@fergie23 said:
From 2010-2019 Trout had the highest slugging percentage of any player with 3,000+ PA and the 2nd highest isolated power behind Stanton. Not really sure why you would look at individual years rather than cumulatively. Would you rather have the player that was 1st once or twice in stats like HR, 2B, 3B, or the player that lead the league over a decade long span? He did lead the league in triples the last decade and was 5th in home runs, so not exactly like he has been completely slacking there. He has been slugging at an all time great rate (top 15 all time), whether he can keep it up in his 30s is another story.
"wouldnt you think that one of the very greatest sluggers of all time would also be the greatest, or at least one of the very greatest sluggers of his own time?"
He is the best slugger of his time, can't really argue with the stats.
Robb
As a fan, or if I was building a team I would want consistently very good. If I am a sports card investor, if I am wondering about long term values - then elite years are what moves the needle. Leading the league is something, or winning titles.
@scmavl said:
I can't believe we're basically having a conversation about "Iz Mike Trout good or he sux?"
I agree. He is a fantastic player. Up to age 30, one of the top 10 ever, based on stats. For a $3 million dollar card though, he should have won several world series's and been WS MVP a couple of times by now. Collectors love winners!!
@craig44 said:
the reason i mentioned BB is because he is better at drawing walks than slugging. he has led his league 4 times in obp, 3 times in slugging. yes, he is lower on the all time OBP list, but more dominant against his peers.
In the future, the way to express that thought in the English language is "Trout is among the greatest of all time at both slugging and getting on base, but he is slightly better at getting on base, including taking walks, than he is at slugging". What makes absolutely zero sense, if you are trying to express that thought, is to mention walks and his fielding position, and not acknowledge that he is also one of the greatest sluggers of all time. Because to express it that way allows for only two possibilities: (1) you knew Trout was an epic slugger but chose to hide it to make a very different point than the one you now claim you were trying to make, or (2) you didn't know how great a slugger Trout was, in which case you shouldn't be surprised when someone sets you straight.
In any event, Trout's OPS+ of 176 is comprised of two pieces: 1.33 for OBP and 1.43 for slugging. So, granting that your highness was trying to make the point you claim to have been trying to make, the point you were trying to make was incorrect. Trout is better than league average in slugging by a greater margin than he is better than league average at OBP.
lets baby step you through this again.
Trout is NOT one of the very greatest sluggers in history.
wouldnt you think that one of the very greatest sluggers of all time would also be the greatest, or at least one of the very greatest sluggers of his own time?
how many times has Trout led his league in 2b, 3b or HR?
let me answer that one for you... 0. thats right. this all time great slugger has never even led his own peers in 2b, 3b or HR.
I am so sorry you cant seem to grasp this fact, but, you know what they say about some peoples ability to reason and wet paper bags...
You also dont seem to understand the concept of positional adjustment when it comes to WAR.
dont worry, I am patient. we will get you through this.
CF is considered a more "important" position when it comes to WAR. therefore, in the WAR calculation, those who play CF (and C, SS, 2B, 3B) get an extra added bump for playing that position. those who play other positions: LF, RF, 1B, DH get neged for playing those positions. Trout has played CF for i believe his entire career (not particularly well I may add) so he gets that positional bump when it comes to the WAR calculation. from here on out, when he is playing LF then 1b then dh, he will no longer be getting that positive positional adjustment. truth be told, he probably shouldnt have been playing CF for the last few seasons due to ineffectiveness and injury risk.
So... much of Trouts "shine" comes from gaudy WAR numbers. I focused on BB and positional adjustment as those are the two things trout seems to be all time great at and it is reflected in his WAR totals.
you seem to believe that a player who has never led his league in 2b, 3b or HR is one of the "all time great" sluggers, though he cant seem to lead his very own peers in one of the power categories.
there, hows that. i tried to give you the 3rd grade version. if it is still a little tough to understand you can make an appointment for after school and we can try again.
If you are going to simply ignore the percentages and apply those standards to other elite HOFers, then do that to someone like George Brett.
Per your method, through age 29 George Brett averaged 14 home runs and 78 RBI PER YEAR(not counting his brief first year). So by YOUR method, George Brett is awful and not even a HOFer.
I would like for you to explain how drawing walks is a negative when he has batted 2nd for the majority of his career plate appearances, and then batted third and even many times in the leadoff position...and then tell me how Rickey Henderson is the best all time lead off hitter by virtue of his elite on base percentage and somehow Trout's walks are a negative batting second??
Through age 29 Mike Trout has a better on base percentage than Rickey Henderson( .419 to .398) and a better slugging percentage than George Brett(by a mile) and the SAME slugging percentage as Willie Mays through same age.
Those are all inner circle....Brett really isn't inner circle(but if you read these boards he was God), and Brett is absolutely dwarfed in slugging by Trout...and in YOUR method Brett only averaged 14 home runs a year and 78 RBI per year so that would mean he is average.
PS 203 stolen bases to only 37 caught stealing...is elite.
Another PS....you aren't going to rack up 100 RBI years batting second as much as Trout did.
If your premise is ONLY that his career will amount to nothing going forward, then yes, you have a point. The other stuff you are saying has ZERO merit.
Craig44,
You don't lead the entire major leagues for a decade and have the 12th highest slugging percentage of all time without being a great slugger. You are ignoring the actual statistic that measures slugging when attempting to make the argument that Trout is not an all time great slugger. You realize that makes you look like you don't actually know what you are talking about right?
Now an argument can be made that Trout's slugging will decline as he ages but that is speculation (valid as it may be), whereas what he has accomplished through his first 10+ years in the majors is not.
Centauri,
Trout finished top 2 in MVP voting seven times with 3 wins, it doesn't get any more "elite" than that. I think his lack of postseason play and success will cost him in the all time great conversation because very little differentiates the all time greats. That said, for the next 30+ years Trout will be the measuring stick for every great young player, he will have constant hobby buzz because of it.
Trout is in the top 3 most talented players in baseball, but he's also in the top 3 most fragile players in baseball. The way this calf injury has played out happens a lot with Trout. Injuries that should be a certain amount of time turn into being out way too long. Based on that, I'd say it's very dicey to invest in Trout cards.
I'm afraid Fernando Tatis, JR's career may play out in a similar way. He's injured a lot for a 22 year old. Otherwise investing in Tatis just based on talent is as sure a thing as it gets.
Centauri,
Trout finished top 2 in MVP voting seven times with 3 wins, it doesn't get any more "elite" than that. I think his lack of postseason play and success will cost him in the all time great conversation because very little differentiates the all time greats. That said, for the next 30+ years Trout will be the measuring stick for every great young player, he will have constant hobby buzz because of it.
Robb
I guess high MVP votes and slugging percentage are super sexy to some people. OTOH, I think players like Vlad and Soto will be more memorable in the coming decades - even if their WAR is lower. People will look back and notice Trout never led the league in anything people really care about.
