The stance you guys use to knock down Trout's greatness would also elevate Derek Jeter to the greatest baseball player since 1969. Jeter has no peer. His combination of Batting average, total hits, championships won, and ultra big shining moments in the post season is unrivaled. That would make Jeter the absolute best player of the last few generations.
Hold on here a minute. Where did I say that WS championships, shining moments in the postseason are the measure of a baseball player? Jeter had a HUGE sample size in the post season over decades. that is much different from a guy making the postseason once and having a slump. I dont hold Trouts one playoff series against him. no doubt he had a slump, went cold, whatever. now if he did that numerous times over many years (Kershaw, Clayton) that would be a strong indicator. The same holds for Williams postseason failure. one series, he got cold.
When you look at extra inning at bats, that is data taken from across a players career. giving a much wider snapshot than one week in September, once in their careers.
In no way do i think Jeter was the "absolute best player of the last few generations"
The stance you guys use to knock down Trout's greatness would also elevate Derek Jeter to the greatest baseball player since 1969. Jeter has no peer. His combination of Batting average, total hits, championships won, and ultra big shining moments in the post season is unrivaled. That would make Jeter the absolute best player of the last few generations.
Hold on here a minute. Where did I say that WS championships, shining moments in the postseason are the measure of a baseball player? Jeter had a HUGE sample size in the post season over decades. that is much different from a guy making the postseason once and having a slump. I dont hold Trouts one playoff series against him. no doubt he had a slump, went cold, whatever. now if he did that numerous times over many years (Kershaw, Clayton) that would be a strong indicator. The same holds for Williams postseason failure. one series, he got cold.
When you look at extra inning at bats, that is data taken from across a players career. giving a much wider snapshot than one week in September, once in their careers.
In no way do i think Jeter was the "absolute best player of the last few generations"
Thanks for clarifying. I honestly wasn't sure what your stance was on that.
I find myself quoting and responding to you a lot and that is because you write well and make a lot of good points, both in the sports realm and not sports related area..
@AFLfan said:
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I find it fascinating that Mike Trout is one of the most polarizing topics on the forum
It is definitely strange. Every player, analyst, former GM, former player...when they make their rankings of players in last ten years they all put him first. Only in the last year or two are other players relegating Trout all the way down to...second best.
I can’t find the exact stats on this but I believe throughout trouts career the angels have basically the same winning percentage whether he is in the lineup or out of the lineup. Can anyone post those numbers? Even in baseball it is extremely rare for a superstar to have no impact at all on the games outcomes.
In fact I am so confident that the royals winning percentage suffered more with George Brett out of the lineup than the angels with trout out
of the lineup in their careers that if I am wrong I will send you a Brett rookie card either psa or sgc 7.
I don’t know the answer but I’m so confident in trouts inability to lift his team that this should be one of the safest bets I’ve ever made.
@Darin said:
I can’t find the exact stats on this but I believe throughout trouts career the angels have basically the same winning percentage whether he is in the lineup or out of the lineup. Can anyone post those numbers? Even in baseball it is extremely rare for a superstar to have no impact at all on the games outcomes.
In fact I am so confident that the royals winning percentage suffered more with George Brett out of the lineup than the angels with trout out
of the lineup in their careers that if I am wrong I will send you a Brett rookie card either psa or sgc 7.
I don’t know the answer but I’m so confident in trouts inability to lift his team that this should be one of the safest bets I’ve ever made.
Even if the numbers bear that out, he's still only 1 guy out of 9+ that impact the result of a game.
I am going to assume a great player will have a bigger impact on wins if he plays for a team that is usually playing competitively, if they are a below average team, a guy can do a lot and it's not going to make a difference between a win and a loss. Instead of losing by 3 they lose by 1 or 2.
There was a LOT of people who criticized Ted Williams in a similar fashion, saying he was not a "team" player.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Darin said:
Joe, if the angels record is just as good without trout then what in the heck is WAR all about anyway?
I really don't care how much better a player is than a "replacement" is.
I don't think other players, or team accomplishments, mean much when comparing 2 HOF level players.
All I am saying is that if your team is tied with the other and you do something good, your team will win and your productivity is deemed "clutch".
If your behind by 4 runs and you are 3 for 4 with a home run a double a couple of stolen bases and two great defensive plays, but the rest of the team sucks, no one on base when you hit your tater, nobody drives you in when your on base in scoring position, your going to be labeled as a guy who can't lead his team to victory.
I look at Trout's numbers (I really haven't seen much of him play) and I see a complete player who seems to excel at every aspect of the game (with the possible exception of his defense).
