I don’t know if this has been mentioned, but as far as comparing card prices of Freeman and Trout, certainly the ‘flashiness’ of the player comes into play. Freeman isn’t flashy, he just goes out year after year and posts rock solid numbers a lot like Steady Eddie Murray did. And he’s a first baseman and not an outfielder like Trout. How many first baseman’s card prices have shot upwards spectacularly even with huge offensive numbers?
During Trout’s playing days he was flashy with the high OBP, OPS+ and WAR. Could steal bases, make great catches. Flashy like Rickey Henderson and that draws collector interest a lot more than Steady Freddie.
I think these factors have a lot more to do with a particular players card prices than what team he plays for. Look at Brett, Ripken, Henderson, Gwynn who played for the Padres and whose rookie prices are higher than Boggs who started with the Red Sox.
Freeman is a HOFer at this point. If you buy his cards now, in 20 years they will be worth significantly more than they are right now.
Trout is a HOFer at this point. If you buy his cards now, in 20 years they will not be worth significantly more than they are right now because they are pretty darn pricey already.
I bought Trout's cards years ago, I have been buying some Freeman RC cards the last 2-3 years. There is a chance Freeman's cards will actually dip towards the end of his playing career as he declines at the plate but to me that would just be an opportunity to pick them up at a discount.
I don't think Freeman's cards will be worth more than Trout's even in 20 years. Trout was the face of baseball and had a 6-7 year peak that rivaled the very best that have played the game. That recognition drives interest in his cards and will keep his card prices higher long term.
I think Trout card prices being higher than Freeman card prices is completely reasonable given the vast gulf between their peak performance and popularity in the hobby. Sadly Trout has basically become a "what if" story, I would love to see a 2-3 year renaissance for him. Very unlikely to happen though since he can't stay healthy and that only seems to worsen for players as they age.
@olb31 said:
Now after this nice post above showing the comparisons of the two, should Trout rookies be selling for hundreds of thousands of dollars more than Freeman? If I remember correctly, one of Trout's cards sold for over a million dollars. I doubt any Freddie card has sold for $20,000 (probably a lot less).
Trout plays for a terrible organizations known for losing, he stays hurt, has never won one playoff game and has only played in 3.
Freeman -- MVP and WS MVP - 2 time WS Champ. stats are reasonably comparable.
Cards should be reasonably the same price, imho.
I took a quick look and both guys have rookie cards ( chrome/auto) going for $3-5 thousand dollars.
I didn't do a "deep dive" on them.
Trout started out looking like the next Mickey Mantle. Run scoring MACHINE who stole a lot of bases @ 82% success rate and slugged .587 for his first 8 seasons. Find me ANY current player who has done that!
Injuries have limited him to 1 full season in his last 5, he stopped stealing bases, but he has slugged .580 when he has been able to play.
Freeman's first 8 years were nice, but he slugged .498 and played 1st base. He led the league once in hits and doubles and never in any other category.
Of course, since then, Trout can't get on the field and Fred is playing everyday and has increased his SLG to .531.
The "Trout people" are finally realizing that Mike might be done, while Fred is playing better and playing well in the post season.
You can invest in any player's cards for any reason, but Fred, on his best day, is nowhere near Mike's first 8 seasons. Even if Mike was an average CF.
edited to add;
Trout shouldn't be penalized for playing on bad teams. I do believe in giving Freeman credit for playing well in the post season though.
I think Trout should be penalized for playing on bad teams. after his 6th season he could have been a free agent and signed with any team. there were rumblings about the Yankees wanting him, but he CHOSE to extend himself with the angels and play for a perenial loser.
He could have signed with any number of good teams and at least been in the playoff most every season.
I am convinced that winning is not a priority for Trout.
They gave him one of the largest contracts ever on the extension and theres family things involved too. Harper signed with Philly and made it a lower AAV because he didnt want to reach free agency again and his wife was pregnant at the time wanting his kid to grow up in the same place.
Trout really shouldnt be penalized for the Angels as a team which makes it more impressive what he did there. Hes had multiple cards sell for over 1 million and one of them was just shy of 4 million.
Obviously what the card and grade is make a big difference but Freeman card has never approached those levels
those are some excuses as to why Trout didnt choose to sign with a contender, but ultimately, it was his choice. He did sign a big extension, but he certainly could have gotten more in FA and gone to a contender.
That to say that winning is not his top priority. He literally chose his life.
Trout got 430 million several years before he was scheduled to be a free agent. Its more likely he would have gotten less money as teams werent exactly shelling out money after the 2020 season which is when he would have been a free agent and he was injured and a genetic back disease found in 2021.
If a teams trying to give you 430 million and there arent absurd deferrals one it you take it every time, especially when you are years away from free agency.
Even ignoring how risky and dumb it would have been to turn down their offer, Its not like he took a below market deal to stay with the Pirates. The Angels should be competitive and would be if their front office wasnt so incompetent. Part of that is on Moreno who the second decade of his ownership has turned into him just wanting money and being of of the biggest leaders of campaigning for lower luxury taxes.
Even with that though they still spend enough to win and have had everything from a pitcher die from the team providing them with illegal pain meds to not trading Othani when they had no plans to resign him, and dumb spending like the Rendon contract
Taking a 430 million dollar off from a team that should be in the playoff conversation every year and just isnt for various reasons is hardly an indictment on Trouts desire to win
that is a lot of words to say that Trout CHOSE to sign with a dumpster fire of a franchise. He chose it. And as for teams NOT paying more for him in FA, hogwash. The Yankees certainly would have. So would the Mets.
Winning is not Trouts priority. Period. Why didnt Ohtani extend years earlier? He got both more money and on a team that competes every year. What about Soto?
guys who want to win will find their way onto a contender. guys who dont want to win wont.
good grief, if winning were actually important to Trout, he could have belly ached his way into a trade before he signed the extension and then signed the extension with the contender he was traded to. He could have forced a trade after signing the extension. there were rumors he was on the market this year. he vetoed all of them.
Trout doesn't care about winning, which to me is the ....bleh. Stats only and that's questionable honestly at this point. I'll take O and Freeman all day over him. Freeman is HOF, Ohtani is HOF, should be for both anyway I think. Trout too but ugh, gimme players that want to play and have fun with the game like O/F
@olb31 said:
Now after this nice post above showing the comparisons of the two, should Trout rookies be selling for hundreds of thousands of dollars more than Freeman? If I remember correctly, one of Trout's cards sold for over a million dollars. I doubt any Freddie card has sold for $20,000 (probably a lot less).
Trout plays for a terrible organizations known for losing, he stays hurt, has never won one playoff game and has only played in 3.
Freeman -- MVP and WS MVP - 2 time WS Champ. stats are reasonably comparable.
Cards should be reasonably the same price, imho.
I took a quick look and both guys have rookie cards ( chrome/auto) going for $3-5 thousand dollars.
I didn't do a "deep dive" on them.
Trout started out looking like the next Mickey Mantle. Run scoring MACHINE who stole a lot of bases @ 82% success rate and slugged .587 for his first 8 seasons. Find me ANY current player who has done that!
Injuries have limited him to 1 full season in his last 5, he stopped stealing bases, but he has slugged .580 when he has been able to play.
Freeman's first 8 years were nice, but he slugged .498 and played 1st base. He led the league once in hits and doubles and never in any other category.
Of course, since then, Trout can't get on the field and Fred is playing everyday and has increased his SLG to .531.
The "Trout people" are finally realizing that Mike might be done, while Fred is playing better and playing well in the post season.
You can invest in any player's cards for any reason, but Fred, on his best day, is nowhere near Mike's first 8 seasons. Even if Mike was an average CF.
edited to add;
Trout shouldn't be penalized for playing on bad teams. I do believe in giving Freeman credit for playing well in the post season though.
I think Trout should be penalized for playing on bad teams. after his 6th season he could have been a free agent and signed with any team. there were rumblings about the Yankees wanting him, but he CHOSE to extend himself with the angels and play for a perenial loser.
He could have signed with any number of good teams and at least been in the playoff most every season.
I am convinced that winning is not a priority for Trout.
They gave him one of the largest contracts ever on the extension and theres family things involved too. Harper signed with Philly and made it a lower AAV because he didnt want to reach free agency again and his wife was pregnant at the time wanting his kid to grow up in the same place.
Trout really shouldnt be penalized for the Angels as a team which makes it more impressive what he did there. Hes had multiple cards sell for over 1 million and one of them was just shy of 4 million.
Obviously what the card and grade is make a big difference but Freeman card has never approached those levels
those are some excuses as to why Trout didnt choose to sign with a contender, but ultimately, it was his choice. He did sign a big extension, but he certainly could have gotten more in FA and gone to a contender.
That to say that winning is not his top priority. He literally chose his life.
Trout got 430 million several years before he was scheduled to be a free agent. Its more likely he would have gotten less money as teams werent exactly shelling out money after the 2020 season which is when he would have been a free agent and he was injured and a genetic back disease found in 2021.
If a teams trying to give you 430 million and there arent absurd deferrals one it you take it every time, especially when you are years away from free agency.
Even ignoring how risky and dumb it would have been to turn down their offer, Its not like he took a below market deal to stay with the Pirates. The Angels should be competitive and would be if their front office wasnt so incompetent. Part of that is on Moreno who the second decade of his ownership has turned into him just wanting money and being of of the biggest leaders of campaigning for lower luxury taxes.
