a team you would not take Derek Jeter over Mike Trout.

I would take Jeter over Trout any day of the week and twice on Sunday. One had an amazing career that played most games for a very long time and the other is Mike Trout.

[packs]

What is the premise for that choice though? You're picking an end of career Jeter because he had a long career over a currently active Mike Trout?

If it's Jeter at his peak and Trout at his peak, and those are the parameters, I can't see anyone choosing Jeter.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Trout 3 MVPs 4 second place finishes. Jeter? The silence is deafening.

[packs]

Trout pre-injuries was in the most elite circle of all time players in my opinion.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Trout pre-injuries was in the most elite circle of all time players in my opinion.

Agreed. Generational player.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Trout 3 MVPs 4 second place finishes. Jeter? The silence is deafening.

Caption of the Yankees, a long healthy career, and will have better counting stats than Trout in every category but homeruns. Seriously this list could go on with many many more examples.

Trout is amazing WHEN he plays but sadly that is FAR from day to day. He is the most expensive bench warmer by a mile.

Now if we could magically make Mike Trout healthy his entire career he might have been as good as Albert Pujols. So at a magical peak I would choose Trout but with a real world career I take Jeter every time.

[packs]

Pujols is an interesting choice. Over his final 10 seasons Albert compiled a 9.9 total WAR. Even while hurt the last five seasons Trout has been good for 14 WAR in half the time.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by packs

Pujols is an interesting choice. Over his final 10 seasons Albert compiled a 9.9 total WAR. Even while hurt the last five seasons Trout has been good for 14 WAR in half the time.

I picked Albert because of all the hate people put on him while saying Mike was going to be the GOAT. Albert is one of the greatest to ever play the game. Mike won't end up with numbers as good as Fred McGriff.

[packs]

They were right to say that. Pujols was not good on the Angels. Trout was ten times better while they played together.

[packs]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I picked Albert because of all the hate people put on him while saying Mike was going to be the GOAT. Albert is one of the greatest to ever play the game. Mike won't end up with numbers as good as Fred McGriff.

This is why I'm talking about them as contemporaries. You brought it up.

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Mike won't end up with numbers as good as Fred McGriff.

Here is how they currently compare:

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Caption of the Yankees, a long healthy career, and will have better counting stats than Trout in every category but homeruns. Seriously this list could go on with many many more examples.

Trout is amazing WHEN he plays but sadly that is FAR from day to day. He is the most expensive bench warmer by a mile.

Now if we could magically make Mike Trout healthy his entire career he might have been as good as Albert Pujols. So at a magical peak I would choose Trout but with a real world career I take Jeter every time.

In terms of OPS they might as well be from different planets. Trout at age 33 has significantly higher WAR and that's missing half the last 5 or so years. I love Jeter, but he was not a generational player like Trout. He wasn't even the best player on his team for much of his career.

[G1911]

Jeter - 2,747 games
Trout - 1,533 games

If I could have eithers career on a team, as that career has actually happened and actually existed in the observable real world and not a hypothetical that does not exist in reality, I would probably take Jeter right now. I can fill SS with a star for 2 decades, or have Trout missing half the games but providing much more value in the games he does play.

If we mean the player at their absolute best, it is Trout and not even close.

If it means comparing Jeter to a guess of what Trout's full career will end up being, who knows.



As Trout has played more games than Betts and has been better than Betts, I would take Trout, assuming considering their actual careers as they have happened in reality to date.

Going forward, I'd probably take Betts if both were free agents and I could sign one.

Gazing into a crystal ball and attempting to divine the future to arrive at total career values, I would guess Betts will end up higher than Trout, due to the injuries. At their very best, it is unlikely Betts manages to surpass Trout's peak as Betts is 32 and going strong, but very unlikely to improve.