Centauri,
Trout finished top 2 in MVP voting seven times with 3 wins, it doesn't get any more "elite" than that. I think his lack of postseason play and success will cost him in the all time great conversation because very little differentiates the all time greats. That said, for the next 30+ years Trout will be the measuring stick for every great young player, he will have constant hobby buzz because of it.
Robb
I guess high MVP votes and slugging percentage are super sexy to some people. OTOH, I think players like Vlad and Soto will be more memorable in the coming decades - even if their WAR is lower. People will look back and notice Trout never led the league in anything people really care about.
The people signing the pay checks, and their advisors, care a great deal about those things that Trout has done better than anyone else playing.
As for the average fan and baseball cards, Ozzie Smith never led in anything that "people care about' and Rickey Henderson didn't either....maybe stolen bases is 'cared' about(maybe...because it seems Trout's elite Stolen Base percentage is not cared about)..but nothing else Henderson did was what typical people "care" about...yet they are two extremely popular players to collect.
Except I'm not sure which people you refer to and what "caring about" means....so I guess to take a page from Dallas, that comment doesn't really mean much.
But I have to ask, if you "care" about an RBI, then why wouldn't you care about a "Run scored"???
If you cared about an RBI, then why would you not care about getting on second base when the following hitter fails to drive him in? Getting on second is a key ingredient in the creation of an RBI, isn't it? Shouldn't that scorn go to the guy making the out and failing to drive in the run, while the guy getting on second getting the appreciation he deserves regardless of what the outcome that was out of his control that happens afterwards?
Same for reaching first base. Isn't that the first step in the creation of an RBI(other than a home run of course)...so why is that not valued(getting to first) if you like RBI so much??
I'm enjoying this thread. Back in the 80's and early 90's when I was collecting, I don't remember anyone mentioning WAR. @craig44 The list of players 10 year span and HR's, kind of odd not to see Hank Aaron's name. No need to respond.
hard to gauge against all time greats as you could only get the mvp once in your lifetime.
If you’re saying Jeter sucks, I agree. Go Sox!
i most certainly wasnt. was talking prewar guys like ruth. but i did have yankee season tickets when i lived in manhattan…primarily for the red sox games. so i agree. go sox! 😉
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
As for the average fan and baseball cards, Ozzie Smith never led in anything that "people care about' and Rickey Henderson didn't either....maybe stolen bases is 'cared' about(maybe...because it seems Trout's elite Stolen Base percentage is not cared about)..but nothing else Henderson did was what typical people "care" about...yet they are two extremely popular players to collect.
Except I'm not sure which people you refer to and what "caring about" means....so I guess to take a page from Dallas, that comment doesn't really mean much.
But I have to ask, if you "care" about an RBI, then why wouldn't you care about a "Run scored"???
If you cared about an RBI, then why would you not care about getting on second base when the following hitter fails to drive him in? Getting on second is a key ingredient in the creation of an RBI, isn't it? Shouldn't that scorn go to the guy making the out and failing to drive in the run, while the guy getting on second getting the appreciation he deserves regardless of what the outcome that was out of his control that happens afterwards?
Same for reaching first base. Isn't that the first step in the creation of an RBI(other than a home run of course)...so why is that not valued(getting to first) if you like RBI so much??
I think it's interesting to note, and other posters earlier have made the same point, that for all of Trout's getting on base, it doesn't seem to have translated to wins for his team. In the case of Ozzie Smith and Rickey Henderson, both of those guys' skill sets translated into team wins, up to and including multiple post season appearances and World Series wins for their teams. I think Trout is a great player. But his team doesn't seem to have benefited from his skills.
kevin
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
As for the average fan and baseball cards, Ozzie Smith never led in anything that "people care about' and Rickey Henderson didn't either....maybe stolen bases is 'cared' about(maybe...because it seems Trout's elite Stolen Base percentage is not cared about)..but nothing else Henderson did was what typical people "care" about...yet they are two extremely popular players to collect.
Except I'm not sure which people you refer to and what "caring about" means....so I guess to take a page from Dallas, that comment doesn't really mean much.
But I have to ask, if you "care" about an RBI, then why wouldn't you care about a "Run scored"???
If you cared about an RBI, then why would you not care about getting on second base when the following hitter fails to drive him in? Getting on second is a key ingredient in the creation of an RBI, isn't it? Shouldn't that scorn go to the guy making the out and failing to drive in the run, while the guy getting on second getting the appreciation he deserves regardless of what the outcome that was out of his control that happens afterwards?
Same for reaching first base. Isn't that the first step in the creation of an RBI(other than a home run of course)...so why is that not valued(getting to first) if you like RBI so much??
Rickey wouldn't be Rickey if he didn't own major all-time records. And as for Ozzie - If you are arguing Trout will be about as collectible as Ozzie Smith, even I think that is silly!
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
As for the average fan and baseball cards, Ozzie Smith never led in anything that "people care about' and Rickey Henderson didn't either....maybe stolen bases is 'cared' about(maybe...because it seems Trout's elite Stolen Base percentage is not cared about)..but nothing else Henderson did was what typical people "care" about...yet they are two extremely popular players to collect.
Except I'm not sure which people you refer to and what "caring about" means....so I guess to take a page from Dallas, that comment doesn't really mean much.
But I have to ask, if you "care" about an RBI, then why wouldn't you care about a "Run scored"???
If you cared about an RBI, then why would you not care about getting on second base when the following hitter fails to drive him in? Getting on second is a key ingredient in the creation of an RBI, isn't it? Shouldn't that scorn go to the guy making the out and failing to drive in the run, while the guy getting on second getting the appreciation he deserves regardless of what the outcome that was out of his control that happens afterwards?
Same for reaching first base. Isn't that the first step in the creation of an RBI(other than a home run of course)...so why is that not valued(getting to first) if you like RBI so much??
I think it's interesting to note, and other posters earlier have made the same point, that for all of Trout's getting on base, it doesn't seem to have translated to wins for his team. In the case of Ozzie Smith and Rickey Henderson, both of those guys' skill sets translated into team wins, up to and including multiple post season appearances and World Series wins for their teams. I think Trout is a great player. But his team doesn't seem to have benefited from his skills.
kevin
It translated into him producing runs for the team. If it didn't translate to wins, then that is because the rest of the teammates didn't do enough to produce runs, or in the in the case of pitchers prevent runs.
By your way of thinking, then you will also eliminate Ted Williams from this discussion since they didn't win anything either and all of his 'stats' didn't translate into enough wins either and not meaningful either. Foolish thinking I know, but that is what you are saying.
As for Henderson, his stolen bases and runs didn't do anything for the A's in his first stint with them...so what you are saying makes zero sense.
Ozzie Smiths contributions did absolutely nothing for San Diego.