Even with that though they still spend enough to win and have had everything from a pitcher die from the team providing them with illegal pain meds to not trading Othani when they had no plans to resign him, and dumb spending like the Rendon contract
Taking a 430 million dollar off from a team that should be in the playoff conversation every year and just isnt for various reasons is hardly an indictment on Trouts desire to win
that is a lot of words to say that Trout CHOSE to sign with a dumpster fire of a franchise. He chose it. And as for teams NOT paying more for him in FA, hogwash. The Yankees certainly would have. So would the Mets.
Winning is not Trouts priority. Period. Why didnt Ohtani extend years earlier? He got both more money and on a team that competes every year. What about Soto?
guys who want to win will find their way onto a contender. guys who dont want to win wont.
good grief, if winning were actually important to Trout, he could have belly ached his way into a trade before he signed the extension and then signed the extension with the contender he was traded to. He could have forced a trade after signing the extension. there were rumors he was on the market this year. he vetoed all of them.
the guy doesnt care about winning.
Its very unfair to say he doesnt care about winning.
430 million dollars 2 years before free agency. If you are a billionaire and can honestly say you would turn that down so be it.
Yankees and Mets certainly would not have paid more for him especially the Mets
It was the largest extinction and contract in history at the time
The Angels never gave Othani a legit offer. Othani doesnt get paid for 9 more years. He makes an insane amount of money in endorsements and makes 2 million a year from the Dodgers until then. No one comes remotely close to the Othani endorsement money. Soto got an absurd offer from the Nationals with crazy deferred money just like Harper did.
The Angels refused to trade Othani with no attempt to extend him. Soto was traded to SD in the biggest over pay in history for talent. Its fine if you dont like Trout, but the idea that he should have forced a trade taken pennies on the dollar for an extension is just not right
Freddie's MVP performance in the WS and certainly the monstrous GS walk off against the Yankees are two huge events in what is already a stellar career. Hard to top that. They just signed Blake Snell and are heavy favorites to win it all again. If they make it, it gives Freddie another huge platform. For Trout, there is almost zero chance the Angels make the playoffs.
@fergie23 said:
Freeman is a HOFer at this point. If you buy his cards now, in 20 years they will be worth significantly more than they are right now.
Trout is a HOFer at this point. If you buy his cards now, in 20 years they will not be worth significantly more than they are right now because they are pretty darn pricey already.
I bought Trout's cards years ago, I have been buying some Freeman RC cards the last 2-3 years. There is a chance Freeman's cards will actually dip towards the end of his playing career as he declines at the plate but to me that would just be an opportunity to pick them up at a discount.
I don't think Freeman's cards will be worth more than Trout's even in 20 years. Trout was the face of baseball and had a 6-7 year peak that rivaled the very best that have played the game. That recognition drives interest in his cards and will keep his card prices higher long term.
I think Trout card prices being higher than Freeman card prices is completely reasonable given the vast gulf between their peak performance and popularity in the hobby. Sadly Trout has basically become a "what if" story, I would love to see a 2-3 year renaissance for him. Very unlikely to happen though since he can't stay healthy and that only seems to worsen for players as they age.
Robb
Price has everything to do with demand. Mike Trout was the top MLB player to buy from 2010 to 2020. His prices were extremely high based on the notion that his face one day would be on the Mt. Rushmore of Baseball. Freddie was collected more by people like myself who were simply fans of the guy and saw a potential Hall of Famer at really low prices.
We now know that Trout will not achieve the accolades and career marks that people expected that drove up his prices. Most importantly, with the likes of Freeman, Harper, Betts, Acuna, Ohtani, Judge, Witt, and others we see a drastically diminished interest in Mike Trout. The only thing keeping his value from crashing even more is the hopes of those holding onto his cards that he somehow turns back into MVP Trout. That notion is just foolish at age 33 coming off his 4th straight injury-plagued season and understanding that even the healthiest of former superstar players see a drastic reduction in productivity post-age 32.
Freddie's value should increase even more so as he continues to collect accolades, rings, and achieves milestones. He is closing in on 3000 hits, 1000 extra-base hits, 600 doubles, and a plethora of other milestones.
It's pretty easy to gauge the market for both these players and see the upside of investing in Freddie while avoiding the potential pitfall of investing in Trout in 2024.
@olb31 said:
Freddie's MVP performance in the WS and certainly the monstrous GS walk off against the Yankees are two huge events in what is already a stellar career. Hard to top that. They just signed Blake Snell and are heavy favorites to win it all again. If they make it, it gives Freddie another huge platform. For Trout, there is almost zero chance the Angels make the playoffs.
Have those events caused a spike in Freeman's cards since they happened? I felt the same before, that those could help Freeman;s cards. The Dodgers will win a couple more WS within the next several years.
Those things were all great pointing forward for Freeman. They all happened or will happen.
Problem is Ohtani is the one getting all the attention. Is Freeman going to be the Bernie Williams to Derek Jeter? Except Ohtani is getting even more attention than Jeter.
Once Trout makes the move to a less demanding position he will end up playing more games. He may not get that Mt Rushmore argument, but if he gets close to 100 WAR and 475 HR, he will hold his value more so than Freeman(unless Freeman plays at a very high level for several more years and get 3,500 hits etc).
PS Mookie Betts is getting a lot of attention too (and is statistically closer to Trout). I'm not sure where his cards are at right now, but if they are 'lower' like Freeman's cards I would put my bets on Betts more than Freeman.
@olb31 said:
basebal21 - there are many people here in the united states that get bought everyday -- but that doesn't mean its a good thing for them or anyone else. personally i could have made a lot more money for the first 25 years of my career, but i chose a path that was good for me and my family, and after 25 years it paid off. my decisions were not based on greed. trout unfortunately took the money instead of long-term success for his team(family). team (family) success should always best cash.
These things are getting a little ridiculous. Trout signed that deal after the 2018 season. A year later Ohtani chose the Angels to sign with. So all this stuff can be applied to Ohtani as much as Trout. Ohtani's free agent timing last year gave him a better viewpoint on where the Angels were heading when he was a free agent, and he picked a great organization to sign with. Ohtani would still be viewed as a 'loser' if he signed with 25 other teams that would not have won with him either.
Both Trout and Ohtani got hurt and the Angels management did terrible at filling in the pieces. They even signed a 'proven winner' that many fans get all wet about when they say players 'know how to win.' Yes, I'm talking about Rendon.
Perhaps the Angels should not have used the same philosophy that fans always use to prompt them to sign Rendon because he had a good post season series, lol.
Angels held onto Pujols and kept trotting him out there even though he was a below league average player for several years with Trout....but because he got those RBI that fans get all wet about too, even though anyone batting after Trout should have fallen out of bed and got 95 RBI. Pujols chose the Angels too.
For that Trout Zealot out there, I wonder if the same digs will be applied to Bob Witt Jr after he chose the Royals to sign with long term and did historically terrible in the playoffs agains the Yanks.
Personally I think Freddie Freeman is a HOF’er even if he retired today but I also think Will Clark should be in but he’s not. I mention Will because right now there isn’t a lot of difference in their career numbers except Freeman has more homers.
OBP, OPS, OPS+ very similar. The main difference is Will retired at age 36 after a very good season and didn’t play out his old man years. So if Freddie plays 2-3 more years he’s in without a doubt.
@Darin said:
Trout was finished being a full time ball player after age 24.
Up to age 24 he had seasons in which he played 159, 159, 157 and 157 games.
After age 24 the most games he has played in for a season is 140. That’s 22 missed games.
Now he plays about 35-40 games a year, calls it good and he’s free from another year of baseball to think of nothing but Eagles football and the weather.
Hes like me on Fridays at 5:00 when my work week is over except for him it’s every middle of May when his baseball season is over. 🥳🍺
Don’t get me started on Miguel Cabrera, suffice it to say I foretold his fall from the upper echelon of baseball when stuffing himself with the tigers owners fast food became more important than baseball.
Darin, to be fair, George Brett only had 9 seasons where he eclipsed 140+ games in 20 years(not counting his cup of coffee year). Rod Carew 9 out of 20. Willie McCovey only 7 years out of 20 where he played 140+ games.
Sitting at a 176 OPS+ for Trout through age 32 is still ultra impressive. Reggie beat that number just one time in his career.
McCovey through age 32 had a 161 OPS+ for a lumbering first baseman that could not run.
Freeman is at 142 through age 34.
Defense in CF may be overblown, but any way you slice it, it is still more valuable than at first base and harder to maintain health as it is a little more demanding.
@craig44 said:
I have never bought into the Trout hype. They tried to make him seem otherworldly with WAR, but I have never been impressed with that metric. I dont like the positional adjustment aspect.
The only thing trout did extraordinarily well was draw walks. He did that very very well. that, in effect, lessened his amount of at bats which helped him increase his rate percentages. Trout never led his league in any power stat. never once in HR, 2b or 3b. Never hit 50 bombs and may well never hit any of the career benchmarks. He will turn into a swing from his heels slugger as he ages and the bat speed decreases. then we will see his OP%, BA, SLG% decrease. and K's increase.
Trout is a guy who had a great 7 year peak.
I would much rather have Pujols 10 year run to start his career.
You mean he lessened the amount of outs he made. That is what you are supposed to do. Lessen the amount of outs you make and increase the amount of times you get on first, second, third, or to home. Elementary stuff.
