@daltex said:
I don't agree with @dallasactuary on everything, but Trout has to be considered, to this point in his career, to be numbered with Bonds and Ruth as a candidate for the best player of all time, and it is sad that many of you had the chance to watch him and threw it away.
We would love to watch him play but I can't seem to find him on my TV when the games actually matter! I would have said Don Mattingly and Will Clark were all time greats after year 11 too....
So in 9 years the no name A's won 3 Divisions and are always in contention and talked about! Again this year right there playing in meaningful games late into September and where are the Angels?
@daltex said:
I don't agree with @dallasactuary on everything, but Trout has to be considered, to this point in his career, to be numbered with Bonds and Ruth as a candidate for the best player of all time, and it is sad that many of you had the chance to watch him and threw it away.
We would love to watch him play but I can't seem to find him on my TV when the games actually matter! I would have said Don Mattingly and Will Clark were all time greats after year 11 too....
So in 9 years the no name A's won 3 Divisions and are always in contention and talked about! Again this year right there playing in meaningful games late into September and where are the Angels?
Really? Trout's average OPS and OPS+ are better than any year of either Mattingly or Clark (in their first eleven). Trout's average WAR is higher than all but one of Clark's or Mattingly's seasons. This despite Trout's WAR being greatly reduced his rookie year, this year when he's injured, and last year when the league only played 60 games. Trout did all this playing a much more valuable position than Mattingly and Clark, even if just as indifferently. Add to that Trout finishing in the top 5 MVP 9 times in his first eleven years (Mattingly 3, Clark 4) or if you prefer top 2 MVP 7 to 2 to 1.
I can understand thinking Clark was a HoFer after 11 years (Mattingly not so much) but that's not remotely what I'm talking about.
By the way, at the eleven year mark, Clark had won a whopping one postseason series. Mattingly's only win is as a manager.
I'm gonna give him the 2022 season to show he can stay on the field. He has already turned 30 years old, while still young, the calendar starts flipping quicker His torrid start in his early 20's leaves him in a good spot. He needs to average just 19 homers a year to hit 500 assuming he plays through 40. A spot near the top 5 all time is off the table thanks to all this missed time.
Ronald acuna Jr will have a better career than Trout. ...
The Angel's G.M, "Here's a good idea. Let's sacrifice the whole team in money to one player that I like. 🤔"
That'll never win a championship! And trust me... Ronald gets Peanuts compared to ole Trout boy. 100 million. And the Braves aren't going to pay anyone that type of money. And.... Ronald is better than Trout.
@dallasactuary said:
You could teach PhD level seminars in missing the point. I completely understand that Trout's career, so far, is a short one and that his averages are very likely to decline. But that wasn't the point - nay, it wasn't remotely relevant - of any of my posts. My post was directed at what YOU said. I marvel at how quickly you are running away from what you said, but unless you can run faster than the speed of light and turn back time you still said it. YOU said that a player whose slugging average is the 9th best in MLB history (at the moment, what happens in the future being an unrelated topic) had a high WAR because he walks a lot and plays CF. What you said was nonsense, and I pointed that out. That was the sole point of my post. The end.
No, not missing the point at all. but you are busy not practicing good reading comprehension. my comments regarded Trouts WAR.
here is the exact quote.
"WAR likes that he is good at taking walks and that he plays Cf"
does WAR not give him significant credit for taking lots of walks and playing CF?
of course it does. Trout has been a very average to below average CF for his career thus far. had he been playing a position more suited to his skill set, LF, his WAR would be lower. You know the positional adjustments as well as I do. +2.5 for CF, -7.5 for LF and RF. this cannot be new information for you.
you know that BB are worth about .3 runs when calculated for WAR right? and taking BB is Trouts best skill. it just is.
has he ever lead the league in any power category that is not a rate stat? 2b, 3b, hr? I would call him a very good power hitter. not great, not all time, not top 10 all time. he has played 11 seasons i believe and has hit 40+ HRs 2 times.
Joe Namath is a perfect example of what collectors like. A great player that won the big game. Maybe the biggest. He isn't necessarily the best QB of all-time, and may not be in the top 5 or top 10. But he backed up his play on the big stage. Trout has played in 3 playoff games and his team lost every one of them. If people are going to pay millions, hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands for a very good player who at the moment is 0-3 in the playoffs after playing for 11 years, I think they are foolishly spending.
@craig44 said:
No, not missing the point at all. but you are busy not practicing good reading comprehension. my comments regarded Trouts WAR.
here is the exact quote.
"WAR likes that he is good at taking walks and that he plays Cf"
Look, I can crown you king of missing the point - I hereby doth crown thee - but that's all I can do.
To say of a player who is 9th all-time in SLG - higher than he ranks in OBP - that WAR likes that he is good at taking walks makes no sense. Yes, it's true. It is also true that Trout's birthday is in August. That the statement is true is not the point. Mike Trout is good at EVERYTHING, and that is why his WAR is so high. To single out walks and his fielding position is nonsense, your highness.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@olb31 said:
Joe Namath is a perfect example of what collectors like. A great player that won the big game. Maybe the biggest. He isn't necessarily the best QB of all-time, and may not be in the top 5 or top 10. But he backed up his play on the big stage. Trout has played in 3 playoff games and his team lost every one of them. If people are going to pay millions, hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands for a very good player who at the moment is 0-3 in the playoffs after playing for 11 years, I think they are foolishly spending.
Joe Namath is the worst NFL player elected to the Hall of Fame. He really does not deserve to be in there. His career QB rating ranks #181 out of 199 qualifying QB's in NFL history. The season he won the Super Bowl he had very little to do with his team's success. The Jets had 10 all-pro players on that team who were mainly responsible for their success. Namath was more of a deterrent to their team success but gets all the credit because he simply said something in a microphone. He basically was Trent Dilfer on the field while being much more successful off the field.
@craig44 said:
No, not missing the point at all. but you are busy not practicing good reading comprehension. my comments regarded Trouts WAR.
here is the exact quote.
"WAR likes that he is good at taking walks and that he plays Cf"
Look, I can crown you king of missing the point - I hereby doth crown thee - but that's all I can do.
To say of a player who is 9th all-time in SLG - higher than he ranks in OBP - that WAR likes that he is good at taking walks makes no sense. Yes, it's true. It is also true that Trout's birthday is in August. That the statement is true is not the point. Mike Trout is good at EVERYTHING, and that is why his WAR is so high. To single out walks and his fielding position is nonsense, your highness.
you must be into politics because you sure do stick to your talking point, even after it stops making sense. For some reason, you can't seem to see the forest for the trees. Lets baby step you through this...
Do you disagree that positional adjustment adds to WAR?
you have to concede to that, right?
You must also concede that BB also add to WAR. right?
the reason i mentioned BB is because he is better at drawing walks than slugging. he has led his league 4 times in obp, 3 times in slugging. yes, he is lower on the all time OBP list, but more dominant against his peers.
@olb31 said:
Joe Namath is a perfect example of what collectors like. A great player that won the big game. Maybe the biggest. He isn't necessarily the best QB of all-time, and may not be in the top 5 or top 10. But he backed up his play on the big stage. Trout has played in 3 playoff games and his team lost every one of them. If people are going to pay millions, hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands for a very good player who at the moment is 0-3 in the playoffs after playing for 11 years, I think they are foolishly spending.
Joe Namath is the worst NFL player elected to the Hall of Fame. He really does not deserve to be in there. His career QB rating ranks #181 out of 199 qualifying QB's in NFL history. The season he won the Super Bowl he had very little to do with his team's success. The Jets had 10 all-pro players on that team who were mainly responsible for their success. Namath was more of a deterrent to their team success but gets all the credit because he simply said something in a microphone. He basically was Trent Dilfer on the field while being much more successful off the field.