Both those guys eventually won because their teammates were outstanding...far better than Trout's. Common sense. At least I though it was common sense
@craig44 said:
the reason i mentioned BB is because he is better at drawing walks than slugging. he has led his league 4 times in obp, 3 times in slugging. yes, he is lower on the all time OBP list, but more dominant against his peers.
In the future, the way to express that thought in the English language is "Trout is among the greatest of all time at both slugging and getting on base, but he is slightly better at getting on base, including taking walks, than he is at slugging". What makes absolutely zero sense, if you are trying to express that thought, is to mention walks and his fielding position, and not acknowledge that he is also one of the greatest sluggers of all time. Because to express it that way allows for only two possibilities: (1) you knew Trout was an epic slugger but chose to hide it to make a very different point than the one you now claim you were trying to make, or (2) you didn't know how great a slugger Trout was, in which case you shouldn't be surprised when someone sets you straight.
In any event, Trout's OPS+ of 176 is comprised of two pieces: 1.33 for OBP and 1.43 for slugging. So, granting that your highness was trying to make the point you claim to have been trying to make, the point you were trying to make was incorrect. Trout is better than league average in slugging by a greater margin than he is better than league average at OBP.
lets baby step you through this again.
Trout is NOT one of the very greatest sluggers in history.
wouldnt you think that one of the very greatest sluggers of all time would also be the greatest, or at least one of the very greatest sluggers of his own time?
how many times has Trout led his league in 2b, 3b or HR?
let me answer that one for you... 0. thats right. this all time great slugger has never even led his own peers in 2b, 3b or HR.
I am so sorry you cant seem to grasp this fact, but, you know what they say about some peoples ability to reason and wet paper bags...
You also dont seem to understand the concept of positional adjustment when it comes to WAR.
dont worry, I am patient. we will get you through this.
CF is considered a more "important" position when it comes to WAR. therefore, in the WAR calculation, those who play CF (and C, SS, 2B, 3B) get an extra added bump for playing that position. those who play other positions: LF, RF, 1B, DH get neged for playing those positions. Trout has played CF for i believe his entire career (not particularly well I may add) so he gets that positional bump when it comes to the WAR calculation. from here on out, when he is playing LF then 1b then dh, he will no longer be getting that positive positional adjustment. truth be told, he probably shouldnt have been playing CF for the last few seasons due to ineffectiveness and injury risk.
So... much of Trouts "shine" comes from gaudy WAR numbers. I focused on BB and positional adjustment as those are the two things trout seems to be all time great at and it is reflected in his WAR totals.
you seem to believe that a player who has never led his league in 2b, 3b or HR is one of the "all time great" sluggers, though he cant seem to lead his very own peers in one of the power categories.
there, hows that. i tried to give you the 3rd grade version. if it is still a little tough to understand you can make an appointment for after school and we can try again.
If you are going to simply ignore the percentages and apply those standards to other elite HOFers, then do that to someone like George Brett.
Per your method, through age 29 George Brett averaged 14 home runs and 78 RBI PER YEAR(not counting his brief first year). So by YOUR method, George Brett is awful and not even a HOFer.
I would like for you to explain how drawing walks is a negative when he has batted 2nd for the majority of his career plate appearances, and then batted third and even many times in the leadoff position...and then tell me how Rickey Henderson is the best all time lead off hitter by virtue of his elite on base percentage and somehow Trout's walks are a negative batting second??
Through age 29 Mike Trout has a better on base percentage than Rickey Henderson( .419 to .398) and a better slugging percentage than George Brett(by a mile) and the SAME slugging percentage as Willie Mays through same age.
Those are all inner circle....Brett really isn't inner circle(but if you read these boards he was God), and Brett is absolutely dwarfed in slugging by Trout...and in YOUR method Brett only averaged 14 home runs a year and 78 RBI per year so that would mean he is average.
PS 203 stolen bases to only 37 caught stealing...is elite.
Another PS....you aren't going to rack up 100 RBI years batting second as much as Trout did.
If your premise is ONLY that his career will amount to nothing going forward, then yes, you have a point. The other stuff you are saying has ZERO merit.
your post is so full of straw men that I am afraid to read it too close to an open flame.
first of all, when did I say drawing walks was a negative???
I didn't
none of my points were about where in the batting order trout hits or had anything to do with rickey
I believe the vast majority of my posts in this thread were discussing how Trout is not an all time inner circle elite power hitter. Not sure how Brett made it into your post, but he too is yet another of your straw men. I don't think anyone would consider Brett to be an elite inner circle slugger. not sure why you would even bring him up.
as far as stolen bases go, Trout has had a grand total of 60 in the last 5 seasons. that sure is elite. great point. I believe i said trout had very good speed in the beginning of his career but not so much now. you know, the part where he had 143 steals in his first 5 years...
when did I ever mention RBI???
I am waiting...
nice try. i am thinking your entire post has zero merit. maybe I should write zero in ALL CAPS for extra special added emphasis.
why don't you run along home now and let the grown ups talk...
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
As for the average fan and baseball cards, Ozzie Smith never led in anything that "people care about' and Rickey Henderson didn't either....maybe stolen bases is 'cared' about(maybe...because it seems Trout's elite Stolen Base percentage is not cared about)..but nothing else Henderson did was what typical people "care" about...yet they are two extremely popular players to collect.
Except I'm not sure which people you refer to and what "caring about" means....so I guess to take a page from Dallas, that comment doesn't really mean much.
But I have to ask, if you "care" about an RBI, then why wouldn't you care about a "Run scored"???
If you cared about an RBI, then why would you not care about getting on second base when the following hitter fails to drive him in? Getting on second is a key ingredient in the creation of an RBI, isn't it? Shouldn't that scorn go to the guy making the out and failing to drive in the run, while the guy getting on second getting the appreciation he deserves regardless of what the outcome that was out of his control that happens afterwards?
Same for reaching first base. Isn't that the first step in the creation of an RBI(other than a home run of course)...so why is that not valued(getting to first) if you like RBI so much??
Rickey wouldn't be Rickey if he didn't own major all-time records. And as for Ozzie - If you are arguing Trout will be about as collectible as Ozzie Smith, even I think that is silly!
And you still didn't say anything to dispute what I said. Trout's stolen bases have been completely ignored and many fans "don't care" about stolen bases....and almost no fan knows about defensive assists records, so your point is zero.
In the end, Trout is an all time great up to this point. He produced a better table setting ability than Rickey Henderson with a better on base percentage than him, and an equal Slugging ability to Willie Mays up through their age 29 seasons.
He also stole bases at an 85% clip. Find me how many players have stolen over 200 bases and maintained an 85% success rate.
That trifecta of ability is a feat that very few have been able to do....and he did it while playing centerfield (even if he is now no longer good enough going forward to handle that as he was most of his years for sure).