Trout got pitched around or he would have more total HR. He has 120 career IBB and countless unintentional intentional walks. So despite the ravings of the Trout Zealout about Trout 'not swingin', Trout doesn't go up looking for walks.
If so, then how come...
Trout has 378 HR in a lifetime of 6,607 plate appearances.
Jim Rice has 382 HR in a lifetime of 9.058 plate appearances and NOT getting pitched around nearly the same and while playing in a bandbox and people getting all giddy at the thought of his name and 'feared' power.
To be accurate Trout has 378 HR in 5,511 AB's.
Rice has 382 HR in 8,200 AB's
But that isn't exceptional for Trout and all he does is walk? LMAO.
Trout also did it better than George Brett and Trout did it against better pitching. Brett was a corner infielder and only hit 317 Home Runs. What Brett do exceptional? Ground out to second base? Hit singles on the astroturf that skid by the outfielders to turn into doubles?
Trout led the league in runs scored four times. You forget that he spent most of his career batting first or second. How do people get soo wet about RBI and then completely forget about Runs Scored? How many times did Brett lead the league in RBI batting third his whole career?? His 'job'. I'll save you the trouble. Zero. A goose egg. Never.
Trout has hit 378 HR and made 4.024 outs. That isn't exceptionally well?
Brett hit 317 HR and made 7,063 outs against weaker pitching.
Trout got hurt the last four years. That hurts his career totals obviously. Yeah we all know that. 2020 he was healthy but it was covid.
If you want to eliminate those injured years from his percentages go ahead, but do the same for Brett in his injured years. Heck, Brett's monster year in 1980 he only played 117 games. According to you that year should just be completely discounted or eliminated.
George Brett played 140+ games only 9 times in his 20 year career(1981 he was off pace too and injured). So Brett basically had a 9 year career according to your theories.
Oh wait, Brett just laced a ground ball double that ricochet off the turf off another soft tossing LH throwing 81 MPH. Impressive.
You guys have to start applying this selective nonsense to your heroes as well.
Who ever claimed Brett was a home run hitter? He did hit gaps between outfielders better than anyone I’ve seen so your Astro turf argument is really suspect.
Now compare Trout’s home run total to Omar Moreno and really impress us.
@Darin said:
Who ever claimed Brett was a home run hitter? He did hit gaps between outfielders better than anyone I’ve seen so your Astro turf argument is really suspect.
Now compare Trout’s home run total to Omar Moreno and really impress us.
I don't know. Who claimed all Trout did exceptionally well was walk? Same vein. Not too hard to understand the comparison. To bat third and never lead the league in RBI when that is his 'job'. Brett ever led in runs scored either. Those "real" runs we hear about
In the end, after age 32 Brett had a 143 OPS+
Trout after age 32 has a 176 OPS+
Trout better hitter by a lot. The story is not obviously finished, but at their similar points you can see why Trout was viewed so highly before he got hurt when he is that much better than Brett.
Trout hitting the same amount of Home Runs as Jim Rice in 2,700 less at bats should have clued people in on that already.
The 1980 season doesn't count for Brett anymore according to you guys. You guys have said that those injured years help percentages unfairly and the value isn't good enough either.
Brett really only played 9 years according to you anyway.
Just start applying the same selective nonsense to everyone. Thats all. Nothing against Brett or Witt.
@Darin said:
Personally I think Freddie Freeman is a HOF’er even if he retired today but I also think Will Clark should be in but he’s not. I mention Will because right now there isn’t a lot of difference in their career numbers except Freeman has more homers.
OBP, OPS, OPS+ very similar. The main difference is Will retired at age 36 after a very good season and didn’t play out his old man years. So if Freddie plays 2-3 more years he’s in without a doubt.
He's a more productive version of Fred McGriff. I agree. If he retired today I think he's done enough. Another 2 really good years and he'll be a lock. The arguments about him being overshadowed by Ohtani, Betts, etc. are valid arguments, but I don't think they will impact his chances at getting in.
I also think Trout has little issue getting enshrined.
@Darin said:
Who ever claimed Brett was a home run hitter? He did hit gaps between outfielders better than anyone I’ve seen so your Astro turf argument is really suspect.
Now compare Trout’s home run total to Omar Moreno and really impress us.
I don't know. Who claimed all Trout did exceptionally well was walk? Same vein. Not too hard to understand the comparison. To bat third and never lead the league in RBI when that is his 'job'. Brett ever led in runs scored either. Those "real" runs we hear about
In the end, after age 32 Brett had a 143 OPS+
Trout after age 32 has a 176 OPS+
Trout better hitter by a lot. The story is not obviously finished, but at their similar points you can see why Trout was viewed so highly before he got hurt when he is that much better than Brett.
Trout hitting the same amount of Home Runs as Jim Rice in 2,700 less at bats should have clued people in on that already.
The 1980 season doesn't count for Brett anymore according to you guys. You guys have said that those injured years help percentages unfairly and the value isn't good enough either.
Brett really only played 9 years according to you anyway.
Just start applying the same selective nonsense to everyone. Thats all. Nothing against Brett or Witt.
I don’t know how you do math but you’re not doing it right.
I would consider a full season for a player to be about 155 games. That gives them 7 games off plus off days for the team.
Brett played 2,707 games divided by 155 per year equals 17.5 FULL seasons of baseball.
Trout has played 1,518 games divided by 155 equals 9.8 FULL seasons.
So he’s 8 years behind Brett, in Trout’s current atrophied state he isn’t coming close to Brett.
Lucky for Mikey he won’t have any old man years to bring down his stats.
But anyway I didn’t intend to get in the middle of this, just pointing out Brett was a power hitter as he had more extra base hits than Mike Schmidt but I don’t think anyone has said he was a home run hitter.
The really great thing about Mike Trout was he came up at 19-20 years old and was great right from the start. Which I give him a lot of credit for because that’s really difficult.
But then the injuries started at a ridiculous pace at age 25 and let’s face it he’s been robbing the team the last few years, playing for a month and a half and then off for the the remaining 4 and a half months.
did i miss something or did a Jim Rice card sell for over a million dollars? now let's compare stats with how much it will cost you to get trout's card. the dude's card prices are way stupid. millions of dollars for a above average player or maybe better than above average. he's not as good as brett, no chance.
@olb31 said:
did i miss something or did a Jim Rice card sell for over a million dollars? now let's compare stats with how much it will cost you to get trout's card. the dude's card prices are way stupid. millions of dollars for a above average player or maybe better than above average. he's not as good as brett, no chance.
Hes much better than Brett and labeling Trout as above average or maybe better than above average is wild
@Darin said:
Who ever claimed Brett was a home run hitter? He did hit gaps between outfielders better than anyone I’ve seen so your Astro turf argument is really suspect.
Now compare Trout’s home run total to Omar Moreno and really impress us.
I don't know. Who claimed all Trout did exceptionally well was walk? Same vein. Not too hard to understand the comparison. To bat third and never lead the league in RBI when that is his 'job'. Brett ever led in runs scored either. Those "real" runs we hear about
In the end, after age 32 Brett had a 143 OPS+
Trout after age 32 has a 176 OPS+
Trout better hitter by a lot. The story is not obviously finished, but at their similar points you can see why Trout was viewed so highly before he got hurt when he is that much better than Brett.
Trout hitting the same amount of Home Runs as Jim Rice in 2,700 less at bats should have clued people in on that already.
The 1980 season doesn't count for Brett anymore according to you guys. You guys have said that those injured years help percentages unfairly and the value isn't good enough either.
Brett really only played 9 years according to you anyway.
Just start applying the same selective nonsense to everyone. Thats all. Nothing against Brett or Witt.
I don’t know how you do math but you’re not doing it right.
I would consider a full season for a player to be about 155 games. That gives them 7 games off plus off days for the team.
Brett played 2,707 games divided by 155 per year equals 17.5 FULL seasons of baseball.
Trout has played 1,518 games divided by 155 equals 9.8 FULL seasons.
So he’s 8 years behind Brett, in Trout’s current atrophied state he isn’t coming close to Brett.
Lucky for Mikey he won’t have any old man years to bring down his stats.
But anyway I didn’t intend to get in the middle of this, just pointing out Brett was a power hitter as he had more extra base hits than Mike Schmidt but I don’t think anyone has said he was a home run hitter.
So you consider a full season to be 155 games...and you believe Brett played 17 seasons of 155 games? How many 155 games seasons did Brett play? Not too hard to check, lol.
Brett has more extra base hits than Schmidt? So now a double is the same value as a home runs? Is that your math too? lol. And how many at bats it takes to get those hits doesn't matter?
Do the math. How many total bases did Brett have and how many at bats(and outs) did it cost his team. Then do the same for Schmidt. Then you will get a more accurate understanding instead of doing more selective methods by saying a double is worth the same as a home run(which is what you are say8ing when you use the 'more extra base hits' comment).
Trout is at 176 OPS+
Brett finished at 135.
Yes, will see how it ends up. Still has to be written, but at the same age Trout was ahead of Brett too, so it is easy to see why Trout was valued so high in all time rankings to this point....which is part of the point of the thread and why I brought up Brett.
And answers olb's query of why Trout's cards are so valuable.
@olb31 said:
did i miss something or did a Jim Rice card sell for over a million dollars? now let's compare stats with how much it will cost you to get trout's card. the dude's card prices are way stupid. millions of dollars for a above average player or maybe better than above average. he's not as good as brett, no chance.