I'm sorry, but Joe Namath wasn't a Trent Dilfer! That's going too far! He did more with that team than Dilfer did. Plus ... He was a movie star and Icon.
@olb31 said:
Joe Namath is a perfect example of what collectors like. A great player that won the big game. Maybe the biggest. He isn't necessarily the best QB of all-time, and may not be in the top 5 or top 10. But he backed up his play on the big stage. Trout has played in 3 playoff games and his team lost every one of them. If people are going to pay millions, hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands for a very good player who at the moment is 0-3 in the playoffs after playing for 11 years, I think they are foolishly spending.
Joe Namath is the worst NFL player elected to the Hall of Fame. He really does not deserve to be in there. His career QB rating ranks #181 out of 199 qualifying QB's in NFL history. The season he won the Super Bowl he had very little to do with his team's success. The Jets had 10 all-pro players on that team who were mainly responsible for their success. Namath was more of a deterrent to their team success but gets all the credit because he simply said something in a microphone. He basically was Trent Dilfer on the field while being much more successful off the field.
Art thanks for proving my point. People like winners. stats, WAR, etc. Mean something. But Champions are on top. Art, Joe was MVP on a team the had the biggest upset in Super Bowl history and Namath predicted it. That means he accomplished something. Trout has never been a part of a team that won even one playoff game. IF I were going to pay $250,000 for a PSA 9 1965 Namath or a 2009 Trout Auto, I would buy the Namath everyday of the week and twice and Sunday.
@olb31 said:
Joe Namath is a perfect example of what collectors like. A great player that won the big game. Maybe the biggest. He isn't necessarily the best QB of all-time, and may not be in the top 5 or top 10. But he backed up his play on the big stage. Trout has played in 3 playoff games and his team lost every one of them. If people are going to pay millions, hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands for a very good player who at the moment is 0-3 in the playoffs after playing for 11 years, I think they are foolishly spending.
Joe Namath is the worst NFL player elected to the Hall of Fame. He really does not deserve to be in there. His career QB rating ranks #181 out of 199 qualifying QB's in NFL history. The season he won the Super Bowl he had very little to do with his team's success. The Jets had 10 all-pro players on that team who were mainly responsible for their success. Namath was more of a deterrent to their team success but gets all the credit because he simply said something in a microphone. He basically was Trent Dilfer on the field while being much more successful off the field.
Art thanks for proving my point. People like winners. stats, WAR, etc. Mean something. But Champions are on top. Art, Joe was MVP on a team the had the biggest upset in Super Bowl history and Namath predicted it. That means he accomplished something. Trout has never been a part of a team that won even one playoff game. IF I were going to pay $250,000 for a PSA 9 1965 Namath or a 2009 Trout Auto, I would buy the Namath everyday of the week and twice and Sunday.
I'd take the 1965 Namath as well. Realistically, I'd avoid both and go for Brady, Lebron, Jordan or one of the 50's greats like Mays, Aaron, or Mantle.
Regarding Namath, He literally had one year. He won the MVP because of his popularity and a ridiculously over-hyped prediction which basically makes no sense as what else would a player say in that situation. He did not do much at all to win that game. Matt Snell was the real MVP of that game hands down. Additionally, the defense pulled off 4 interceptions and a fumble recovery. That is 5 turnovers for the Jets defense. Namath had numerous chances to run up the score given all the opportunities provided by his defense yet was not able to do much of anything. It was Matt Snell moving the ball for 121 yards rushing and scoring the Jets only touchdown. Jim Turner kicking 3 field goals because Namath could not get into the endzone over and over even after getting great field position numerous times after turnovers. So why does Namath get credit for this game and why do people think this game is enough to warrant the Hall of Fame?
Namath should not be considered a winner in terms of his NFL career. He only managed to make it to the playoffs twice in a 14-year career. Only one single season in his career did he manage to win a playoff game and as my Super Bowl mention proves, he had little to do with those victories. In fact, I would argue Doug Williams, Jeff Hostetler, Jim McMahon should be considered above Namath in terms of winners in the NFL. And none of those 3 would ever scratch the surface of the Hall of Fame.
@craig44 said:
the reason i mentioned BB is because he is better at drawing walks than slugging. he has led his league 4 times in obp, 3 times in slugging. yes, he is lower on the all time OBP list, but more dominant against his peers.
In the future, the way to express that thought in the English language is "Trout is among the greatest of all time at both slugging and getting on base, but he is slightly better at getting on base, including taking walks, than he is at slugging". What makes absolutely zero sense, if you are trying to express that thought, is to mention walks and his fielding position, and not acknowledge that he is also one of the greatest sluggers of all time. Because to express it that way allows for only two possibilities: (1) you knew Trout was an epic slugger but chose to hide it to make a very different point than the one you now claim you were trying to make, or (2) you didn't know how great a slugger Trout was, in which case you shouldn't be surprised when someone sets you straight.
In any event, Trout's OPS+ of 176 is comprised of two pieces: 1.33 for OBP and 1.43 for slugging. So, granting that your highness was trying to make the point you claim to have been trying to make, the point you were trying to make was incorrect. Trout is better than league average in slugging by a greater margin than he is better than league average at OBP.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Trout is a hurt puppy. Griffey in the long run will be the better player. Once injury starts piling up on a wealthy player..... It's over! Wouldn't surprise me if he retired tomorrow. Who wouldn't with that type of money. All these stats mean nothing being hurt at home last few years. Owner made a mistake! The Angel's playoff chances will suffer because of it.
@craig44 said:
the reason i mentioned BB is because he is better at drawing walks than slugging. he has led his league 4 times in obp, 3 times in slugging. yes, he is lower on the all time OBP list, but more dominant against his peers.
In the future, the way to express that thought in the English language is "Trout is among the greatest of all time at both slugging and getting on base, but he is slightly better at getting on base, including taking walks, than he is at slugging". What makes absolutely zero sense, if you are trying to express that thought, is to mention walks and his fielding position, and not acknowledge that he is also one of the greatest sluggers of all time. Because to express it that way allows for only two possibilities: (1) you knew Trout was an epic slugger but chose to hide it to make a very different point than the one you now claim you were trying to make, or (2) you didn't know how great a slugger Trout was, in which case you shouldn't be surprised when someone sets you straight.
In any event, Trout's OPS+ of 176 is comprised of two pieces: 1.33 for OBP and 1.43 for slugging. So, granting that your highness was trying to make the point you claim to have been trying to make, the point you were trying to make was incorrect. Trout is better than league average in slugging by a greater margin than he is better than league average at OBP.
lets baby step you through this again.
Trout is NOT one of the very greatest sluggers in history.
wouldnt you think that one of the very greatest sluggers of all time would also be the greatest, or at least one of the very greatest sluggers of his own time?
how many times has Trout led his league in 2b, 3b or HR?
let me answer that one for you... 0. thats right. this all time great slugger has never even led his own peers in 2b, 3b or HR.
I am so sorry you cant seem to grasp this fact, but, you know what they say about some peoples ability to reason and wet paper bags...
You also dont seem to understand the concept of positional adjustment when it comes to WAR.
dont worry, I am patient. we will get you through this.
CF is considered a more "important" position when it comes to WAR. therefore, in the WAR calculation, those who play CF (and C, SS, 2B, 3B) get an extra added bump for playing that position. those who play other positions: LF, RF, 1B, DH get neged for playing those positions. Trout has played CF for i believe his entire career (not particularly well I may add) so he gets that positional bump when it comes to the WAR calculation. from here on out, when he is playing LF then 1b then dh, he will no longer be getting that positive positional adjustment. truth be told, he probably shouldnt have been playing CF for the last few seasons due to ineffectiveness and injury risk.