@craig44 said:
the reason i mentioned BB is because he is better at drawing walks than slugging. he has led his league 4 times in obp, 3 times in slugging. yes, he is lower on the all time OBP list, but more dominant against his peers.
In the future, the way to express that thought in the English language is "Trout is among the greatest of all time at both slugging and getting on base, but he is slightly better at getting on base, including taking walks, than he is at slugging". What makes absolutely zero sense, if you are trying to express that thought, is to mention walks and his fielding position, and not acknowledge that he is also one of the greatest sluggers of all time. Because to express it that way allows for only two possibilities: (1) you knew Trout was an epic slugger but chose to hide it to make a very different point than the one you now claim you were trying to make, or (2) you didn't know how great a slugger Trout was, in which case you shouldn't be surprised when someone sets you straight.
In any event, Trout's OPS+ of 176 is comprised of two pieces: 1.33 for OBP and 1.43 for slugging. So, granting that your highness was trying to make the point you claim to have been trying to make, the point you were trying to make was incorrect. Trout is better than league average in slugging by a greater margin than he is better than league average at OBP.
lets baby step you through this again.
Trout is NOT one of the very greatest sluggers in history.
wouldnt you think that one of the very greatest sluggers of all time would also be the greatest, or at least one of the very greatest sluggers of his own time?
how many times has Trout led his league in 2b, 3b or HR?
let me answer that one for you... 0. thats right. this all time great slugger has never even led his own peers in 2b, 3b or HR.
I am so sorry you cant seem to grasp this fact, but, you know what they say about some peoples ability to reason and wet paper bags...
You also dont seem to understand the concept of positional adjustment when it comes to WAR.
dont worry, I am patient. we will get you through this.
CF is considered a more "important" position when it comes to WAR. therefore, in the WAR calculation, those who play CF (and C, SS, 2B, 3B) get an extra added bump for playing that position. those who play other positions: LF, RF, 1B, DH get neged for playing those positions. Trout has played CF for i believe his entire career (not particularly well I may add) so he gets that positional bump when it comes to the WAR calculation. from here on out, when he is playing LF then 1b then dh, he will no longer be getting that positive positional adjustment. truth be told, he probably shouldnt have been playing CF for the last few seasons due to ineffectiveness and injury risk.
So... much of Trouts "shine" comes from gaudy WAR numbers. I focused on BB and positional adjustment as those are the two things trout seems to be all time great at and it is reflected in his WAR totals.
you seem to believe that a player who has never led his league in 2b, 3b or HR is one of the "all time great" sluggers, though he cant seem to lead his very own peers in one of the power categories.
there, hows that. i tried to give you the 3rd grade version. if it is still a little tough to understand you can make an appointment for after school and we can try again.
If you are going to simply ignore the percentages and apply those standards to other elite HOFers, then do that to someone like George Brett.
Per your method, through age 29 George Brett averaged 14 home runs and 78 RBI PER YEAR(not counting his brief first year). So by YOUR method, George Brett is awful and not even a HOFer.
I would like for you to explain how drawing walks is a negative when he has batted 2nd for the majority of his career plate appearances, and then batted third and even many times in the leadoff position...and then tell me how Rickey Henderson is the best all time lead off hitter by virtue of his elite on base percentage and somehow Trout's walks are a negative batting second??
Through age 29 Mike Trout has a better on base percentage than Rickey Henderson( .419 to .398) and a better slugging percentage than George Brett(by a mile) and the SAME slugging percentage as Willie Mays through same age.
Those are all inner circle....Brett really isn't inner circle(but if you read these boards he was God), and Brett is absolutely dwarfed in slugging by Trout...and in YOUR method Brett only averaged 14 home runs a year and 78 RBI per year so that would mean he is average.
PS 203 stolen bases to only 37 caught stealing...is elite.
Another PS....you aren't going to rack up 100 RBI years batting second as much as Trout did.
If your premise is ONLY that his career will amount to nothing going forward, then yes, you have a point. The other stuff you are saying has ZERO merit.
your post is so full of straw men that I am afraid to read it too close to an open flame.
first of all, when did I say drawing walks was a negative???
I didn't
none of my points were about where in the batting order trout hits or had anything to do with rickey
I believe the vast majority of my posts in this thread were discussing how Trout is not an all time inner circle elite power hitter. Not sure how Brett made it into your post, but he too is yet another of your straw men. I don't think anyone would consider Brett to be an elite inner circle slugger. not sure why you would even bring him up.
as far as stolen bases go, Trout has had a grand total of 60 in the last 5 seasons. that sure is elite. great point. I believe i said trout had very good speed in the beginning of his career but not so much now. you know, the part where he had 143 steals in his first 5 years...
when did I ever mention RBI???
I am waiting...
nice try. i am thinking your entire post has zero merit. maybe I should write zero in ALL CAPS for extra special added emphasis.
why don't you run along home now and let the grown ups talk...
You have mentioned ALL of those things in many different posts throughout these boards, including demonstrating a zero understanding on the value of a base on balls...and have been wrong EACH time you have tried to claim the nonsense you continue to believe.
You are in above your head....so if you actually are a grown up, have mercy.
You are actually one of the people that believe striking out is worse than hitting into a double play...so there is that.
Saying your nonsense about "letting the adults talk," please. I have more baseball knowledge than you on my little finger than you do in your entire existence...and I can run you into the ground in athletic endeavors, so please, keep enlightening me with your fallacies. I will sit back and enjoy.
@fergie23 said:
Craig44,
You don't lead the entire major leagues for a decade and have the 12th highest slugging percentage of all time without being a great slugger. You are ignoring the actual statistic that measures slugging when attempting to make the argument that Trout is not an all time great slugger. You realize that makes you look like you don't actually know what you are talking about right?
Now an argument can be made that Trout's slugging will decline as he ages but that is speculation (valid as it may be), whereas what he has accomplished through his first 10+ years in the majors is not.
Centauri,
Trout finished top 2 in MVP voting seven times with 3 wins, it doesn't get any more "elite" than that. I think his lack of postseason play and success will cost him in the all time great conversation because very little differentiates the all time greats. That said, for the next 30+ years Trout will be the measuring stick for every great young player, he will have constant hobby buzz because of it.
Robb
I get percentages. I fully understand them. really.
there are percentages and there are results. trout has very nice percentages. elite even. but his actual results are not elite. when you look at what he has actually produced on the baseball field, and not the percentage of times he has done certain things, he is not a top 5 or inner circle HOFer. He has a very good slugging percentage. what he doesn't have are all-time great results.
he has never ever ever ever led his league in HR, 2b or 3b. not once. not in 10 seasons.
he is not an all time slugger if he cannot even once lead his own peers in a power category that is not based on percentage.
I am tire of everyone waxing poetic about how generational Mike Trout is. How he is an all time top 5 player. he isn't even a 5 tool player for crying out loud.