I thought you said that you need the market and WS to achieve card prices that high? So how did Trout's cards get so expensive then? The answer is because people have seen how great a player he has been. Just because you don't understand what constitutes a great player doesn't mean everyone else doesn't....and that is why his cards got so high to begin with.
Now going forward is a different question for sure. But going forward you have to still understand how great Trout has been.
Currently here is where Trout and Freeman stand offensively:
Trout is 588 runs above league average.
Freeman is 555 runs above league avearage.
That is close, but when you see it took Freeman 2,000 more plate appearances to still be behind, it really isn't that close at all offensively, regardless of what position they play.
Now just because you don't consider positional value doesn't mean it doesn't exist. A centerfielder providing those numbers is certainly more valuable than a first baseman. How much is debatable, but there is a difference.
So those two figures are really much further apart in baseball terms....and of course 2,000 less plate appearances getting the same production already makes it further apart.
A simple way to understand the positional value is this. When you hear baseball people talk above moving Trout to first base to keep him healthy and prolong his career, you should understand why his value is higher being a centerfielder. If you still don't understand, then ask yourself why you don't hear, "lets move Freeman to CF to save his ankles."
@craig44 said:
The only thing trout did extraordinarily well was draw walks. He did that very very well.
>
>
Take away the cheaters and the negro league players and Trout is 7th all time in SLG, I would say that's extraordinary.
Even if you leave the $cumbags Bonds and McGwire in, he's top 10.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said: @craig44 said:
The only thing trout did extraordinarily well was draw walks. He did that very very well.
>
>
Take away the cheaters and the negro league players and Trout is 7th all time in SLG, I would say that's extraordinary.
Even if you leave the $cumbags Bonds and McGwire in, he's top 10.
and you know that trout has never used PED how?
just wait for those old man years to creep in. that SLG will be going down, down, down...
Yes Brett played the equivalent of 17.5 full seasons. He also had more extra base hits than Mike Schmidt. Those are facts. I didn’t turn it in to anything more than that like you’re trying to do.
@Darin said:
Yes Brett played the equivalent of 17.5 full seasons. He also had more extra base hits than Mike Schmidt. Those are facts. I didn’t turn it in to anything more than that like you’re trying to do.
Brett ended up with 135 3b!! that is a pretty extraordinary number for a modern player. Brett had great power to the gaps.
Had he played his career in Fenway, I bet he would have finished with 800 2b.
@Darin said:
Yes Brett played the equivalent of 17.5 full seasons. He also had more extra base hits than Mike Schmidt. Those are facts. I didn’t turn it in to anything more than that like you’re trying to do.
It is a fact that I took a dump this morning and that is about as relevant as those facts. Why you believe a double is as valuable as a home run is kind of odd....and of course par for the course when bias is creeped in.
You and craig go on and on about how Trout only plays 130 games a season due to injury to negate his percentages. Brett played more truncated seasons than he has full seasons and by a lot, so you need to apply that same punishment to Brett as you do to Trout.
So is a 117 game season considered a full season by you? You do realize that the season starts over each year, right?
Per your math, if Trout plays 50 games a year for the next five years that his "equivalent full seasons" actually goes up for his career. Goes up. That is a pretty bad formula.
@Darin said:
Yes Brett played the equivalent of 17.5 full seasons. He also had more extra base hits than Mike Schmidt. Those are facts. I didn’t turn it in to anything more than that like you’re trying to do.
Brett ended up with 135 3b!! that is a pretty extraordinary number for a modern player. Brett had great power to the gaps.
Had he played his career in Fenway, I bet he would have finished with 800 2b.
And in Fenway against that pitching Trout would already have 500 Home Runs.
@Darin said:
Yes Brett played the equivalent of 17.5 full seasons. He also had more extra base hits than Mike Schmidt. Those are facts. I didn’t turn it in to anything more than that like you’re trying to do.
Brett ended up with 135 3b!! that is a pretty extraordinary number for a modern player. Brett had great power to the gaps.
Had he played his career in Fenway, I bet he would have finished with 800 2b.
And in Fenway against that pitching Trout would already have 500 Home Runs.
and 5k strikeouts swinging away at that short wall...
@Darin said:
Yes Brett played the equivalent of 17.5 full seasons. He also had more extra base hits than Mike Schmidt. Those are facts. I didn’t turn it in to anything more than that like you’re trying to do.
Brett ended up with 135 3b!! that is a pretty extraordinary number for a modern player. Brett had great power to the gaps.
Had he played his career in Fenway, I bet he would have finished with 800 2b.
And in Fenway against that pitching Trout would already have 500 Home Runs.
and 5k strikeouts swinging away at that short wall...
Doesn't add up but nice try. Would be .318/.430/.610 for Trout playing in Fenway in that era. He could strike out on every out at that point.
Not sure why the Brett vs. Trout comparison has entered the building. I know that I have never said Brett was the player of his generation or a top 5 or 10 hall of fame in the innermost of inner circles of Cooperstown.
People tried to peddle that about Trout a few years ago. not the case. just wait for those old man years and his new predilection to swing off the back heals for home runs get after his rate stats.
He always struck out a lot, wait for the rest of his career as the bat slows...
@Darin said:
Yes Brett played the equivalent of 17.5 full seasons. He also had more extra base hits than Mike Schmidt. Those are facts. I didn’t turn it in to anything more than that like you’re trying to do.
Brett ended up with 135 3b!! that is a pretty extraordinary number for a modern player. Brett had great power to the gaps.
Had he played his career in Fenway, I bet he would have finished with 800 2b.
And in Fenway against that pitching Trout would already have 500 Home Runs.
and 5k strikeouts swinging away at that short wall...
Doesn't add up but nice try. Would be .318/.430/.610 for Trout playing in Fenway in that era. He could strike out on every out at that point.
perhaps, but he would not get to feast off from Red Sox pitching if he played for them.
@Darin said:
Yes Brett played the equivalent of 17.5 full seasons. He also had more extra base hits than Mike Schmidt. Those are facts. I didn’t turn it in to anything more than that like you’re trying to do.
Brett ended up with 135 3b!! that is a pretty extraordinary number for a modern player. Brett had great power to the gaps.
Had he played his career in Fenway, I bet he would have finished with 800 2b.
And in Fenway against that pitching Trout would already have 500 Home Runs.
and 5k strikeouts swinging away at that short wall...
Doesn't add up but nice try. Would be .318/.430/.610 for Trout playing in Fenway in that era. He could strike out on every out at that point.
perhaps, but he would not get to feast off from Red Sox pitching if he played for them.
I thought you said that you need the market and WS to achieve card prices that high? So how did Trout's cards get so expensive then? The answer is because people have seen how great a player he has been. Just because you don't understand what constitutes a great player doesn't mean everyone else doesn't....and that is why his cards got so high to begin with.
the people who paid that much money have lost their rear ends. No one would pay that much for a Trout card now, not even you. I think one of them sold for $4M, what do you think that person could sell that for now? $500,000, $250,000?
I thought you said that you need the market and WS to achieve card prices that high? So how did Trout's cards get so expensive then? The answer is because people have seen how great a player he has been. Just because you don't understand what constitutes a great player doesn't mean everyone else doesn't....and that is why his cards got so high to begin with.
the people who paid that much money have lost their rear ends. No one would pay that much for a Trout card now, not even you. I think one of them sold for $4M, what do you think that person could sell that for now? $500,000, $250,000?
Were they bough in the height of that market? Didn't all those cards go down?. Yes, absolutely was a bad buy...but the point is, people bought them despite no market or world series for Trout, so the factor was on the field play.
I asked you earlier and you never answered. Have Freeman's cards gone up since his heroics in the WS and their win?
What happens if that ankle lingers for the next three years and Freeman only plays 95 games a year? Won't his cards go down?
Going forward Trout already cemented the HOF. Freeman has not yet. He will if he is healthy, but he hasn't yet.
Yeah I don’t know why swell always turns it into a trout-Brett comparison. I never said Brett was a home run hitter and all the sudden swell is comparing their home run totals. I never said doubles were as good as home runs and swell is telling me I did. No use posting to him anymore because all he does is run down what George Brett accomplished.
@Darin said:
Yeah I don’t know why swell always turns it into a trout-Brett comparison. I never said Brett was a home run hitter and all the sudden swell is comparing their home run totals. I never said doubles were as good as home runs and swell is telling me I did. No use posting to him anymore because all he does is run down what George Brett accomplished.
Because people understand Brett. You guys punish Trout's hitting by pointing to truncated seasons and saying those artificially inflate his percentages and that he isn't as good as his numbers say he is. Brett isn't much different in that regard.
As for the HR, I laid that out above with Brett and Rice and showed that Trout indeed was an elite HR hitter and wasn't just a 'walks only" guy as was being claimed. Trout is/was an elite HR hitter. Trout is also third in active batting average...again, not just a walks only guy. How many laud batting average on here...Trout is third actively and he has played since 2011, yet you hear walks only garbage.
Trout's OB% is better than Henderson's and his SLG% better than Reggie's...even at similar points in their careers so not just a shorter career advantage. People know Henderson and Reggie, and if you know those facts and still walk away not impressed with Trout's hitting, then you are either biased or ignorant on the game.