So... much of Trouts "shine" comes from gaudy WAR numbers. I focused on BB and positional adjustment as those are the two things trout seems to be all time great at and it is reflected in his WAR totals.
you seem to believe that a player who has never led his league in 2b, 3b or HR is one of the "all time great" sluggers, though he cant seem to lead his very own peers in one of the power categories.
there, hows that. i tried to give you the 3rd grade version. if it is still a little tough to understand you can make an appointment for after school and we can try again.
Babe Ruth was never a good slugger because he led the league in walks eleven times. He also held the career record for walks for a very long time but was later passed by Barry Bonds who, regardless of any steroid issues, was never considered much of a slugger, either.
Seriously, you guys are embarrassing yourselves. I agree with @dallasactuary that I am sad for you to be given the opportunity to watch one of the very best players of all time, but you turn away because you think you're watching Will Clark.
@daltex said:
Babe Ruth was never a good slugger because he led the league in walks eleven times. He also held the career record for walks for a very long time but was later passed by Barry Bonds who, regardless of any steroid issues, was never considered much of a slugger, either.
Seriously, you guys are embarrassing yourselves. I agree with @dallasactuary that I am sad for you to be given the opportunity to watch one of the very best players of all time, but you turn away because you think you're watching Will Clark.
what in the world are you talking about. Ruth lead his league in HR 12 times. it is possible to both lead in HR and OBP. Ruth did it many times. it just so happens that trout is not a dominant enough slugger to be able to accomplish the feat.
Bonds is an all time slugger as well. He was a league leader in HR, and both single season HR and career HR leader.
dont be obtuse.
can you explain EXACTLY what trout does that is at an ALL TIME level?
He walks a lot. he used to score a lot of runs, at least up until 2016 he did.
I forgot, he is really good at striking out as well... he does that at an all time level too.
I don't agree with @dallasactuary on everything, but Trout has to be considered, to this point in his career, to be numbered with Bonds and Ruth as a candidate for the best player of all time, and it is sad that many of you had the chance to watch him and threw it away.
In late 2019 I bought 3rd row seats behind the Angels dugout just to see him. Then a couple of days before my trip (I live on the East coast), he went out with a toe issue. And Ohtani was already out with TJ surgery. So bummed!
At least they have amazing fresh, hot cookies at Angel Stadium.
I went to a Angel's game on Trout bobblehead night. I didn't get one and asked the attendant, " Did you run out?" She responded with, " Kinda, the rest are Broken." Figures.
A lot of red on the back of this card. Don’t think you would find anyone with more.
Yeah, but look to a lot of categories that mean a ton to very basic baseball fans -- like batting average, hits, doubles, triples, home runs, and RBIs. Out of all of those categories, he has led the league in only one of those categories, a total of one time. Include stolen bases, and you get one more league leader. That's it. OPS, WAR, those are where you see him leading the league. Not classic categories that tend to make a player a legend.
kevin
@ArtVandelay said:
Those hot cookies are incredible at Angel stadium. I bought the 30 cookie option once and nearly finished the entire thing during the game.
Only bummer is I had to wait over an inning to get them. And I think my wife and I polished off the cone of 14 cookies pretty easily.
From 2010-2019 Trout had the highest slugging percentage of any player with 3,000+ PA and the 2nd highest isolated power behind Stanton. Not really sure why you would look at individual years rather than cumulatively. Would you rather have the player that was 1st once or twice in stats like HR, 2B, 3B, or the player that lead the league over a decade long span? He did lead the league in triples the last decade and was 5th in home runs, so not exactly like he has been completely slacking there. He has been slugging at an all time great rate (top 15 all time), whether he can keep it up in his 30s is another story.
"wouldnt you think that one of the very greatest sluggers of all time would also be the greatest, or at least one of the very greatest sluggers of his own time?"
He is the best slugger of his time, can't really argue with the stats.
@fergie23 said:
From 2010-2019 Trout had the highest slugging percentage of any player with 3,000+ PA and the 2nd highest isolated power behind Stanton. Not really sure why you would look at individual years rather than cumulatively. Would you rather have the player that was 1st once or twice in stats like HR, 2B, 3B, or the player that lead the league over a decade long span? He did lead the league in triples the last decade and was 5th in home runs, so not exactly like he has been completely slacking there. He has been slugging at an all time great rate (top 15 all time), whether he can keep it up in his 30s is another story.
"wouldnt you think that one of the very greatest sluggers of all time would also be the greatest, or at least one of the very greatest sluggers of his own time?"
He is the best slugger of his time, can't really argue with the stats.
Robb
Like Al Davis the owner of the Raiders told us, "just Win Baby"!!!
@fergie23 said:
From 2010-2019 Trout had the highest slugging percentage of any player with 3,000+ PA and the 2nd highest isolated power behind Stanton. Not really sure why you would look at individual years rather than cumulatively. Would you rather have the player that was 1st once or twice in stats like HR, 2B, 3B, or the player that lead the league over a decade long span? He did lead the league in triples the last decade and was 5th in home runs, so not exactly like he has been completely slacking there. He has been slugging at an all time great rate (top 15 all time), whether he can keep it up in his 30s is another story.
"wouldnt you think that one of the very greatest sluggers of all time would also be the greatest, or at least one of the very greatest sluggers of his own time?"
He is the best slugger of his time, can't really argue with the stats.
Robb
how many times has the best slugger of his times led his own league in HR's? or 2b? or 3b?
you would think that the greatest slugger of his time would have led the league in one of those statistics at least 1 time in 12 years. wouldn't you??
he may have nice rate stats, but the actual results are not there. at least the results you would expect from an "all-time great"
All right, let's see if I can answer David's questions to the satisfaction of everyone else here. I doubt David can be satisfied.
First, let's look at the league leaders during Trout's career: to pick more or less at random, Jorge Soler and the Davis brothers (Chris and Khris) have combined for four home run titles. Their career OPS+ are between 106 and 118, which is not close to Trout's 176. In the years that they won the home run title only in 2013 did the champion (Chris Davis) outslug Trout. Even though Trout didn't win any of the home run titles, it's easy to see that he's a vastly superior slugger than those who did. I'm sure you know this already, but Trout has 310 home runs before the age of 30, which seems like something a slugger might do.
Regarding strikeouts, he has only finished in the top ten twice, so I'm unclear why you would think that would be something he should be known for.
If I recall correctly, @dallasactuary never mentioned WAR, only I did. If you like, you can discard my comments comparing Trout's WAR to that of Clark and Mattingly, but I'll stick to my comparison against the likes of Mays, Griffey, and Lloyd Moseby for that matter. There is (obviously?) no position differential between centerfield and centerfield. I'm not sure what the argument is for position differentials then because no one is comparing Trout to David Ortiz, at least not using WAR.
For the moment, let's stipulate that Trout is an average to slightly below average centerfielder. Do you understand how hard those are to find? You would never move a slightly below average centerfielder to left, unless you also have Kevin Kiermaier or Andruw Jones available for your outfield.
Can you (can anyone here) name anyone who led the AL in triples during Trout's career without looking it up? I had to look it up and in two cases both last name and team were not enough for me to know who the player was. The point is that no one cares about triples anymore. I looked at the list of all-time triples leaders, and of those who played even one game in my lifetime, Willie Wilson was the career leader. (I'll be 50 next year.) Two points: Wilson was never considered a slugger, and he wasn't particularly good at hitting triples. He was 56th all time. There are, I believe, only two players who played since WW II ahead of Wilson; Musial and Clemente. There are players on the list who are sufficiently obscure that I'm just not sure when they played their last game. Point is, triples aren't meaningful anymore. It's like complete games. Does anyone know who leads the AL in complete games this year?