@craig44 said:
the reason i mentioned BB is because he is better at drawing walks than slugging. he has led his league 4 times in obp, 3 times in slugging. yes, he is lower on the all time OBP list, but more dominant against his peers.
In the future, the way to express that thought in the English language is "Trout is among the greatest of all time at both slugging and getting on base, but he is slightly better at getting on base, including taking walks, than he is at slugging". What makes absolutely zero sense, if you are trying to express that thought, is to mention walks and his fielding position, and not acknowledge that he is also one of the greatest sluggers of all time. Because to express it that way allows for only two possibilities: (1) you knew Trout was an epic slugger but chose to hide it to make a very different point than the one you now claim you were trying to make, or (2) you didn't know how great a slugger Trout was, in which case you shouldn't be surprised when someone sets you straight.
In any event, Trout's OPS+ of 176 is comprised of two pieces: 1.33 for OBP and 1.43 for slugging. So, granting that your highness was trying to make the point you claim to have been trying to make, the point you were trying to make was incorrect. Trout is better than league average in slugging by a greater margin than he is better than league average at OBP.
lets baby step you through this again.
Trout is NOT one of the very greatest sluggers in history.
wouldnt you think that one of the very greatest sluggers of all time would also be the greatest, or at least one of the very greatest sluggers of his own time?
how many times has Trout led his league in 2b, 3b or HR?
let me answer that one for you... 0. thats right. this all time great slugger has never even led his own peers in 2b, 3b or HR.
I am so sorry you cant seem to grasp this fact, but, you know what they say about some peoples ability to reason and wet paper bags...
You also dont seem to understand the concept of positional adjustment when it comes to WAR.
dont worry, I am patient. we will get you through this.
CF is considered a more "important" position when it comes to WAR. therefore, in the WAR calculation, those who play CF (and C, SS, 2B, 3B) get an extra added bump for playing that position. those who play other positions: LF, RF, 1B, DH get neged for playing those positions. Trout has played CF for i believe his entire career (not particularly well I may add) so he gets that positional bump when it comes to the WAR calculation. from here on out, when he is playing LF then 1b then dh, he will no longer be getting that positive positional adjustment. truth be told, he probably shouldnt have been playing CF for the last few seasons due to ineffectiveness and injury risk.
So... much of Trouts "shine" comes from gaudy WAR numbers. I focused on BB and positional adjustment as those are the two things trout seems to be all time great at and it is reflected in his WAR totals.
you seem to believe that a player who has never led his league in 2b, 3b or HR is one of the "all time great" sluggers, though he cant seem to lead his very own peers in one of the power categories.
there, hows that. i tried to give you the 3rd grade version. if it is still a little tough to understand you can make an appointment for after school and we can try again.
If you are going to simply ignore the percentages and apply those standards to other elite HOFers, then do that to someone like George Brett.
Per your method, through age 29 George Brett averaged 14 home runs and 78 RBI PER YEAR(not counting his brief first year). So by YOUR method, George Brett is awful and not even a HOFer.
I would like for you to explain how drawing walks is a negative when he has batted 2nd for the majority of his career plate appearances, and then batted third and even many times in the leadoff position...and then tell me how Rickey Henderson is the best all time lead off hitter by virtue of his elite on base percentage and somehow Trout's walks are a negative batting second??
Through age 29 Mike Trout has a better on base percentage than Rickey Henderson( .419 to .398) and a better slugging percentage than George Brett(by a mile) and the SAME slugging percentage as Willie Mays through same age.
Those are all inner circle....Brett really isn't inner circle(but if you read these boards he was God), and Brett is absolutely dwarfed in slugging by Trout...and in YOUR method Brett only averaged 14 home runs a year and 78 RBI per year so that would mean he is average.
PS 203 stolen bases to only 37 caught stealing...is elite.
Another PS....you aren't going to rack up 100 RBI years batting second as much as Trout did.
If your premise is ONLY that his career will amount to nothing going forward, then yes, you have a point. The other stuff you are saying has ZERO merit.
your post is so full of straw men that I am afraid to read it too close to an open flame.
first of all, when did I say drawing walks was a negative???
I didn't
none of my points were about where in the batting order trout hits or had anything to do with rickey
I believe the vast majority of my posts in this thread were discussing how Trout is not an all time inner circle elite power hitter. Not sure how Brett made it into your post, but he too is yet another of your straw men. I don't think anyone would consider Brett to be an elite inner circle slugger. not sure why you would even bring him up.
as far as stolen bases go, Trout has had a grand total of 60 in the last 5 seasons. that sure is elite. great point. I believe i said trout had very good speed in the beginning of his career but not so much now. you know, the part where he had 143 steals in his first 5 years...
when did I ever mention RBI???
I am waiting...
nice try. i am thinking your entire post has zero merit. maybe I should write zero in ALL CAPS for extra special added emphasis.
why don't you run along home now and let the grown ups talk...
You have mentioned ALL of those things in many different posts throughout these boards, including demonstrating a zero understanding on the value of a base on balls...and have been wrong EACH time you have tried to claim the nonsense you continue to believe.
You are in above your head....so if you actually are a grown up, have mercy.
You are actually one of the people that believe striking out is worse than hitting into a double play...so there is that.
Saying your nonsense about "letting the adults talk," please. I have more baseball knowledge than you on my little finger than you do in your entire existence...and I can run you into the ground in athletic endeavors, so please, keep enlightening me with your fallacies. I will sit back and enjoy.
wow. we have a real live internet tough guy here. a keyboard warrior in the flesh.
I am so impressed at your incredible athletic endeavors. I am sure they are vast and amazing. as I am sure all others here on the boards are as well.
your athletic prowess sure does add credibility to your otherworldly debating skills.
you must have a really big little finger huh...
with the thinly veiled insults and failure to address any actual points, I am beginning to wonder if this is actually dallas' burner account.
you do realize the optics when one stops debating and starts relying on flexing right...
I will tell you that I didn't realize until right now how comfortable it is living in your head. to remember different things I said in other threads and how much they bother you and to bring them into other threads...
@craig44 said:
the reason i mentioned BB is because he is better at drawing walks than slugging. he has led his league 4 times in obp, 3 times in slugging. yes, he is lower on the all time OBP list, but more dominant against his peers.
In the future, the way to express that thought in the English language is "Trout is among the greatest of all time at both slugging and getting on base, but he is slightly better at getting on base, including taking walks, than he is at slugging". What makes absolutely zero sense, if you are trying to express that thought, is to mention walks and his fielding position, and not acknowledge that he is also one of the greatest sluggers of all time. Because to express it that way allows for only two possibilities: (1) you knew Trout was an epic slugger but chose to hide it to make a very different point than the one you now claim you were trying to make, or (2) you didn't know how great a slugger Trout was, in which case you shouldn't be surprised when someone sets you straight.