@Darin said:
Yeah I don’t know why swell always turns it into a trout-Brett comparison. I never said Brett was a home run hitter and all the sudden swell is comparing their home run totals. I never said doubles were as good as home runs and swell is telling me I did. No use posting to him anymore because all he does is run down what George Brett accomplished.
Because people understand Brett. You guys punish Trout's hitting by pointing to truncated seasons and saying those artificially inflate his percentages and that he isn't as good as his numbers say he is. Brett isn't much different in that regard.
As for the HR, I laid that out above with Brett and Rice and showed that Trout indeed was an elite HR hitter and wasn't just a 'walks only" guy as was being claimed. Trout is/was an elite HR hitter.
Trout's OB% is better than Henderson's and his SLG% better than Reggie's...even at similar points in their careers so not just a shorter career advantage. People know Henderson and Reggie, and if you know those facts and still walk away not impressed with Trout's hitting, then you are either biased or ignorant on the game.
how many times has Mike Trout led his league in Home runs?
wouldn't an "elite" home run hitter have done it at least once or twice?
@Darin said:
Yeah I don’t know why swell always turns it into a trout-Brett comparison. I never said Brett was a home run hitter and all the sudden swell is comparing their home run totals. I never said doubles were as good as home runs and swell is telling me I did. No use posting to him anymore because all he does is run down what George Brett accomplished.
Because people understand Brett. You guys punish Trout's hitting by pointing to truncated seasons and saying those artificially inflate his percentages and that he isn't as good as his numbers say he is. Brett isn't much different in that regard.
As for the HR, I laid that out above with Brett and Rice and showed that Trout indeed was an elite HR hitter and wasn't just a 'walks only" guy as was being claimed. Trout is/was an elite HR hitter.
Trout's OB% is better than Henderson's and his SLG% better than Reggie's...even at similar points in their careers so not just a shorter career advantage. People know Henderson and Reggie, and if you know those facts and still walk away not impressed with Trout's hitting, then you are either biased or ignorant on the game.
how many times has Mike Trout led his league in Home runs?
wouldn't an "elite" home run hitter have done it at least once or twice?
No, doesn't have to be first in a given year to be elite. He's been second or third five times and with less at bats than most.
So yes, that is elite. Is finishing second in the league in HR in 100 less at bats than the guy ahead of you not elite?
He is second on the active leaderboard measuring apples to apples vs the same competition. That combination of top two/three finishes and being second active...yes elite. So is he only elite if he finishes first among all the current active players in Home Runs?
Trout led the league in Run Expectancy FIVE TIMES. Five.
RUns created FOUR times.
Just because you are blind to the stats that are more accurate doesn't make Trout not an elite hitter.
Basically all I said about Trout is that he was done being a full time player at age 24. Which is actually true. Beyond that I don’t think I said a whole lot about him but I am being given credit for a lot of stuff I didn’t say.
He does play a month and a half nowadays and then takes the next 4 and a half off but I guess his money is guaranteed so no biggie to him.
More time for his favorite interests, Eagles football and the weather.
So tell me who is an elite HR hitter on that list. Apples to Apples facing the same ridiculous hard pitching. Trout and Stanton are the top two and look how many less at bats they have than all the people behind them. The only person behind them is Judge that has lower at bats too.
So who is the elite HR hitters on that list??? Just Stanton?
Goldschmidt has LESS home runs than Trout and in 1,500 MORE at bats! That isn't elite for Trout? Yes, the first baseman who gets to stay healthier by playing a less demanding position needs 1,500 more at bats to still come 16 home runs short of Trout, yet that isn't elite for Trout? Get out of town...you have some of the most biased glasses on here.
I ask again, who is the elite HR on that active list? If Trout is not considered elite, then nobody on that list is. So how can there be no elite HR hitters....unless your defintion of elite is just one player and I could see that going to Staton by a hair over Trout. But then apply that same definition to every other era.
Trout has played CF during all that time. You don't think he would be healthier and get more at bats and home runs playing DH or first base like other guys on that list? That is why he gets that bump in WAR that you so easily dismiss because you "don't like it."
What do you think would have happened to Stanton's HR totals if he was forced to play centerfield?
Trout is an elite HR hitter. Take a bit out of that and swallow...because that is reality.
@Darin said:
Yeah I don’t know why swell always turns it into a trout-Brett comparison. I never said Brett was a home run hitter and all the sudden swell is comparing their home run totals. I never said doubles were as good as home runs and swell is telling me I did. No use posting to him anymore because all he does is run down what George Brett accomplished.
Because people understand Brett. You guys punish Trout's hitting by pointing to truncated seasons and saying those artificially inflate his percentages and that he isn't as good as his numbers say he is. Brett isn't much different in that regard.
As for the HR, I laid that out above with Brett and Rice and showed that Trout indeed was an elite HR hitter and wasn't just a 'walks only" guy as was being claimed. Trout is/was an elite HR hitter.
Trout's OB% is better than Henderson's and his SLG% better than Reggie's...even at similar points in their careers so not just a shorter career advantage. People know Henderson and Reggie, and if you know those facts and still walk away not impressed with Trout's hitting, then you are either biased or ignorant on the game.
how many times has Mike Trout led his league in Home runs?
wouldn't an "elite" home run hitter have done it at least once or twice?
No, doesn't have to be first in a given year to be elite. He's been second or third five times and with less at bats than most.
So yes, that is elite. Is finishing second in the league in HR in 100 less at bats than the guy ahead of you not elite?
He is second on the active leaderboard measuring apples to apples vs the same competition. That combination of top two/three finishes and being second active...yes elite. So is he only elite if he finishes first among all the current active players in Home Runs?
Trout led the league in Run Expectancy FIVE TIMES. Five.
RUns created FOUR times.
Just because you are blind to the stats that are more accurate doesn't make Trout not an elite hitter.
I disagree. An "elite" home run hitter would have led his league at LEAST once. You are the one who called him an "elite" home run hitter. I didn't say he had to lead the league every season, just at least once.
Trout has played what, 13 seasons since his cup of coffee in 2011? in 13 seasons this "elite" home run hitter has never once led his league?
That is not elite. is he a good home run hitter? yes. A very good one? probably. Elite? nope.
@Darin said:
Yeah I don’t know why swell always turns it into a trout-Brett comparison. I never said Brett was a home run hitter and all the sudden swell is comparing their home run totals. I never said doubles were as good as home runs and swell is telling me I did. No use posting to him anymore because all he does is run down what George Brett accomplished.
Because people understand Brett. You guys punish Trout's hitting by pointing to truncated seasons and saying those artificially inflate his percentages and that he isn't as good as his numbers say he is. Brett isn't much different in that regard.
As for the HR, I laid that out above with Brett and Rice and showed that Trout indeed was an elite HR hitter and wasn't just a 'walks only" guy as was being claimed. Trout is/was an elite HR hitter.
Trout's OB% is better than Henderson's and his SLG% better than Reggie's...even at similar points in their careers so not just a shorter career advantage. People know Henderson and Reggie, and if you know those facts and still walk away not impressed with Trout's hitting, then you are either biased or ignorant on the game.
how many times has Mike Trout led his league in Home runs?
wouldn't an "elite" home run hitter have done it at least once or twice?
No, doesn't have to be first in a given year to be elite. He's been second or third five times and with less at bats than most.
So yes, that is elite. Is finishing second in the league in HR in 100 less at bats than the guy ahead of you not elite?
He is second on the active leaderboard measuring apples to apples vs the same competition. That combination of top two/three finishes and being second active...yes elite. So is he only elite if he finishes first among all the current active players in Home Runs?
Trout led the league in Run Expectancy FIVE TIMES. Five.
RUns created FOUR times.
Just because you are blind to the stats that are more accurate doesn't make Trout not an elite hitter.
I disagree. An "elite" home run hitter would have led his league at LEAST once. You are the one who called him an "elite" home run hitter. I didn't say he had to lead the league every season, just at least once.
Trout has played what, 13 seasons since his cup of coffee in 2011? in 13 seasons this "elite" home run hitter has never once led his league?
That is not elite. is he a good home run hitter? yes. A very good one? probably. Elite? nope.
That is a dumb rationale. Sorry, it just is...and certainly even more dumb when you say "all he does is walk at a high level."
So who are the elite HR hitters on that list. Just the guys that finished first in their league on time? lol.
A better thing to say is that Trout was the best hitter in his league five times. Is that elite enough for you? And from a CF(even though you don't understand the positional aspect) That ends all this stupid stuff you try to use to rationalize the fact that you don't know as much baseball as you think you do.
His HR/game average is 86% of Ruth's and 98% of Bonds'. I don't think there's a good path to disputing his HR hitting ability as elite and the results match that.
Whether he was to lead his league doesn't tell an interesting story. His mix of power and contact also sets him above many other elite power hitters.
Interesting back-and-forth here. Perhaps drifted off-topic a while back. Trout has already put together a great career... He's had trouble staying on the field. I certainly think that if he played on a more competitive team there would be more aggressiveness in getting him back on the field late in those season's that he's went down. Put some kid in CF and have him DH already.
So tell me who is an elite HR hitter on that list. Apples to Apples facing the same ridiculous hard pitching. Trout and Stanton are the top two and look how many less at bats they have than all the people behind them. The only person behind them is Judge that has lower at bats too.
So who is the elite HR hitters on that list??? Just Stanton?