His 8 years are up there offensively with anyone........all time.
Compare Killebrew's offensive numbers with Mantle's, Harmon hit more home runs and drove in more, yet the Twins made it to 1 World Series, Mantle (the superior player BTW) was in the Series just about every year because of better team mates.
Put Mantle on the Twins and they don't go to 12 WS, maybe one more, maybe not.
Strangely enough, the year the Twins made the WS Killebrew had little to do with it, as he was injured much of the year.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Mike Trout is either the best or second best player in the last 20 years, and the best BY FAR from 2012-2019. No one can touch him. The big question is what happens next?
I don't think there's a lot of difference between his best 8 and Pujols'. I might even give it to Mike for those 8.
However, Pujols' had better hitting numbers for a 12 year period, while almost never missing a single game.
For my way of thinking, Mike is going to have to put up some big numbers and stay on the field to close the gap.
It would also be a good guess that Trout isn't going to be stealing bases at all, or even be playing CF much longer, so those advantages are going to lessen.
I would love to see him prove me wrong.
GO MIKE TROUT!
He has been injury plagued since 2017. He just missed a couple 50 home run seasons because of those injuries. Those eye popper 50 homer seasons would have changed a few perceptions....a few. The crowd that rails on him for never winning will never be satisfied. Even if he got traded and won with a real organization they will give him the Lebron treatment and say he chased a title.
I agree he needs a few more 140+ game seasons or his legacy is going to suffer(and not the foolish suffering of not winning for playing for a team that made bad decisions).
His back issue shouldnt impact his legacy. Its a degenerative genetic thing that he has no control over just like Gehrig had no control over his condition. Trouts doing everything he can to keep himself in shape and on the field and seeing all the experts he can. Its not like hes gone Panda and just let himself go gaining 100 pounds eating his way out of the league.
Hopefully it wont have to much of an impact on his career, but if it does its not something he has any control over
I would say is degenerative condition could impact his legacy, all according to how quickly it progresses. case in point is Albert Belle. He was a monster for 9 or 10 seasons, then was out of the league by age 33 because of a degenerative hip condition. He would certainly have put together a HOF resume had he been able to get a few more uninjured seasons under his belt. As it stands, he will never make it.
Belle was probably going to get banned at some point if he kept playing with what a psycho he was lol.
The back could certainly rob Trout of the chance to chase some alltime numbers like 700 hr so I guess in that sense it would be an impact on his legacy. I dont think it should impact in terms of his greatness, but it certainly would in terms of what could have been
The stance you guys use to knock down Trout's greatness would also elevate Derek Jeter to the greatest baseball player since 1969. Jeter has no peer. His combination of Batting average, total hits, championships won, and ultra big shining moments in the post season is unrivaled. That would make Jeter the absolute best player of the last few generations.
Can we all agree that the backhanded flip throwing out Giambi at home was just bad base running by Giambi? If he slides hes safe. Not to mention the fact that ball didnt need to be cut off, the throw was online and going to beat him home anyways
@Darin said:
I can’t find the exact stats on this but I believe throughout trouts career the angels have basically the same winning percentage whether he is in the lineup or out of the lineup. Can anyone post those numbers? Even in baseball it is extremely rare for a superstar to have no impact at all on the games outcomes.
In fact I am so confident that the royals winning percentage suffered more with George Brett out of the lineup than the angels with trout out
of the lineup in their careers that if I am wrong I will send you a Brett rookie card either psa or sgc 7.
I don’t know the answer but I’m so confident in trouts inability to lift his team that this should be one of the safest bets I’ve ever made.
Your memory is correct I believe about the Angels record without him in the lineup.
So many factors can make that happen without any causation that could take a page to list. You would have to do that exercise with everyone on the team and you will see some strange results...and with everyone in the league. It really doesn't hold too well.
Elias did that study in the 80's and the best players had an impact of about 4 wins over the course of a season with the in/out of the lineup. There were some surprises where some guys who were considered the best didn't have that same impact either...but that doesn't mean it is because of their ability/inability. I can't find that info either. I got rid of a lot of my material and don't desire to look back, lol. They are gone with the massive piles of $10 cards/sets/periodicals and I feel lighter in every regard.
Comments
.
How many times do I to school you boys before you realize that when it comes to heart, there just ain't no stat for that?
Some guys have it.
Trouty doesn't.