In any event, Trout's OPS+ of 176 is comprised of two pieces: 1.33 for OBP and 1.43 for slugging. So, granting that your highness was trying to make the point you claim to have been trying to make, the point you were trying to make was incorrect. Trout is better than league average in slugging by a greater margin than he is better than league average at OBP.
lets baby step you through this again.
Trout is NOT one of the very greatest sluggers in history.
wouldnt you think that one of the very greatest sluggers of all time would also be the greatest, or at least one of the very greatest sluggers of his own time?
how many times has Trout led his league in 2b, 3b or HR?
let me answer that one for you... 0. thats right. this all time great slugger has never even led his own peers in 2b, 3b or HR.
I am so sorry you cant seem to grasp this fact, but, you know what they say about some peoples ability to reason and wet paper bags...
You also dont seem to understand the concept of positional adjustment when it comes to WAR.
dont worry, I am patient. we will get you through this.
CF is considered a more "important" position when it comes to WAR. therefore, in the WAR calculation, those who play CF (and C, SS, 2B, 3B) get an extra added bump for playing that position. those who play other positions: LF, RF, 1B, DH get neged for playing those positions. Trout has played CF for i believe his entire career (not particularly well I may add) so he gets that positional bump when it comes to the WAR calculation. from here on out, when he is playing LF then 1b then dh, he will no longer be getting that positive positional adjustment. truth be told, he probably shouldnt have been playing CF for the last few seasons due to ineffectiveness and injury risk.
So... much of Trouts "shine" comes from gaudy WAR numbers. I focused on BB and positional adjustment as those are the two things trout seems to be all time great at and it is reflected in his WAR totals.
you seem to believe that a player who has never led his league in 2b, 3b or HR is one of the "all time great" sluggers, though he cant seem to lead his very own peers in one of the power categories.
there, hows that. i tried to give you the 3rd grade version. if it is still a little tough to understand you can make an appointment for after school and we can try again.
If you are going to simply ignore the percentages and apply those standards to other elite HOFers, then do that to someone like George Brett.
Per your method, through age 29 George Brett averaged 14 home runs and 78 RBI PER YEAR(not counting his brief first year). So by YOUR method, George Brett is awful and not even a HOFer.
I would like for you to explain how drawing walks is a negative when he has batted 2nd for the majority of his career plate appearances, and then batted third and even many times in the leadoff position...and then tell me how Rickey Henderson is the best all time lead off hitter by virtue of his elite on base percentage and somehow Trout's walks are a negative batting second??
Through age 29 Mike Trout has a better on base percentage than Rickey Henderson( .419 to .398) and a better slugging percentage than George Brett(by a mile) and the SAME slugging percentage as Willie Mays through same age.
Those are all inner circle....Brett really isn't inner circle(but if you read these boards he was God), and Brett is absolutely dwarfed in slugging by Trout...and in YOUR method Brett only averaged 14 home runs a year and 78 RBI per year so that would mean he is average.
PS 203 stolen bases to only 37 caught stealing...is elite.
Another PS....you aren't going to rack up 100 RBI years batting second as much as Trout did.
If your premise is ONLY that his career will amount to nothing going forward, then yes, you have a point. The other stuff you are saying has ZERO merit.
your post is so full of straw men that I am afraid to read it too close to an open flame.
first of all, when did I say drawing walks was a negative???
I didn't
none of my points were about where in the batting order trout hits or had anything to do with rickey
I believe the vast majority of my posts in this thread were discussing how Trout is not an all time inner circle elite power hitter. Not sure how Brett made it into your post, but he too is yet another of your straw men. I don't think anyone would consider Brett to be an elite inner circle slugger. not sure why you would even bring him up.
as far as stolen bases go, Trout has had a grand total of 60 in the last 5 seasons. that sure is elite. great point. I believe i said trout had very good speed in the beginning of his career but not so much now. you know, the part where he had 143 steals in his first 5 years...
when did I ever mention RBI???
I am waiting...
nice try. i am thinking your entire post has zero merit. maybe I should write zero in ALL CAPS for extra special added emphasis.
why don't you run along home now and let the grown ups talk...
You have mentioned ALL of those things in many different posts throughout these boards, including demonstrating a zero understanding on the value of a base on balls...and have been wrong EACH time you have tried to claim the nonsense you continue to believe.
You are in above your head....so if you actually are a grown up, have mercy.
You are actually one of the people that believe striking out is worse than hitting into a double play...so there is that.
Saying your nonsense about "letting the adults talk," please. I have more baseball knowledge than you on my little finger than you do in your entire existence...and I can run you into the ground in athletic endeavors, so please, keep enlightening me with your fallacies. I will sit back and enjoy.
wow. we have a real live internet tough guy here. a keyboard warrior in the flesh.
I am so impressed at your incredible athletic endeavors. I am sure they are vast and amazing. as I am sure all others here on the boards are as well.
your athletic prowess sure does add credibility to your otherworldly debating skills.
you must have a really big little finger huh...
with the thinly veiled insults and failure to address any actual points, I am beginning to wonder if this is actually dallas' burner account.
you do realize the optics when one stops debating and starts relying on flexing right...
I will tell you that I didn't realize until right now how comfortable it is living in your head. to remember different things I said in other threads and how much they bother you and to bring them into other threads...
your a treat
Hence why you first said, "let the grown ups talk," you fool. Everything you just said points directly at you pal. You lost right there by your own words. Good try.
Tell me again how striking out is worse than hitting into a double play.
@craig44 said:
the reason i mentioned BB is because he is better at drawing walks than slugging. he has led his league 4 times in obp, 3 times in slugging. yes, he is lower on the all time OBP list, but more dominant against his peers.
In the future, the way to express that thought in the English language is "Trout is among the greatest of all time at both slugging and getting on base, but he is slightly better at getting on base, including taking walks, than he is at slugging". What makes absolutely zero sense, if you are trying to express that thought, is to mention walks and his fielding position, and not acknowledge that he is also one of the greatest sluggers of all time. Because to express it that way allows for only two possibilities: (1) you knew Trout was an epic slugger but chose to hide it to make a very different point than the one you now claim you were trying to make, or (2) you didn't know how great a slugger Trout was, in which case you shouldn't be surprised when someone sets you straight.
In any event, Trout's OPS+ of 176 is comprised of two pieces: 1.33 for OBP and 1.43 for slugging. So, granting that your highness was trying to make the point you claim to have been trying to make, the point you were trying to make was incorrect. Trout is better than league average in slugging by a greater margin than he is better than league average at OBP.
lets baby step you through this again.
Trout is NOT one of the very greatest sluggers in history.
wouldnt you think that one of the very greatest sluggers of all time would also be the greatest, or at least one of the very greatest sluggers of his own time?
how many times has Trout led his league in 2b, 3b or HR?
let me answer that one for you... 0. thats right. this all time great slugger has never even led his own peers in 2b, 3b or HR.