Goldschmidt has LESS home runs than Trout and in 1,500 MORE at bats! That isn't elite for Trout? Yes, the first baseman who gets to stay healthier by playing a less demanding position needs 1,500 more at bats to still come 16 home runs short of Trout, yet that isn't elite for Trout? Get out of town...you have some of the most biased glasses on here.
I ask again, who is the elite HR on that active list? If Trout is not considered elite, then nobody on that list is. So how can there be no elite HR hitters....unless your defintion of elite is just one player and I could see that going to Staton by a hair over Trout. But then apply that same definition to every other era.
Trout has played CF during all that time. You don't think he would be healthier and get more at bats and home runs playing DH or first base like other guys on that list? That is why he gets that bump in WAR that you so easily dismiss because you "don't like it."
What do you think would have happened to Stanton's HR totals if he was forced to play centerfield?
Trout is an elite HR hitter. Take a bit out of that and swallow...because that is reality.
that is a lot of words trying to be convincing that a player who has never led his league in home runs in even a single season out of his 13 is an "elite" home run hitter.
I feel better having Freddie on my team than having Trout for 2025. How about you 1948? And Trout makes a lot more money than Freeman. You could have Treinan and Freddie or Trout?
@olb31 said:
I feel better having Freddie on my team than having Trout for 2025. How about you 1948? And Trout makes a lot more money than Freeman. You could have Treinan and Freddie or Trout?
For 2025, Freeman for sure, although that ankle is a worry I didn't have last year. I would be a little concerned on Freeman as well.
So tell me who is an elite HR hitter on that list. Apples to Apples facing the same ridiculous hard pitching. Trout and Stanton are the top two and look how many less at bats they have than all the people behind them. The only person behind them is Judge that has lower at bats too.
So who is the elite HR hitters on that list??? Just Stanton?
Goldschmidt has LESS home runs than Trout and in 1,500 MORE at bats! That isn't elite for Trout? Yes, the first baseman who gets to stay healthier by playing a less demanding position needs 1,500 more at bats to still come 16 home runs short of Trout, yet that isn't elite for Trout? Get out of town...you have some of the most biased glasses on here.
I ask again, who is the elite HR on that active list? If Trout is not considered elite, then nobody on that list is. So how can there be no elite HR hitters....unless your defintion of elite is just one player and I could see that going to Staton by a hair over Trout. But then apply that same definition to every other era.
Trout has played CF during all that time. You don't think he would be healthier and get more at bats and home runs playing DH or first base like other guys on that list? That is why he gets that bump in WAR that you so easily dismiss because you "don't like it."
What do you think would have happened to Stanton's HR totals if he was forced to play centerfield?
Trout is an elite HR hitter. Take a bit out of that and swallow...because that is reality.
that is a lot of words trying to be convincing that a player who has never led his league in home runs in even a single season out of his 13 is an "elite" home run hitter.
I am not convinced.
Bias and ignorance does that. So no surprise you aren't convinced.
Long as Freddie plays to the media that will be a plus. Can never hurt your HOF resume being liked. I don't know offhand his relationship with the media. Far as Trout rookies. Got 1 update Trout RC. Got it out of a rewrap at Target. 10 packs for $10. So really can't lose at that price. Only loss was not selling at the peak.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
So tell me who is an elite HR hitter on that list. Apples to Apples facing the same ridiculous hard pitching. Trout and Stanton are the top two and look how many less at bats they have than all the people behind them. The only person behind them is Judge that has lower at bats too.
So who is the elite HR hitters on that list??? Just Stanton?
Goldschmidt has LESS home runs than Trout and in 1,500 MORE at bats! That isn't elite for Trout? Yes, the first baseman who gets to stay healthier by playing a less demanding position needs 1,500 more at bats to still come 16 home runs short of Trout, yet that isn't elite for Trout? Get out of town...you have some of the most biased glasses on here.
I ask again, who is the elite HR on that active list? If Trout is not considered elite, then nobody on that list is. So how can there be no elite HR hitters....unless your defintion of elite is just one player and I could see that going to Staton by a hair over Trout. But then apply that same definition to every other era.
Trout has played CF during all that time. You don't think he would be healthier and get more at bats and home runs playing DH or first base like other guys on that list? That is why he gets that bump in WAR that you so easily dismiss because you "don't like it."
What do you think would have happened to Stanton's HR totals if he was forced to play centerfield?
Trout is an elite HR hitter. Take a bit out of that and swallow...because that is reality.
that is a lot of words trying to be convincing that a player who has never led his league in home runs in even a single season out of his 13 is an "elite" home run hitter.
I am not convinced.
Bias and ignorance does that. So no surprise you aren't convinced.
everyone has bias (yes, even you)
ad hominem attacks do nothing to strengthen your argument...
Comments
I don’t know if this has been mentioned, but as far as comparing card prices of Freeman and Trout, certainly the ‘flashiness’ of the player comes into play. Freeman isn’t flashy, he just goes out year after year and posts rock solid numbers a lot like Steady Eddie Murray did. And he’s a first baseman and not an outfielder like Trout. How many first baseman’s card prices have shot upwards spectacularly even with huge offensive numbers?
During Trout’s playing days he was flashy with the high OBP, OPS+ and WAR. Could steal bases, make great catches. Flashy like Rickey Henderson and that draws collector interest a lot more than Steady Freddie.
I think these factors have a lot more to do with a particular players card prices than what team he plays for. Look at Brett, Ripken, Henderson, Gwynn who played for the Padres and whose rookie prices are higher than Boggs who started with the Red Sox.
Freeman is a HOFer at this point. If you buy his cards now, in 20 years they will be worth significantly more than they are right now.
Trout is a HOFer at this point. If you buy his cards now, in 20 years they will not be worth significantly more than they are right now because they are pretty darn pricey already.
I bought Trout's cards years ago, I have been buying some Freeman RC cards the last 2-3 years. There is a chance Freeman's cards will actually dip towards the end of his playing career as he declines at the plate but to me that would just be an opportunity to pick them up at a discount.
I don't think Freeman's cards will be worth more than Trout's even in 20 years. Trout was the face of baseball and had a 6-7 year peak that rivaled the very best that have played the game. That recognition drives interest in his cards and will keep his card prices higher long term.
I think Trout card prices being higher than Freeman card prices is completely reasonable given the vast gulf between their peak performance and popularity in the hobby. Sadly Trout has basically become a "what if" story, I would love to see a 2-3 year renaissance for him. Very unlikely to happen though since he can't stay healthy and that only seems to worsen for players as they age.
Robb
that is a lot of words to say that Trout CHOSE to sign with a dumpster fire of a franchise. He chose it. And as for teams NOT paying more for him in FA, hogwash. The Yankees certainly would have. So would the Mets.
Winning is not Trouts priority. Period. Why didnt Ohtani extend years earlier? He got both more money and on a team that competes every year. What about Soto?
guys who want to win will find their way onto a contender. guys who dont want to win wont.
good grief, if winning were actually important to Trout, he could have belly ached his way into a trade before he signed the extension and then signed the extension with the contender he was traded to. He could have forced a trade after signing the extension. there were rumors he was on the market this year. he vetoed all of them.
the guy doesnt care about winning.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Trout doesn't care about winning, which to me is the ....bleh. Stats only and that's questionable honestly at this point. I'll take O and Freeman all day over him. Freeman is HOF, Ohtani is HOF, should be for both anyway I think. Trout too but ugh, gimme players that want to play and have fun with the game like O/F
Its very unfair to say he doesnt care about winning.
430 million dollars 2 years before free agency. If you are a billionaire and can honestly say you would turn that down so be it.
Yankees and Mets certainly would not have paid more for him especially the Mets
It was the largest extinction and contract in history at the time
The Angels never gave Othani a legit offer. Othani doesnt get paid for 9 more years. He makes an insane amount of money in endorsements and makes 2 million a year from the Dodgers until then. No one comes remotely close to the Othani endorsement money. Soto got an absurd offer from the Nationals with crazy deferred money just like Harper did.
The Angels refused to trade Othani with no attempt to extend him. Soto was traded to SD in the biggest over pay in history for talent. Its fine if you dont like Trout, but the idea that he should have forced a trade taken pennies on the dollar for an extension is just not right
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Freddie's MVP performance in the WS and certainly the monstrous GS walk off against the Yankees are two huge events in what is already a stellar career. Hard to top that. They just signed Blake Snell and are heavy favorites to win it all again. If they make it, it gives Freddie another huge platform. For Trout, there is almost zero chance the Angels make the playoffs.
Price has everything to do with demand. Mike Trout was the top MLB player to buy from 2010 to 2020. His prices were extremely high based on the notion that his face one day would be on the Mt. Rushmore of Baseball. Freddie was collected more by people like myself who were simply fans of the guy and saw a potential Hall of Famer at really low prices.
We now know that Trout will not achieve the accolades and career marks that people expected that drove up his prices. Most importantly, with the likes of Freeman, Harper, Betts, Acuna, Ohtani, Judge, Witt, and others we see a drastically diminished interest in Mike Trout. The only thing keeping his value from crashing even more is the hopes of those holding onto his cards that he somehow turns back into MVP Trout. That notion is just foolish at age 33 coming off his 4th straight injury-plagued season and understanding that even the healthiest of former superstar players see a drastic reduction in productivity post-age 32.