Thread after thread after thread. I know it's inexplicable to you basement boys, but those of us that actually watch the games know what's up.
idk about Mike Tilapia but that slider from Ohtani was pure witchcraft
Hold on here a minute. Where did I say that WS championships, shining moments in the postseason are the measure of a baseball player? Jeter had a HUGE sample size in the post season over decades. that is much different from a guy making the postseason once and having a slump. I dont hold Trouts one playoff series against him. no doubt he had a slump, went cold, whatever. now if he did that numerous times over many years (Kershaw, Clayton) that would be a strong indicator. The same holds for Williams postseason failure. one series, he got cold.
When you look at extra inning at bats, that is data taken from across a players career. giving a much wider snapshot than one week in September, once in their careers.
In no way do i think Jeter was the "absolute best player of the last few generations"
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Thanks for clarifying. I honestly wasn't sure what your stance was on that.
@craig44
I find myself quoting and responding to you a lot and that is because you write well and make a lot of good points, both in the sports realm and not sports related area..
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I find it fascinating that Mike Trout is one of the most polarizing topics on the forum
It is definitely strange. Every player, analyst, former GM, former player...when they make their rankings of players in last ten years they all put him first. Only in the last year or two are other players relegating Trout all the way down to...second best.
I can’t find the exact stats on this but I believe throughout trouts career the angels have basically the same winning percentage whether he is in the lineup or out of the lineup. Can anyone post those numbers? Even in baseball it is extremely rare for a superstar to have no impact at all on the games outcomes.
In fact I am so confident that the royals winning percentage suffered more with George Brett out of the lineup than the angels with trout out
of the lineup in their careers that if I am wrong I will send you a Brett rookie card either psa or sgc 7.
I don’t know the answer but I’m so confident in trouts inability to lift his team that this should be one of the safest bets I’ve ever made.
Even if the numbers bear that out, he's still only 1 guy out of 9+ that impact the result of a game.
I am going to assume a great player will have a bigger impact on wins if he plays for a team that is usually playing competitively, if they are a below average team, a guy can do a lot and it's not going to make a difference between a win and a loss. Instead of losing by 3 they lose by 1 or 2.
There was a LOT of people who criticized Ted Williams in a similar fashion, saying he was not a "team" player.
Joe, if the angels record is just as good without trout then what in the heck is WAR all about anyway?
I really don't care how much better a player is than a "replacement" is.
I don't think other players, or team accomplishments, mean much when comparing 2 HOF level players.
All I am saying is that if your team is tied with the other and you do something good, your team will win and your productivity is deemed "clutch".
If your behind by 4 runs and you are 3 for 4 with a home run a double a couple of stolen bases and two great defensive plays, but the rest of the team sucks, no one on base when you hit your tater, nobody drives you in when your on base in scoring position, your going to be labeled as a guy who can't lead his team to victory.
I look at Trout's numbers (I really haven't seen much of him play) and I see a complete player who seems to excel at every aspect of the game (with the possible exception of his defense).
His 8 years are up there offensively with anyone........all time.
Compare Killebrew's offensive numbers with Mantle's, Harmon hit more home runs and drove in more, yet the Twins made it to 1 World Series, Mantle (the superior player BTW) was in the Series just about every year because of better team mates.
Put Mantle on the Twins and they don't go to 12 WS, maybe one more, maybe not.
Strangely enough, the year the Twins made the WS Killebrew had little to do with it, as he was injured much of the year.
Belle was probably going to get banned at some point if he kept playing with what a psycho he was lol.
The back could certainly rob Trout of the chance to chase some alltime numbers like 700 hr so I guess in that sense it would be an impact on his legacy. I dont think it should impact in terms of his greatness, but it certainly would in terms of what could have been
Can we all agree that the backhanded flip throwing out Giambi at home was just bad base running by Giambi? If he slides hes safe. Not to mention the fact that ball didnt need to be cut off, the throw was online and going to beat him home anyways
Your memory is correct I believe about the Angels record without him in the lineup.
So many factors can make that happen without any causation that could take a page to list. You would have to do that exercise with everyone on the team and you will see some strange results...and with everyone in the league. It really doesn't hold too well.
Elias did that study in the 80's and the best players had an impact of about 4 wins over the course of a season with the in/out of the lineup. There were some surprises where some guys who were considered the best didn't have that same impact either...but that doesn't mean it is because of their ability/inability. I can't find that info either. I got rid of a lot of my material and don't desire to look back, lol. They are gone with the massive piles of $10 cards/sets/periodicals and I feel lighter in every regard.
The Angels, not counting 2011, are 691-676 when Trout is in the lineup. They are 141-172 when he's not.
Looks like you could be on your way to a Brett rookie card!