I am so sorry you cant seem to grasp this fact, but, you know what they say about some peoples ability to reason and wet paper bags...
You also dont seem to understand the concept of positional adjustment when it comes to WAR.
dont worry, I am patient. we will get you through this.
CF is considered a more "important" position when it comes to WAR. therefore, in the WAR calculation, those who play CF (and C, SS, 2B, 3B) get an extra added bump for playing that position. those who play other positions: LF, RF, 1B, DH get neged for playing those positions. Trout has played CF for i believe his entire career (not particularly well I may add) so he gets that positional bump when it comes to the WAR calculation. from here on out, when he is playing LF then 1b then dh, he will no longer be getting that positive positional adjustment. truth be told, he probably shouldnt have been playing CF for the last few seasons due to ineffectiveness and injury risk.
So... much of Trouts "shine" comes from gaudy WAR numbers. I focused on BB and positional adjustment as those are the two things trout seems to be all time great at and it is reflected in his WAR totals.
you seem to believe that a player who has never led his league in 2b, 3b or HR is one of the "all time great" sluggers, though he cant seem to lead his very own peers in one of the power categories.
there, hows that. i tried to give you the 3rd grade version. if it is still a little tough to understand you can make an appointment for after school and we can try again.
If you are going to simply ignore the percentages and apply those standards to other elite HOFers, then do that to someone like George Brett.
Per your method, through age 29 George Brett averaged 14 home runs and 78 RBI PER YEAR(not counting his brief first year). So by YOUR method, George Brett is awful and not even a HOFer.
I would like for you to explain how drawing walks is a negative when he has batted 2nd for the majority of his career plate appearances, and then batted third and even many times in the leadoff position...and then tell me how Rickey Henderson is the best all time lead off hitter by virtue of his elite on base percentage and somehow Trout's walks are a negative batting second??
Through age 29 Mike Trout has a better on base percentage than Rickey Henderson( .419 to .398) and a better slugging percentage than George Brett(by a mile) and the SAME slugging percentage as Willie Mays through same age.
Those are all inner circle....Brett really isn't inner circle(but if you read these boards he was God), and Brett is absolutely dwarfed in slugging by Trout...and in YOUR method Brett only averaged 14 home runs a year and 78 RBI per year so that would mean he is average.
PS 203 stolen bases to only 37 caught stealing...is elite.
Another PS....you aren't going to rack up 100 RBI years batting second as much as Trout did.
If your premise is ONLY that his career will amount to nothing going forward, then yes, you have a point. The other stuff you are saying has ZERO merit.
your post is so full of straw men that I am afraid to read it too close to an open flame.
first of all, when did I say drawing walks was a negative???
I didn't
none of my points were about where in the batting order trout hits or had anything to do with rickey
I believe the vast majority of my posts in this thread were discussing how Trout is not an all time inner circle elite power hitter. Not sure how Brett made it into your post, but he too is yet another of your straw men. I don't think anyone would consider Brett to be an elite inner circle slugger. not sure why you would even bring him up.
as far as stolen bases go, Trout has had a grand total of 60 in the last 5 seasons. that sure is elite. great point. I believe i said trout had very good speed in the beginning of his career but not so much now. you know, the part where he had 143 steals in his first 5 years...
when did I ever mention RBI???
I am waiting...
nice try. i am thinking your entire post has zero merit. maybe I should write zero in ALL CAPS for extra special added emphasis.
why don't you run along home now and let the grown ups talk...
You have mentioned ALL of those things in many different posts throughout these boards, including demonstrating a zero understanding on the value of a base on balls...and have been wrong EACH time you have tried to claim the nonsense you continue to believe.
You are in above your head....so if you actually are a grown up, have mercy.
You are actually one of the people that believe striking out is worse than hitting into a double play...so there is that.
Saying your nonsense about "letting the adults talk," please. I have more baseball knowledge than you on my little finger than you do in your entire existence...and I can run you into the ground in athletic endeavors, so please, keep enlightening me with your fallacies. I will sit back and enjoy.
wow. we have a real live internet tough guy here. a keyboard warrior in the flesh.
I am so impressed at your incredible athletic endeavors. I am sure they are vast and amazing. as I am sure all others here on the boards are as well.
your athletic prowess sure does add credibility to your otherworldly debating skills.
you must have a really big little finger huh...
with the thinly veiled insults and failure to address any actual points, I am beginning to wonder if this is actually dallas' burner account.
you do realize the optics when one stops debating and starts relying on flexing right...
I will tell you that I didn't realize until right now how comfortable it is living in your head. to remember different things I said in other threads and how much they bother you and to bring them into other threads...
your a treat
Hence why you first said, "let the grown ups talk," you fool. Everything you just said points directly at you pal. You lost right there by your own words. Good try.
Tell me again how striking out is worse than hitting into a double play.
straw man.
why don't you go finish your homework. you are out of your depth here.
I like to imagine you are sitting at your desktop waiting with bated breath and white knuckles for me to post a reply.
@craig44 said:
the reason i mentioned BB is because he is better at drawing walks than slugging. he has led his league 4 times in obp, 3 times in slugging. yes, he is lower on the all time OBP list, but more dominant against his peers.
In the future, the way to express that thought in the English language is "Trout is among the greatest of all time at both slugging and getting on base, but he is slightly better at getting on base, including taking walks, than he is at slugging". What makes absolutely zero sense, if you are trying to express that thought, is to mention walks and his fielding position, and not acknowledge that he is also one of the greatest sluggers of all time. Because to express it that way allows for only two possibilities: (1) you knew Trout was an epic slugger but chose to hide it to make a very different point than the one you now claim you were trying to make, or (2) you didn't know how great a slugger Trout was, in which case you shouldn't be surprised when someone sets you straight.
In any event, Trout's OPS+ of 176 is comprised of two pieces: 1.33 for OBP and 1.43 for slugging. So, granting that your highness was trying to make the point you claim to have been trying to make, the point you were trying to make was incorrect. Trout is better than league average in slugging by a greater margin than he is better than league average at OBP.
lets baby step you through this again.
Trout is NOT one of the very greatest sluggers in history.
wouldnt you think that one of the very greatest sluggers of all time would also be the greatest, or at least one of the very greatest sluggers of his own time?
how many times has Trout led his league in 2b, 3b or HR?
let me answer that one for you... 0. thats right. this all time great slugger has never even led his own peers in 2b, 3b or HR.
I am so sorry you cant seem to grasp this fact, but, you know what they say about some peoples ability to reason and wet paper bags...
You also dont seem to understand the concept of positional adjustment when it comes to WAR.
dont worry, I am patient. we will get you through this.