Freddie's value should increase even more so as he continues to collect accolades, rings, and achieves milestones. He is closing in on 3000 hits, 1000 extra-base hits, 600 doubles, and a plethora of other milestones.
It's pretty easy to gauge the market for both these players and see the upside of investing in Freddie while avoiding the potential pitfall of investing in Trout in 2024.
Have those events caused a spike in Freeman's cards since they happened? I felt the same before, that those could help Freeman;s cards. The Dodgers will win a couple more WS within the next several years.
Those things were all great pointing forward for Freeman. They all happened or will happen.
Problem is Ohtani is the one getting all the attention. Is Freeman going to be the Bernie Williams to Derek Jeter? Except Ohtani is getting even more attention than Jeter.
Once Trout makes the move to a less demanding position he will end up playing more games. He may not get that Mt Rushmore argument, but if he gets close to 100 WAR and 475 HR, he will hold his value more so than Freeman(unless Freeman plays at a very high level for several more years and get 3,500 hits etc).
PS Mookie Betts is getting a lot of attention too (and is statistically closer to Trout). I'm not sure where his cards are at right now, but if they are 'lower' like Freeman's cards I would put my bets on Betts more than Freeman.
These things are getting a little ridiculous. Trout signed that deal after the 2018 season. A year later Ohtani chose the Angels to sign with. So all this stuff can be applied to Ohtani as much as Trout. Ohtani's free agent timing last year gave him a better viewpoint on where the Angels were heading when he was a free agent, and he picked a great organization to sign with. Ohtani would still be viewed as a 'loser' if he signed with 25 other teams that would not have won with him either.
Both Trout and Ohtani got hurt and the Angels management did terrible at filling in the pieces. They even signed a 'proven winner' that many fans get all wet about when they say players 'know how to win.' Yes, I'm talking about Rendon.
Perhaps the Angels should not have used the same philosophy that fans always use to prompt them to sign Rendon because he had a good post season series, lol.
Angels held onto Pujols and kept trotting him out there even though he was a below league average player for several years with Trout....but because he got those RBI that fans get all wet about too, even though anyone batting after Trout should have fallen out of bed and got 95 RBI. Pujols chose the Angels too.
For that Trout Zealot out there, I wonder if the same digs will be applied to Bob Witt Jr after he chose the Royals to sign with long term and did historically terrible in the playoffs agains the Yanks.
Personally I think Freddie Freeman is a HOF’er even if he retired today but I also think Will Clark should be in but he’s not. I mention Will because right now there isn’t a lot of difference in their career numbers except Freeman has more homers.
OBP, OPS, OPS+ very similar. The main difference is Will retired at age 36 after a very good season and didn’t play out his old man years. So if Freddie plays 2-3 more years he’s in without a doubt.
Darin, to be fair, George Brett only had 9 seasons where he eclipsed 140+ games in 20 years(not counting his cup of coffee year). Rod Carew 9 out of 20. Willie McCovey only 7 years out of 20 where he played 140+ games.
Sitting at a 176 OPS+ for Trout through age 32 is still ultra impressive. Reggie beat that number just one time in his career.
McCovey through age 32 had a 161 OPS+ for a lumbering first baseman that could not run.
Freeman is at 142 through age 34.
Defense in CF may be overblown, but any way you slice it, it is still more valuable than at first base and harder to maintain health as it is a little more demanding.
You mean he lessened the amount of outs he made. That is what you are supposed to do. Lessen the amount of outs you make and increase the amount of times you get on first, second, third, or to home. Elementary stuff.
Trout got pitched around or he would have more total HR. He has 120 career IBB and countless unintentional intentional walks. So despite the ravings of the Trout Zealout about Trout 'not swingin', Trout doesn't go up looking for walks.
If so, then how come...
Trout has 378 HR in a lifetime of 6,607 plate appearances.
Jim Rice has 382 HR in a lifetime of 9.058 plate appearances and NOT getting pitched around nearly the same and while playing in a bandbox and people getting all giddy at the thought of his name and 'feared' power.
To be accurate Trout has 378 HR in 5,511 AB's.
Rice has 382 HR in 8,200 AB's
But that isn't exceptional for Trout and all he does is walk? LMAO.
Trout also did it better than George Brett and Trout did it against better pitching. Brett was a corner infielder and only hit 317 Home Runs. What Brett do exceptional? Ground out to second base? Hit singles on the astroturf that skid by the outfielders to turn into doubles?
Trout led the league in runs scored four times. You forget that he spent most of his career batting first or second. How do people get soo wet about RBI and then completely forget about Runs Scored? How many times did Brett lead the league in RBI batting third his whole career?? His 'job'. I'll save you the trouble. Zero. A goose egg. Never.
Trout has hit 378 HR and made 4.024 outs. That isn't exceptionally well?
Brett hit 317 HR and made 7,063 outs against weaker pitching.
Trout got hurt the last four years. That hurts his career totals obviously. Yeah we all know that. 2020 he was healthy but it was covid.
If you want to eliminate those injured years from his percentages go ahead, but do the same for Brett in his injured years. Heck, Brett's monster year in 1980 he only played 117 games. According to you that year should just be completely discounted or eliminated.
George Brett played 140+ games only 9 times in his 20 year career(1981 he was off pace too and injured). So Brett basically had a 9 year career according to your theories.
Oh wait, Brett just laced a ground ball double that ricochet off the turf off another soft tossing LH throwing 81 MPH. Impressive.
You guys have to start applying this selective nonsense to your heroes as well.
Who ever claimed Brett was a home run hitter? He did hit gaps between outfielders better than anyone I’ve seen so your Astro turf argument is really suspect.
Now compare Trout’s home run total to Omar Moreno and really impress us.
Omar Moreno had 37 home runs in almost 5,000 at bats.
Mike Trout had 382 in 5,500 at bats.
Therefore Mike Trout is the best player in history.
I don't know. Who claimed all Trout did exceptionally well was walk? Same vein. Not too hard to understand the comparison. To bat third and never lead the league in RBI when that is his 'job'. Brett ever led in runs scored either. Those "real" runs we hear about
In the end, after age 32 Brett had a 143 OPS+
Trout after age 32 has a 176 OPS+
Trout better hitter by a lot. The story is not obviously finished, but at their similar points you can see why Trout was viewed so highly before he got hurt when he is that much better than Brett.
Trout hitting the same amount of Home Runs as Jim Rice in 2,700 less at bats should have clued people in on that already.
The 1980 season doesn't count for Brett anymore according to you guys. You guys have said that those injured years help percentages unfairly and the value isn't good enough either.
Brett really only played 9 years according to you anyway.
Just start applying the same selective nonsense to everyone. Thats all. Nothing against Brett or Witt.
He's a more productive version of Fred McGriff. I agree. If he retired today I think he's done enough. Another 2 really good years and he'll be a lock. The arguments about him being overshadowed by Ohtani, Betts, etc. are valid arguments, but I don't think they will impact his chances at getting in.
I also think Trout has little issue getting enshrined.
I don’t know how you do math but you’re not doing it right.
I would consider a full season for a player to be about 155 games. That gives them 7 games off plus off days for the team.
Brett played 2,707 games divided by 155 per year equals 17.5 FULL seasons of baseball.
Trout has played 1,518 games divided by 155 equals 9.8 FULL seasons.
So he’s 8 years behind Brett, in Trout’s current atrophied state he isn’t coming close to Brett.
Lucky for Mikey he won’t have any old man years to bring down his stats.
But anyway I didn’t intend to get in the middle of this, just pointing out Brett was a power hitter as he had more extra base hits than Mike Schmidt but I don’t think anyone has said he was a home run hitter.
The really great thing about Mike Trout was he came up at 19-20 years old and was great right from the start. Which I give him a lot of credit for because that’s really difficult.
But then the injuries started at a ridiculous pace at age 25 and let’s face it he’s been robbing the team the last few years, playing for a month and a half and then off for the the remaining 4 and a half months.
did i miss something or did a Jim Rice card sell for over a million dollars? now let's compare stats with how much it will cost you to get trout's card. the dude's card prices are way stupid. millions of dollars for a above average player or maybe better than above average. he's not as good as brett, no chance.
Hes much better than Brett and labeling Trout as above average or maybe better than above average is wild
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
So you consider a full season to be 155 games...and you believe Brett played 17 seasons of 155 games? How many 155 games seasons did Brett play? Not too hard to check, lol.
Brett has more extra base hits than Schmidt? So now a double is the same value as a home runs? Is that your math too? lol. And how many at bats it takes to get those hits doesn't matter?
Do the math. How many total bases did Brett have and how many at bats(and outs) did it cost his team. Then do the same for Schmidt. Then you will get a more accurate understanding instead of doing more selective methods by saying a double is worth the same as a home run(which is what you are say8ing when you use the 'more extra base hits' comment).
Trout is at 176 OPS+
Brett finished at 135.
Yes, will see how it ends up. Still has to be written, but at the same age Trout was ahead of Brett too, so it is easy to see why Trout was valued so high in all time rankings to this point....which is part of the point of the thread and why I brought up Brett.
And answers olb's query of why Trout's cards are so valuable.
I thought you said that you need the market and WS to achieve card prices that high? So how did Trout's cards get so expensive then? The answer is because people have seen how great a player he has been. Just because you don't understand what constitutes a great player doesn't mean everyone else doesn't....and that is why his cards got so high to begin with.
Now going forward is a different question for sure. But going forward you have to still understand how great Trout has been.