It blows my mind that we have an argument that says that Trout's extremely high slugging percentage should be discounted because he also has an extremely high on base percentage. He's the top active player in both slugging and on base percentages. His OPS+ is seventh all time, and I tend to discount Turkey Stearnes and Oscar Charleston because there is so much bad data with Negro League stats. Trout is 176 and Joey Votto is second at 148. The margin is almost impossible to comprehend.
As far as salary is concerned, as has been pointed out above, the Angels are playing another player only the difference of a minimum salary less. Clearly Trout doesn't suffer from being on a team that wastes all its money.
The one stat that everyone seems to ignore is that, assuming he doesn't get any MVP votes this year, Trout will have been top five MVP nine times in his first eleven years. He is a three-time MVP. I don't understand how anyone can fail to appreciate that.
For those wedded to traditional stats, on his 30th birthday Trout was .305/310/816. I have no words.
As Whitey Herzog would have said "You're missing a great game".
lots of players have nice rate stats, usually those rates decrease the larger the sample size. if trout was having seasons of 550-600+ plus AB either his rates would decrease or his results would increase. since he seldom has that many AB's in a season, we will never know. it has been 6 seasons since he has had over 500 AB's
keep in mind that Greg Jefferies had a season where his BA was .500, Slugged .667, OPS 1.167 and OPS + 213.
pretty amazing until you realize he only had 6 AB's. great rates, not such great actual results.
same idea with trout, the Jefferies example is obviously hyperbole to illustrate a point.
It’s well documented on these boards that I think there are lots of undeserving players in the HoF. Ted Williams and Ernie Banks are not among those I’d kick out. Let’s leave playoff success out of the equation about who is and isn’t a great player.
@craig44 said:
classic dallas. start losing a discussion and "move on"
I am not much for empathy, but I truly felt sorry for you when I read this post because I know how extremely embarrassed I would be if I had written it. I moved on out of frustration; you should move on to retain a bit of dignity. Seriously.
@GreenSneakers said:
It’s well documented on these boards that I think there are lots of undeserving players in the HoF. Ted Williams and Ernie Banks are not among those I’d kick out. Let’s leave playoff success out of the equation about who is and isn’t a great player.
Not directed at anyone in particular, but imagine listening to an argument that Joe Shlabotnik was great because his mother's maiden name was Springsteen, and isn't that just a great name? Assuming the person making the argument was serious, you'd laugh at them, wouldn't you? Now you know how I feel when someone argues that Trout isn't great because the Angels don't make the playoffs. You can't see me laughing at you, which is nice, but rest assured that I am.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@craig44 said:
classic dallas. start losing a discussion and "move on"
I am not much for empathy, but I truly felt sorry for you when I read this post because I know how extremely embarrassed I would be if I had written it. I moved on out of frustration; you should move on to retain a bit of dignity. Seriously.
@GreenSneakers said:
It’s well documented on these boards that I think there are lots of undeserving players in the HoF. Ted Williams and Ernie Banks are not among those I’d kick out. Let’s leave playoff success out of the equation about who is and isn’t a great player.
Not directed at anyone in particular, but imagine listening to an argument that Joe Shlabotnik was great because his mother's maiden name was Springsteen, and isn't that just a great name? Assuming the person making the argument was serious, you'd laugh at them, wouldn't you? Now you know how I feel when someone argues that Trout isn't great because the Angels don't make the playoffs. You can't see me laughing at you, which is nice, but rest assured that I am.
classic dallas. throw some thinly veiled insults and refuse to address points.
answer the question. how many times has this all-time great slugger led his league in homers, doubles or triples?
easier to hurl insults than to admit you may just be wrong, right...
If you finish in the Top 2 of MVP voting in 7 out of 8 consecutive years, and Top 5 for 9 consecutive years, it’s not unreasonable to be considered in a conversation of all time greats.
@GreenSneakers said:
If you finish in the Top 2 of MVP voting in 7 out of 8 consecutive years, and Top 5 for 9 consecutive years, it’s not unreasonable to be considered in a conversation of all time greats.
hard to gauge against all time greats as you could only get the mvp once in your lifetime.
Let the record show that I tried; I really tried. You truly believe that you have made "points" that merit being addressed. You truly believe that slugging average measures something other than slugging. You are making arguments of the mother's maiden name variety and you don't understand that that's what you're doing. And I have no idea what to do with that. Daltex even grabbed your hand and forced you to stare directly into the face of the absurd argument you've been making and you still couldn't see it. And somehow my answering a question about Mike Trout's triples is going to add value to this discussion? No, it won't. Nothing will. Time to move on.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I think part of the cognitive dissonance people are feeling is because of the constant narrative we have been told from espn, mlb network and other talking heads about how great Trout is. that he is in the very upper echelon in the history of mlb. often when people hear a differing opinion on something that has been spoken of as fact, it can seem off putting
lets talk a little about what EXACTLY makes trout so great.
He is not a great fielder.
he does not have a good arm
He is very elite at getting on base
he is a good power hitter
for people who care, he is good at hitting for average
at least in the beginning of his career he had pretty elite speed. not so much now.
He is injury prone
He is very good at racking up WAR.
did I miss anything?
from this, I see a very good/great player. not a 5 tool talent. a very likely HOFer, though not a top inner circle HOFer. trouts trend is looking to be that he will not age well. he is now on the wrong side of 30 and carries a lot of weight. Someone above mentioned Griffey as a comparison. I could definitely see Trouts career heading in that direction. I see nothing right now that makes me think he will become less injury prone in his 30's
@GreenSneakers said:
It’s well documented on these boards that I think there are lots of undeserving players in the HoF. Ted Williams and Ernie Banks are not among those I’d kick out. Let’s leave playoff success out of the equation about who is and isn’t a great player.
Trout currently would make the HOF, no doubt. But 3 million dollars for one of his cards is another question. My point of this thread is concern over paying such high amounts for his cards when he still needs more accomplishments to demand that kind of coin.
@GreenSneakers said:
It’s well documented on these boards that I think there are lots of undeserving players in the HoF. Ted Williams and Ernie Banks are not among those I’d kick out. Let’s leave playoff success out of the equation about who is and isn’t a great player.
Trout currently would make the HOF, no doubt. But 3 million dollars for one of his cards is another question. My point of this thread is concern over paying such high amounts for his cards when he still needs more accomplishments to demand that kind of coin.
I am in the "Trout is a great ball player camp but not putting him in the All Time Great camp" yet but I want to see him on my TV in October! Is that making me a Trout hater? No I am not but I doubt he is going into the HOF if he retired today after 11 seasons, sorry! You better put Munson in then!!
On the Griffey comparison I don't think Trout will even come close to his numbers let alone the highlight reel that he was!! Playoff numbers!! Not close! I take Griffey all day everyday over Trout! Now if Griffey signed with the Yankees in 2000 instead of the Reds he would be in the discussion as top 2 or 3 to ever play so there is still time for Trout to sign with the Yankees but I would imagine they have their sights set on Ohtani now which the Angels won't be able to sign because of the Trout and Rendon contracts!!
On a different argument Griffey would have I say probably 4 maybe 5 rings if he played for the Yankees from 2000-2010ish
2000
2001? hard to say if they win it with Griffey? Move Williams to left and there is your lock LF that those teams needed.
2003? Another hard to say lost to a less than stellar Marlins team which I think the Yankees were a lot better than for sure!
2004? Doubt they lose to the Sox here with Griffey.
2009
@GreenSneakers said:
It’s well documented on these boards that I think there are lots of undeserving players in the HoF. Ted Williams and Ernie Banks are not among those I’d kick out. Let’s leave playoff success out of the equation about who is and isn’t a great player.
Trout currently would make the HOF, no doubt. But 3 million dollars for one of his cards is another question. My point of this thread is concern over paying such high amounts for his cards when he still needs more accomplishments to demand that kind of coin.
I am in the "Trout is a great ball player camp but not putting him in the All Time Great camp" yet but I want to see him on my TV in October! Is that making me a Trout hater? No I am not but I doubt he is going into the HOF if he retired today after 11 seasons, sorry! You better put Munson in then!!
On the Griffey comparison I don't think Trout will even come close to his numbers let alone the highlight reel that he was!! Playoff numbers!! Not close! I take Griffey all day everyday over Trout! Now if Griffey signed with the Yankees in 2000 instead of the Reds he would be in the discussion as top 2 or 3 to ever play so there is still time for Trout to sign with the Yankees but I would imagine they have their sights set on Ohtani now which the Angels won't be able to sign because of the Trout and Rendon contracts!!
On a different argument Griffey would have I say probably 4 maybe 5 rings if he played for the Yankees from 2000-2010ish
2000
2001? hard to say if they win it with Griffey? Move Williams to left and there is your lock LF that those teams needed.
2003? Another hard to say lost to a less than stellar Marlins team which I think the Yankees were a lot better than for sure!
2004? Doubt they lose to the Sox here with Griffey.
2009
Misses the point that in terms of MVP votes and JAWS and rate stats Trout is ALREADY better than Griffey was. Also misses the point that Griffey was essentially through after his first year in Cincinnati. 2005 was by no means a special year for Griffey, and the rest of his post-2000 career was just bad.
Also, the contract Trout has with the Angels precludes him signing with the Yankees for a VERY long time.
BTW, if Griffey had retired in 2000 rather than report to the Reds he would (still) have been an inner circle HoFer. Young Griffey was rally that good. Young Trout is just better.
By the way, Munson is somewhere around the borderline HoFer as it is. If I were picking the next catcher to be enshrined it would be somewhere between him, Mauer, and Posey. None are definitely in, if only because Mauer spent so much of his career (about half) at first and DH and Posey is still active. I think Yadier Molina gets in, but I don't think he's all that close to being good enough. Molina is a lot closer to Jim Sundberg than is generally thought, except that he had a much higher (very short) peak and Sundberg was more reliably very good.
@dallasactuary said:
Let the record show that I tried; I really tried. You truly believe that you have made "points" that merit being addressed. You truly believe that slugging average measures something other than slugging. You are making arguments of the mother's maiden name variety and you don't understand that that's what you're doing. And I have no idea what to do with that. Daltex even grabbed your hand and forced you to stare directly into the face of the absurd argument you've been making and you still couldn't see it. And somehow my answering a question about Mike Trout's triples is going to add value to this discussion? No, it won't. Nothing will. Time to move on.
again, classic dallas. thinly veiled insults and never addressing a point. let me try to baby step you through this again.
as far as triples go...
What exactly do sluggers do? they produce extra-base hits. HR, 2B, 3B
It was mentioned above that trout has 310 home runs by his 30th birthday. that is quite good. that means he has taken him 11 seasons to hit those 310 HRs. Let's see how that compares to all-time sluggers...
i will take away his rookie season when he only hit 5 HR. that gives him 305 over a 10 year span. again, quite good. an average of 30 per season. here is a list of players who hit over 400 HR in a 10 year span:
Sosa 479
Ruth 467
Bonds 444
Arod 454
Foxx 415
Pujols 408
Mcgwire 405
Killebrew 403
Griffey 400
these are just their best 10 year runs, those guys are all on the list multiple times for different runs. in total, there have been 32 10 year runs of 400 or more HR.
here are a few more:
Mays 390
Gehrig 390
Palmiero 396
Thome 393
F. Robinson 336
I am sure there are more who have hit more than 305 in a ten year span as well.
Williams would have had it not been for WW2
there are at least 14 players who have outdone trout in a 10 year span. will Mike turn out some amazing 50 HR seasons in his 30's and be able to expand his numbers? maybe. Given his track record, I wouldnt bet on it though.
Is trout a good slugger? yes. a great slugger? probably.
an inner circle all-time great slugger? nope. Fantastic rates, only very good results.
Misses the point that in terms of MVP votes and JAWS and rate stats Trout is ALREADY better than Griffey was. Also misses the point that Griffey was essentially through after his first year in Cincinnati. 2005 was by no means a special year for Griffey, and the rest of his post-2000 career was just bad.
Also, the contract Trout has with the Angels precludes him signing with the Yankees for a VERY long time.
BTW, if Griffey had retired in 2000 rather than report to the Reds he would (still) have been an inner circle HoFer. Young Griffey was rally that good. Young Trout is just better.
Sorry Griffey was an RBI and HR machine plus 11 straight Gold Gloves and made a dismal Mariners team into a playoff bound team every year!! No way is younger Trout better sorry I will disagree on that one and you can throw JAWs and OPS at me all day long and will not convince me of anything!! I have no idea what Griffeys JAWs or WARs or OPS are and don’t care he was a generational 5 tool talent that played a somewhat boring game to the masses and gave it life and character!!
@craig44 said:
I think part of the cognitive dissonance people are feeling is because of the constant narrative we have been told from espn, mlb network and other talking heads about how great Trout is. that he is in the very upper echelon in the history of mlb. often when people hear a differing opinion on something that has been spoken of as fact, it can seem off putting
lets talk a little about what EXACTLY makes trout so great.
He is not a great fielder.
he does not have a good arm
He is very elite at getting on base
he is a good power hitter
for people who care, he is good at hitting for average
at least in the beginning of his career he had pretty elite speed. not so much now.
He is injury prone
He is very good at racking up WAR.
did I miss anything?
from this, I see a very good/great player. not a 5 tool talent. a very likely HOFer, though not a top inner circle HOFer. trouts trend is looking to be that he will not age well. he is now on the wrong side of 30 and carries a lot of weight. Someone above mentioned Griffey as a comparison. I could definitely see Trouts career heading in that direction. I see nothing right now that makes me think he will become less injury prone in his 30's
And, Griffey was a better CF! Griffey was more iconic in the 90s. I bet Trout never sniffs 600 dingers. For that number of homeruns.... You have to be on the field! Remember Griffey had what???..... 43 ? 46? Homeruns at all star break during the 94 strike season? What could have been. > @scmavl said:
I can't believe we're basically having a conversation about "Iz Mike Trout good or he sux?"
I think it's funny. Something to talk about to give the conversation a lil pep 😂
for Trout to see 600 home runs, he would have to replicate his 20's. I do not see him staying as healthy in his 30s as he was in his 20s.
He will be very injury-prone in his 30s unless he changes his body type. he is carrying too much mass to be playing outfield consistently and not continually have nagging injuries.
@craig44 said:
for Trout to see 600 home runs, he would have to replicate his 20's. I do not see him staying as healthy in his 30s as he was in his 20s.
He will be very injury-prone in his 30s unless he changes his body type. he is carrying too much mass to be playing outfield consistently and not continually have nagging injuries.
Comments
We would love to watch him play but I can't seem to find him on my TV when the games actually matter! I would have said Don Mattingly and Will Clark were all time greats after year 11 too....
So in 9 years the no name A's won 3 Divisions and are always in contention and talked about! Again this year right there playing in meaningful games late into September and where are the Angels?