Currently here is where Trout and Freeman stand offensively:
Trout is 588 runs above league average.
Freeman is 555 runs above league avearage.
That is close, but when you see it took Freeman 2,000 more plate appearances to still be behind, it really isn't that close at all offensively, regardless of what position they play.
Now just because you don't consider positional value doesn't mean it doesn't exist. A centerfielder providing those numbers is certainly more valuable than a first baseman. How much is debatable, but there is a difference.
So those two figures are really much further apart in baseball terms....and of course 2,000 less plate appearances getting the same production already makes it further apart.
A simple way to understand the positional value is this. When you hear baseball people talk above moving Trout to first base to keep him healthy and prolong his career, you should understand why his value is higher being a centerfielder. If you still don't understand, then ask yourself why you don't hear, "lets move Freeman to CF to save his ankles."
@craig44 said:
The only thing trout did extraordinarily well was draw walks. He did that very very well.
>
>
Take away the cheaters and the negro league players and Trout is 7th all time in SLG, I would say that's extraordinary.
Even if you leave the $cumbags Bonds and McGwire in, he's top 10.
and you know that trout has never used PED how?
just wait for those old man years to creep in. that SLG will be going down, down, down...
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Yes Brett played the equivalent of 17.5 full seasons. He also had more extra base hits than Mike Schmidt. Those are facts. I didn’t turn it in to anything more than that like you’re trying to do.
Brett ended up with 135 3b!! that is a pretty extraordinary number for a modern player. Brett had great power to the gaps.
Had he played his career in Fenway, I bet he would have finished with 800 2b.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
It is a fact that I took a dump this morning and that is about as relevant as those facts. Why you believe a double is as valuable as a home run is kind of odd....and of course par for the course when bias is creeped in.
You and craig go on and on about how Trout only plays 130 games a season due to injury to negate his percentages. Brett played more truncated seasons than he has full seasons and by a lot, so you need to apply that same punishment to Brett as you do to Trout.
So is a 117 game season considered a full season by you? You do realize that the season starts over each year, right?
Per your math, if Trout plays 50 games a year for the next five years that his "equivalent full seasons" actually goes up for his career. Goes up. That is a pretty bad formula.
And in Fenway against that pitching Trout would already have 500 Home Runs.
and 5k strikeouts swinging away at that short wall...
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Doesn't add up but nice try. Would be .318/.430/.610 for Trout playing in Fenway in that era. He could strike out on every out at that point.
Not sure why the Brett vs. Trout comparison has entered the building. I know that I have never said Brett was the player of his generation or a top 5 or 10 hall of fame in the innermost of inner circles of Cooperstown.
People tried to peddle that about Trout a few years ago. not the case. just wait for those old man years and his new predilection to swing off the back heals for home runs get after his rate stats.
He always struck out a lot, wait for the rest of his career as the bat slows...
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
perhaps, but he would not get to feast off from Red Sox pitching if he played for them.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Small fraction of a difference. No worries.
1948 from above
I thought you said that you need the market and WS to achieve card prices that high? So how did Trout's cards get so expensive then? The answer is because people have seen how great a player he has been. Just because you don't understand what constitutes a great player doesn't mean everyone else doesn't....and that is why his cards got so high to begin with.
the people who paid that much money have lost their rear ends. No one would pay that much for a Trout card now, not even you. I think one of them sold for $4M, what do you think that person could sell that for now? $500,000, $250,000?
Were they bough in the height of that market? Didn't all those cards go down?. Yes, absolutely was a bad buy...but the point is, people bought them despite no market or world series for Trout, so the factor was on the field play.
I asked you earlier and you never answered. Have Freeman's cards gone up since his heroics in the WS and their win?
What happens if that ankle lingers for the next three years and Freeman only plays 95 games a year? Won't his cards go down?
Going forward Trout already cemented the HOF. Freeman has not yet. He will if he is healthy, but he hasn't yet.
Yeah I don’t know why swell always turns it into a trout-Brett comparison. I never said Brett was a home run hitter and all the sudden swell is comparing their home run totals. I never said doubles were as good as home runs and swell is telling me I did. No use posting to him anymore because all he does is run down what George Brett accomplished.
Because people understand Brett. You guys punish Trout's hitting by pointing to truncated seasons and saying those artificially inflate his percentages and that he isn't as good as his numbers say he is. Brett isn't much different in that regard.
As for the HR, I laid that out above with Brett and Rice and showed that Trout indeed was an elite HR hitter and wasn't just a 'walks only" guy as was being claimed. Trout is/was an elite HR hitter. Trout is also third in active batting average...again, not just a walks only guy. How many laud batting average on here...Trout is third actively and he has played since 2011, yet you hear walks only garbage.
Trout's OB% is better than Henderson's and his SLG% better than Reggie's...even at similar points in their careers so not just a shorter career advantage. People know Henderson and Reggie, and if you know those facts and still walk away not impressed with Trout's hitting, then you are either biased or ignorant on the game.
how many times has Mike Trout led his league in Home runs?
wouldn't an "elite" home run hitter have done it at least once or twice?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
No, doesn't have to be first in a given year to be elite. He's been second or third five times and with less at bats than most.
So yes, that is elite. Is finishing second in the league in HR in 100 less at bats than the guy ahead of you not elite?
He is second on the active leaderboard measuring apples to apples vs the same competition. That combination of top two/three finishes and being second active...yes elite. So is he only elite if he finishes first among all the current active players in Home Runs?
Trout led the league in Run Expectancy FIVE TIMES. Five.
RUns created FOUR times.
Just because you are blind to the stats that are more accurate doesn't make Trout not an elite hitter.
Basically all I said about Trout is that he was done being a full time player at age 24. Which is actually true. Beyond that I don’t think I said a whole lot about him but I am being given credit for a lot of stuff I didn’t say.
He does play a month and a half nowadays and then takes the next 4 and a half off but I guess his money is guaranteed so no biggie to him.
More time for his favorite interests, Eagles football and the weather.
@craig44
So tell me who is an elite HR hitter on that list. Apples to Apples facing the same ridiculous hard pitching. Trout and Stanton are the top two and look how many less at bats they have than all the people behind them. The only person behind them is Judge that has lower at bats too.
So who is the elite HR hitters on that list??? Just Stanton?
Goldschmidt has LESS home runs than Trout and in 1,500 MORE at bats! That isn't elite for Trout? Yes, the first baseman who gets to stay healthier by playing a less demanding position needs 1,500 more at bats to still come 16 home runs short of Trout, yet that isn't elite for Trout? Get out of town...you have some of the most biased glasses on here.
I ask again, who is the elite HR on that active list? If Trout is not considered elite, then nobody on that list is. So how can there be no elite HR hitters....unless your defintion of elite is just one player and I could see that going to Staton by a hair over Trout. But then apply that same definition to every other era.
Trout has played CF during all that time. You don't think he would be healthier and get more at bats and home runs playing DH or first base like other guys on that list? That is why he gets that bump in WAR that you so easily dismiss because you "don't like it."
What do you think would have happened to Stanton's HR totals if he was forced to play centerfield?
Trout is an elite HR hitter. Take a bit out of that and swallow...because that is reality.
I disagree. An "elite" home run hitter would have led his league at LEAST once. You are the one who called him an "elite" home run hitter. I didn't say he had to lead the league every season, just at least once.
Trout has played what, 13 seasons since his cup of coffee in 2011? in 13 seasons this "elite" home run hitter has never once led his league?
That is not elite. is he a good home run hitter? yes. A very good one? probably. Elite? nope.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
That is a dumb rationale. Sorry, it just is...and certainly even more dumb when you say "all he does is walk at a high level."
So who are the elite HR hitters on that list. Just the guys that finished first in their league on time? lol.
A better thing to say is that Trout was the best hitter in his league five times. Is that elite enough for you? And from a CF(even though you don't understand the positional aspect) That ends all this stupid stuff you try to use to rationalize the fact that you don't know as much baseball as you think you do.
His HR/game average is 86% of Ruth's and 98% of Bonds'. I don't think there's a good path to disputing his HR hitting ability as elite and the results match that.
Whether he was to lead his league doesn't tell an interesting story. His mix of power and contact also sets him above many other elite power hitters.
Interesting back-and-forth here. Perhaps drifted off-topic a while back. Trout has already put together a great career... He's had trouble staying on the field. I certainly think that if he played on a more competitive team there would be more aggressiveness in getting him back on the field late in those season's that he's went down. Put some kid in CF and have him DH already.
that is a lot of words trying to be convincing that a player who has never led his league in home runs in even a single season out of his 13 is an "elite" home run hitter.
I am not convinced.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I feel better having Freddie on my team than having Trout for 2025. How about you 1948? And Trout makes a lot more money than Freeman. You could have Treinan and Freddie or Trout?
For 2025, Freeman for sure, although that ankle is a worry I didn't have last year. I would be a little concerned on Freeman as well.
Bias and ignorance does that. So no surprise you aren't convinced.
Long as Freddie plays to the media that will be a plus. Can never hurt your HOF resume being liked. I don't know offhand his relationship with the media. Far as Trout rookies. Got 1 update Trout RC. Got it out of a rewrap at Target. 10 packs for $10. So really can't lose at that price. Only loss was not selling at the peak.
everyone has bias (yes, even you)
ad hominem attacks do nothing to strengthen your argument...
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.