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
Really? Trout's average OPS and OPS+ are better than any year of either Mattingly or Clark (in their first eleven). Trout's average WAR is higher than all but one of Clark's or Mattingly's seasons. This despite Trout's WAR being greatly reduced his rookie year, this year when he's injured, and last year when the league only played 60 games. Trout did all this playing a much more valuable position than Mattingly and Clark, even if just as indifferently. Add to that Trout finishing in the top 5 MVP 9 times in his first eleven years (Mattingly 3, Clark 4) or if you prefer top 2 MVP 7 to 2 to 1.
I can understand thinking Clark was a HoFer after 11 years (Mattingly not so much) but that's not remotely what I'm talking about.
By the way, at the eleven year mark, Clark had won a whopping one postseason series. Mattingly's only win is as a manager.
I'm gonna give him the 2022 season to show he can stay on the field. He has already turned 30 years old, while still young, the calendar starts flipping quicker
His torrid start in his early 20's leaves him in a good spot. He needs to average just 19 homers a year to hit 500 assuming he plays through 40. A spot near the top 5 all time is off the table thanks to all this missed time.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Ronald acuna Jr will have a better career than Trout. ...
The Angel's G.M, "Here's a good idea. Let's sacrifice the whole team in money to one player that I like. 🤔"
That'll never win a championship! And trust me... Ronald gets Peanuts compared to ole Trout boy. 100 million. And the Braves aren't going to pay anyone that type of money. And.... Ronald is better than Trout.
No, not missing the point at all. but you are busy not practicing good reading comprehension. my comments regarded Trouts WAR.
here is the exact quote.
"WAR likes that he is good at taking walks and that he plays Cf"
does WAR not give him significant credit for taking lots of walks and playing CF?
of course it does. Trout has been a very average to below average CF for his career thus far. had he been playing a position more suited to his skill set, LF, his WAR would be lower. You know the positional adjustments as well as I do. +2.5 for CF, -7.5 for LF and RF. this cannot be new information for you.
you know that BB are worth about .3 runs when calculated for WAR right? and taking BB is Trouts best skill. it just is.
has he ever lead the league in any power category that is not a rate stat? 2b, 3b, hr? I would call him a very good power hitter. not great, not all time, not top 10 all time. he has played 11 seasons i believe and has hit 40+ HRs 2 times.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Joe Namath is a perfect example of what collectors like. A great player that won the big game. Maybe the biggest. He isn't necessarily the best QB of all-time, and may not be in the top 5 or top 10. But he backed up his play on the big stage. Trout has played in 3 playoff games and his team lost every one of them. If people are going to pay millions, hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands for a very good player who at the moment is 0-3 in the playoffs after playing for 11 years, I think they are foolishly spending.
Look, I can crown you king of missing the point - I hereby doth crown thee - but that's all I can do.
To say of a player who is 9th all-time in SLG - higher than he ranks in OBP - that WAR likes that he is good at taking walks makes no sense. Yes, it's true. It is also true that Trout's birthday is in August. That the statement is true is not the point. Mike Trout is good at EVERYTHING, and that is why his WAR is so high. To single out walks and his fielding position is nonsense, your highness.
Joe Namath is the worst NFL player elected to the Hall of Fame. He really does not deserve to be in there. His career QB rating ranks #181 out of 199 qualifying QB's in NFL history. The season he won the Super Bowl he had very little to do with his team's success. The Jets had 10 all-pro players on that team who were mainly responsible for their success. Namath was more of a deterrent to their team success but gets all the credit because he simply said something in a microphone. He basically was Trent Dilfer on the field while being much more successful off the field.
you must be into politics because you sure do stick to your talking point, even after it stops making sense. For some reason, you can't seem to see the forest for the trees. Lets baby step you through this...
Do you disagree that positional adjustment adds to WAR?
you have to concede to that, right?
You must also concede that BB also add to WAR. right?
the reason i mentioned BB is because he is better at drawing walks than slugging. he has led his league 4 times in obp, 3 times in slugging. yes, he is lower on the all time OBP list, but more dominant against his peers.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I'm sorry, but Joe Namath wasn't a Trent Dilfer! That's going too far! He did more with that team than Dilfer did. Plus ... He was a movie star and Icon.
Art thanks for proving my point. People like winners. stats, WAR, etc. Mean something. But Champions are on top. Art, Joe was MVP on a team the had the biggest upset in Super Bowl history and Namath predicted it. That means he accomplished something. Trout has never been a part of a team that won even one playoff game. IF I were going to pay $250,000 for a PSA 9 1965 Namath or a 2009 Trout Auto, I would buy the Namath everyday of the week and twice and Sunday.
I'd take the 1965 Namath as well. Realistically, I'd avoid both and go for Brady, Lebron, Jordan or one of the 50's greats like Mays, Aaron, or Mantle.
Regarding Namath, He literally had one year. He won the MVP because of his popularity and a ridiculously over-hyped prediction which basically makes no sense as what else would a player say in that situation. He did not do much at all to win that game. Matt Snell was the real MVP of that game hands down. Additionally, the defense pulled off 4 interceptions and a fumble recovery. That is 5 turnovers for the Jets defense. Namath had numerous chances to run up the score given all the opportunities provided by his defense yet was not able to do much of anything. It was Matt Snell moving the ball for 121 yards rushing and scoring the Jets only touchdown. Jim Turner kicking 3 field goals because Namath could not get into the endzone over and over even after getting great field position numerous times after turnovers. So why does Namath get credit for this game and why do people think this game is enough to warrant the Hall of Fame?
Namath should not be considered a winner in terms of his NFL career. He only managed to make it to the playoffs twice in a 14-year career. Only one single season in his career did he manage to win a playoff game and as my Super Bowl mention proves, he had little to do with those victories. In fact, I would argue Doug Williams, Jeff Hostetler, Jim McMahon should be considered above Namath in terms of winners in the NFL. And none of those 3 would ever scratch the surface of the Hall of Fame.
In the future, the way to express that thought in the English language is "Trout is among the greatest of all time at both slugging and getting on base, but he is slightly better at getting on base, including taking walks, than he is at slugging". What makes absolutely zero sense, if you are trying to express that thought, is to mention walks and his fielding position, and not acknowledge that he is also one of the greatest sluggers of all time. Because to express it that way allows for only two possibilities: (1) you knew Trout was an epic slugger but chose to hide it to make a very different point than the one you now claim you were trying to make, or (2) you didn't know how great a slugger Trout was, in which case you shouldn't be surprised when someone sets you straight.
In any event, Trout's OPS+ of 176 is comprised of two pieces: 1.33 for OBP and 1.43 for slugging. So, granting that your highness was trying to make the point you claim to have been trying to make, the point you were trying to make was incorrect. Trout is better than league average in slugging by a greater margin than he is better than league average at OBP.
Trout is a hurt puppy. Griffey in the long run will be the better player. Once injury starts piling up on a wealthy player..... It's over! Wouldn't surprise me if he retired tomorrow. Who wouldn't with that type of money. All these stats mean nothing being hurt at home last few years. Owner made a mistake! The Angel's playoff chances will suffer because of it.
lets baby step you through this again.
Trout is NOT one of the very greatest sluggers in history.
wouldnt you think that one of the very greatest sluggers of all time would also be the greatest, or at least one of the very greatest sluggers of his own time?
how many times has Trout led his league in 2b, 3b or HR?
let me answer that one for you... 0. thats right. this all time great slugger has never even led his own peers in 2b, 3b or HR.
I am so sorry you cant seem to grasp this fact, but, you know what they say about some peoples ability to reason and wet paper bags...
You also dont seem to understand the concept of positional adjustment when it comes to WAR.
dont worry, I am patient. we will get you through this.
CF is considered a more "important" position when it comes to WAR. therefore, in the WAR calculation, those who play CF (and C, SS, 2B, 3B) get an extra added bump for playing that position. those who play other positions: LF, RF, 1B, DH get neged for playing those positions. Trout has played CF for i believe his entire career (not particularly well I may add) so he gets that positional bump when it comes to the WAR calculation. from here on out, when he is playing LF then 1b then dh, he will no longer be getting that positive positional adjustment. truth be told, he probably shouldnt have been playing CF for the last few seasons due to ineffectiveness and injury risk.
So... much of Trouts "shine" comes from gaudy WAR numbers. I focused on BB and positional adjustment as those are the two things trout seems to be all time great at and it is reflected in his WAR totals.
you seem to believe that a player who has never led his league in 2b, 3b or HR is one of the "all time great" sluggers, though he cant seem to lead his very own peers in one of the power categories.
there, hows that. i tried to give you the 3rd grade version. if it is still a little tough to understand you can make an appointment for after school and we can try again.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Babe Ruth was never a good slugger because he led the league in walks eleven times. He also held the career record for walks for a very long time but was later passed by Barry Bonds who, regardless of any steroid issues, was never considered much of a slugger, either.
Seriously, you guys are embarrassing yourselves. I agree with @dallasactuary that I am sad for you to be given the opportunity to watch one of the very best players of all time, but you turn away because you think you're watching Will Clark.
what in the world are you talking about. Ruth lead his league in HR 12 times. it is possible to both lead in HR and OBP. Ruth did it many times. it just so happens that trout is not a dominant enough slugger to be able to accomplish the feat.
Bonds is an all time slugger as well. He was a league leader in HR, and both single season HR and career HR leader.
dont be obtuse.
can you explain EXACTLY what trout does that is at an ALL TIME level?
He walks a lot. he used to score a lot of runs, at least up until 2016 he did.
I forgot, he is really good at striking out as well... he does that at an all time level too.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
As far as Bonds and Ruth go, they dwarf Trout.
There has never been a more feared hitter than Bonds.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I thought the MVP of the 1969 Super Bowl was Carroll Rosenbloom.
In late 2019 I bought 3rd row seats behind the Angels dugout just to see him. Then a couple of days before my trip (I live on the East coast), he went out with a toe issue. And Ohtani was already out with TJ surgery. So bummed!
At least they have amazing fresh, hot cookies at Angel Stadium.
Those hot cookies are incredible at Angel stadium. I bought the 30 cookie option once and nearly finished the entire thing during the game.
Yeah, it was all fun and games for awhile, but I just had the same thought myself. Time to move on.
classic dallas. start losing a discussion and "move on"
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I went to a Angel's game on Trout bobblehead night. I didn't get one and asked the attendant, " Did you run out?" She responded with, " Kinda, the rest are Broken." Figures.
Yeah, but look to a lot of categories that mean a ton to very basic baseball fans -- like batting average, hits, doubles, triples, home runs, and RBIs. Out of all of those categories, he has led the league in only one of those categories, a total of one time. Include stolen bases, and you get one more league leader. That's it. OPS, WAR, those are where you see him leading the league. Not classic categories that tend to make a player a legend.
kevin
Only bummer is I had to wait over an inning to get them. And I think my wife and I polished off the cone of 14 cookies pretty easily.
From 2010-2019 Trout had the highest slugging percentage of any player with 3,000+ PA and the 2nd highest isolated power behind Stanton. Not really sure why you would look at individual years rather than cumulatively. Would you rather have the player that was 1st once or twice in stats like HR, 2B, 3B, or the player that lead the league over a decade long span? He did lead the league in triples the last decade and was 5th in home runs, so not exactly like he has been completely slacking there. He has been slugging at an all time great rate (top 15 all time), whether he can keep it up in his 30s is another story.
"wouldnt you think that one of the very greatest sluggers of all time would also be the greatest, or at least one of the very greatest sluggers of his own time?"
He is the best slugger of his time, can't really argue with the stats.
Robb
Like Al Davis the owner of the Raiders told us, "just Win Baby"!!!
how many times has the best slugger of his times led his own league in HR's? or 2b? or 3b?
you would think that the greatest slugger of his time would have led the league in one of those statistics at least 1 time in 12 years. wouldn't you??
he may have nice rate stats, but the actual results are not there. at least the results you would expect from an "all-time great"
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
All right, let's see if I can answer David's questions to the satisfaction of everyone else here. I doubt David can be satisfied.
First, let's look at the league leaders during Trout's career: to pick more or less at random, Jorge Soler and the Davis brothers (Chris and Khris) have combined for four home run titles. Their career OPS+ are between 106 and 118, which is not close to Trout's 176. In the years that they won the home run title only in 2013 did the champion (Chris Davis) outslug Trout. Even though Trout didn't win any of the home run titles, it's easy to see that he's a vastly superior slugger than those who did. I'm sure you know this already, but Trout has 310 home runs before the age of 30, which seems like something a slugger might do.
Regarding strikeouts, he has only finished in the top ten twice, so I'm unclear why you would think that would be something he should be known for.
If I recall correctly, @dallasactuary never mentioned WAR, only I did. If you like, you can discard my comments comparing Trout's WAR to that of Clark and Mattingly, but I'll stick to my comparison against the likes of Mays, Griffey, and Lloyd Moseby for that matter. There is (obviously?) no position differential between centerfield and centerfield. I'm not sure what the argument is for position differentials then because no one is comparing Trout to David Ortiz, at least not using WAR.
For the moment, let's stipulate that Trout is an average to slightly below average centerfielder. Do you understand how hard those are to find? You would never move a slightly below average centerfielder to left, unless you also have Kevin Kiermaier or Andruw Jones available for your outfield.
Can you (can anyone here) name anyone who led the AL in triples during Trout's career without looking it up? I had to look it up and in two cases both last name and team were not enough for me to know who the player was. The point is that no one cares about triples anymore. I looked at the list of all-time triples leaders, and of those who played even one game in my lifetime, Willie Wilson was the career leader. (I'll be 50 next year.) Two points: Wilson was never considered a slugger, and he wasn't particularly good at hitting triples. He was 56th all time. There are, I believe, only two players who played since WW II ahead of Wilson; Musial and Clemente. There are players on the list who are sufficiently obscure that I'm just not sure when they played their last game. Point is, triples aren't meaningful anymore. It's like complete games. Does anyone know who leads the AL in complete games this year?
It blows my mind that we have an argument that says that Trout's extremely high slugging percentage should be discounted because he also has an extremely high on base percentage. He's the top active player in both slugging and on base percentages. His OPS+ is seventh all time, and I tend to discount Turkey Stearnes and Oscar Charleston because there is so much bad data with Negro League stats. Trout is 176 and Joey Votto is second at 148. The margin is almost impossible to comprehend.
As far as salary is concerned, as has been pointed out above, the Angels are playing another player only the difference of a minimum salary less. Clearly Trout doesn't suffer from being on a team that wastes all its money.
The one stat that everyone seems to ignore is that, assuming he doesn't get any MVP votes this year, Trout will have been top five MVP nine times in his first eleven years. He is a three-time MVP. I don't understand how anyone can fail to appreciate that.
For those wedded to traditional stats, on his 30th birthday Trout was .305/310/816. I have no words.
As Whitey Herzog would have said "You're missing a great game".
lots of players have nice rate stats, usually those rates decrease the larger the sample size. if trout was having seasons of 550-600+ plus AB either his rates would decrease or his results would increase. since he seldom has that many AB's in a season, we will never know. it has been 6 seasons since he has had over 500 AB's
keep in mind that Greg Jefferies had a season where his BA was .500, Slugged .667, OPS 1.167 and OPS + 213.
pretty amazing until you realize he only had 6 AB's. great rates, not such great actual results.
same idea with trout, the Jefferies example is obviously hyperbole to illustrate a point.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
It’s well documented on these boards that I think there are lots of undeserving players in the HoF. Ted Williams and Ernie Banks are not among those I’d kick out. Let’s leave playoff success out of the equation about who is and isn’t a great player.
I am not much for empathy, but I truly felt sorry for you when I read this post because I know how extremely embarrassed I would be if I had written it. I moved on out of frustration; you should move on to retain a bit of dignity. Seriously.
Not directed at anyone in particular, but imagine listening to an argument that Joe Shlabotnik was great because his mother's maiden name was Springsteen, and isn't that just a great name? Assuming the person making the argument was serious, you'd laugh at them, wouldn't you? Now you know how I feel when someone argues that Trout isn't great because the Angels don't make the playoffs. You can't see me laughing at you, which is nice, but rest assured that I am.
classic dallas. throw some thinly veiled insults and refuse to address points.
answer the question. how many times has this all-time great slugger led his league in homers, doubles or triples?
easier to hurl insults than to admit you may just be wrong, right...
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
If you finish in the Top 2 of MVP voting in 7 out of 8 consecutive years, and Top 5 for 9 consecutive years, it’s not unreasonable to be considered in a conversation of all time greats.
hard to gauge against all time greats as you could only get the mvp once in your lifetime.
Let the record show that I tried; I really tried. You truly believe that you have made "points" that merit being addressed. You truly believe that slugging average measures something other than slugging. You are making arguments of the mother's maiden name variety and you don't understand that that's what you're doing. And I have no idea what to do with that. Daltex even grabbed your hand and forced you to stare directly into the face of the absurd argument you've been making and you still couldn't see it. And somehow my answering a question about Mike Trout's triples is going to add value to this discussion? No, it won't. Nothing will. Time to move on.
I think part of the cognitive dissonance people are feeling is because of the constant narrative we have been told from espn, mlb network and other talking heads about how great Trout is. that he is in the very upper echelon in the history of mlb. often when people hear a differing opinion on something that has been spoken of as fact, it can seem off putting
lets talk a little about what EXACTLY makes trout so great.
He is not a great fielder.
he does not have a good arm
He is very elite at getting on base
he is a good power hitter
for people who care, he is good at hitting for average
at least in the beginning of his career he had pretty elite speed. not so much now.
He is injury prone
He is very good at racking up WAR.
did I miss anything?
from this, I see a very good/great player. not a 5 tool talent. a very likely HOFer, though not a top inner circle HOFer. trouts trend is looking to be that he will not age well. he is now on the wrong side of 30 and carries a lot of weight. Someone above mentioned Griffey as a comparison. I could definitely see Trouts career heading in that direction. I see nothing right now that makes me think he will become less injury prone in his 30's
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Trout currently would make the HOF, no doubt. But 3 million dollars for one of his cards is another question. My point of this thread is concern over paying such high amounts for his cards when he still needs more accomplishments to demand that kind of coin.
I am in the "Trout is a great ball player camp but not putting him in the All Time Great camp" yet but I want to see him on my TV in October! Is that making me a Trout hater? No I am not but I doubt he is going into the HOF if he retired today after 11 seasons, sorry! You better put Munson in then!!
On the Griffey comparison I don't think Trout will even come close to his numbers let alone the highlight reel that he was!! Playoff numbers!! Not close! I take Griffey all day everyday over Trout! Now if Griffey signed with the Yankees in 2000 instead of the Reds he would be in the discussion as top 2 or 3 to ever play so there is still time for Trout to sign with the Yankees but I would imagine they have their sights set on Ohtani now which the Angels won't be able to sign because of the Trout and Rendon contracts!!
On a different argument Griffey would have I say probably 4 maybe 5 rings if he played for the Yankees from 2000-2010ish
2000
2001? hard to say if they win it with Griffey? Move Williams to left and there is your lock LF that those teams needed.
2003? Another hard to say lost to a less than stellar Marlins team which I think the Yankees were a lot better than for sure!
2004? Doubt they lose to the Sox here with Griffey.
2009
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
Misses the point that in terms of MVP votes and JAWS and rate stats Trout is ALREADY better than Griffey was. Also misses the point that Griffey was essentially through after his first year in Cincinnati. 2005 was by no means a special year for Griffey, and the rest of his post-2000 career was just bad.
Also, the contract Trout has with the Angels precludes him signing with the Yankees for a VERY long time.
BTW, if Griffey had retired in 2000 rather than report to the Reds he would (still) have been an inner circle HoFer. Young Griffey was rally that good. Young Trout is just better.
By the way, Munson is somewhere around the borderline HoFer as it is. If I were picking the next catcher to be enshrined it would be somewhere between him, Mauer, and Posey. None are definitely in, if only because Mauer spent so much of his career (about half) at first and DH and Posey is still active. I think Yadier Molina gets in, but I don't think he's all that close to being good enough. Molina is a lot closer to Jim Sundberg than is generally thought, except that he had a much higher (very short) peak and Sundberg was more reliably very good.
If you’re saying Jeter sucks, I agree. Go Sox!
again, classic dallas. thinly veiled insults and never addressing a point. let me try to baby step you through this again.
as far as triples go...
What exactly do sluggers do? they produce extra-base hits. HR, 2B, 3B
It was mentioned above that trout has 310 home runs by his 30th birthday. that is quite good. that means he has taken him 11 seasons to hit those 310 HRs. Let's see how that compares to all-time sluggers...
i will take away his rookie season when he only hit 5 HR. that gives him 305 over a 10 year span. again, quite good. an average of 30 per season. here is a list of players who hit over 400 HR in a 10 year span:
Sosa 479
Ruth 467
Bonds 444
Arod 454
Foxx 415
Pujols 408
Mcgwire 405
Killebrew 403
Griffey 400
these are just their best 10 year runs, those guys are all on the list multiple times for different runs. in total, there have been 32 10 year runs of 400 or more HR.
here are a few more:
Mays 390
Gehrig 390
Palmiero 396
Thome 393
F. Robinson 336
I am sure there are more who have hit more than 305 in a ten year span as well.
Williams would have had it not been for WW2
there are at least 14 players who have outdone trout in a 10 year span. will Mike turn out some amazing 50 HR seasons in his 30's and be able to expand his numbers? maybe. Given his track record, I wouldnt bet on it though.
Is trout a good slugger? yes. a great slugger? probably.
an inner circle all-time great slugger? nope. Fantastic rates, only very good results.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I can't believe we're basically having a conversation about "Iz Mike Trout good or he sux?"
I dont think anyone said or intimated that Trout "sux" If they did, i missed it
the discussion is really more about his ranking against the all-time greats.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Sorry Griffey was an RBI and HR machine plus 11 straight Gold Gloves and made a dismal Mariners team into a playoff bound team every year!! No way is younger Trout better sorry I will disagree on that one and you can throw JAWs and OPS at me all day long and will not convince me of anything!! I have no idea what Griffeys JAWs or WARs or OPS are and don’t care he was a generational 5 tool talent that played a somewhat boring game to the masses and gave it life and character!!
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
And, Griffey was a better CF! Griffey was more iconic in the 90s. I bet Trout never sniffs 600 dingers. For that number of homeruns.... You have to be on the field! Remember Griffey had what???..... 43 ? 46? Homeruns at all star break during the 94 strike season? What could have been. > @scmavl said:
I think it's funny. Something to talk about to give the conversation a lil pep 😂
for Trout to see 600 home runs, he would have to replicate his 20's. I do not see him staying as healthy in his 30s as he was in his 20s.
He will be very injury-prone in his 30s unless he changes his body type. he is carrying too much mass to be playing outfield consistently and not continually have nagging injuries.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
That's actually a great, perfect perspective! 👍