CF is considered a more "important" position when it comes to WAR. therefore, in the WAR calculation, those who play CF (and C, SS, 2B, 3B) get an extra added bump for playing that position. those who play other positions: LF, RF, 1B, DH get neged for playing those positions. Trout has played CF for i believe his entire career (not particularly well I may add) so he gets that positional bump when it comes to the WAR calculation. from here on out, when he is playing LF then 1b then dh, he will no longer be getting that positive positional adjustment. truth be told, he probably shouldnt have been playing CF for the last few seasons due to ineffectiveness and injury risk.
So... much of Trouts "shine" comes from gaudy WAR numbers. I focused on BB and positional adjustment as those are the two things trout seems to be all time great at and it is reflected in his WAR totals.
you seem to believe that a player who has never led his league in 2b, 3b or HR is one of the "all time great" sluggers, though he cant seem to lead his very own peers in one of the power categories.
there, hows that. i tried to give you the 3rd grade version. if it is still a little tough to understand you can make an appointment for after school and we can try again.
If you are going to simply ignore the percentages and apply those standards to other elite HOFers, then do that to someone like George Brett.
Per your method, through age 29 George Brett averaged 14 home runs and 78 RBI PER YEAR(not counting his brief first year). So by YOUR method, George Brett is awful and not even a HOFer.
I would like for you to explain how drawing walks is a negative when he has batted 2nd for the majority of his career plate appearances, and then batted third and even many times in the leadoff position...and then tell me how Rickey Henderson is the best all time lead off hitter by virtue of his elite on base percentage and somehow Trout's walks are a negative batting second??
Through age 29 Mike Trout has a better on base percentage than Rickey Henderson( .419 to .398) and a better slugging percentage than George Brett(by a mile) and the SAME slugging percentage as Willie Mays through same age.
Those are all inner circle....Brett really isn't inner circle(but if you read these boards he was God), and Brett is absolutely dwarfed in slugging by Trout...and in YOUR method Brett only averaged 14 home runs a year and 78 RBI per year so that would mean he is average.
PS 203 stolen bases to only 37 caught stealing...is elite.
Another PS....you aren't going to rack up 100 RBI years batting second as much as Trout did.
If your premise is ONLY that his career will amount to nothing going forward, then yes, you have a point. The other stuff you are saying has ZERO merit.
your post is so full of straw men that I am afraid to read it too close to an open flame.
first of all, when did I say drawing walks was a negative???
I didn't
none of my points were about where in the batting order trout hits or had anything to do with rickey
I believe the vast majority of my posts in this thread were discussing how Trout is not an all time inner circle elite power hitter. Not sure how Brett made it into your post, but he too is yet another of your straw men. I don't think anyone would consider Brett to be an elite inner circle slugger. not sure why you would even bring him up.
as far as stolen bases go, Trout has had a grand total of 60 in the last 5 seasons. that sure is elite. great point. I believe i said trout had very good speed in the beginning of his career but not so much now. you know, the part where he had 143 steals in his first 5 years...
when did I ever mention RBI???
I am waiting...
nice try. i am thinking your entire post has zero merit. maybe I should write zero in ALL CAPS for extra special added emphasis.
why don't you run along home now and let the grown ups talk...
You have mentioned ALL of those things in many different posts throughout these boards, including demonstrating a zero understanding on the value of a base on balls...and have been wrong EACH time you have tried to claim the nonsense you continue to believe.
You are in above your head....so if you actually are a grown up, have mercy.
You are actually one of the people that believe striking out is worse than hitting into a double play...so there is that.
Saying your nonsense about "letting the adults talk," please. I have more baseball knowledge than you on my little finger than you do in your entire existence...and I can run you into the ground in athletic endeavors, so please, keep enlightening me with your fallacies. I will sit back and enjoy.
wow. we have a real live internet tough guy here. a keyboard warrior in the flesh.
I am so impressed at your incredible athletic endeavors. I am sure they are vast and amazing. as I am sure all others here on the boards are as well.
your athletic prowess sure does add credibility to your otherworldly debating skills.
you must have a really big little finger huh...
with the thinly veiled insults and failure to address any actual points, I am beginning to wonder if this is actually dallas' burner account.
you do realize the optics when one stops debating and starts relying on flexing right...
I will tell you that I didn't realize until right now how comfortable it is living in your head. to remember different things I said in other threads and how much they bother you and to bring them into other threads...
your a treat
Hence why you first said, "let the grown ups talk," you fool. Everything you just said points directly at you pal. You lost right there by your own words. Good try.
Tell me again how striking out is worse than hitting into a double play.
straw man.
why don't you go finish your homework. you are out of your depth here.
I like to imagine you are sitting at your desktop waiting with bated breath and white knuckles for me to post a reply.
waiting with such great antici
pation.
Tell me again how a strikeout is worse than hitting into a double play.
Then tell me why Trout is not elite because one year(this year) he had a better teammate. Is that similar to Jim Rice being the third best outfielder on is own team?
@craig44 said:
I think part of the cognitive dissonance people are feeling is because of the constant narrative we have been told from espn, mlb network and other talking heads about how great Trout is. that he is in the very upper echelon in the history of mlb. often when people hear a differing opinion on something that has been spoken of as fact, it can seem off putting
lets talk a little about what EXACTLY makes trout so great.
He is not a great fielder.
he does not have a good arm
He is very elite at getting on base
he is a good power hitter
for people who care, he is good at hitting for average
at least in the beginning of his career he had pretty elite speed. not so much now.
He is injury prone
He is very good at racking up WAR.
did I miss anything?
from this, I see a very good/great player. not a 5 tool talent. a very likely HOFer, though not a top inner circle HOFer. trouts trend is looking to be that he will not age well. he is now on the wrong side of 30 and carries a lot of weight. Someone above mentioned Griffey as a comparison. I could definitely see Trouts career heading in that direction. I see nothing right now that makes me think he will become less injury prone in his 30's
@craig44 said:
the reason i mentioned BB is because he is better at drawing walks than slugging. he has led his league 4 times in obp, 3 times in slugging. yes, he is lower on the all time OBP list, but more dominant against his peers.
In the future, the way to express that thought in the English language is "Trout is among the greatest of all time at both slugging and getting on base, but he is slightly better at getting on base, including taking walks, than he is at slugging". What makes absolutely zero sense, if you are trying to express that thought, is to mention walks and his fielding position, and not acknowledge that he is also one of the greatest sluggers of all time. Because to express it that way allows for only two possibilities: (1) you knew Trout was an epic slugger but chose to hide it to make a very different point than the one you now claim you were trying to make, or (2) you didn't know how great a slugger Trout was, in which case you shouldn't be surprised when someone sets you straight.
In any event, Trout's OPS+ of 176 is comprised of two pieces: 1.33 for OBP and 1.43 for slugging. So, granting that your highness was trying to make the point you claim to have been trying to make, the point you were trying to make was incorrect. Trout is better than league average in slugging by a greater margin than he is better than league average at OBP.
lets baby step you through this again.
Trout is NOT one of the very greatest sluggers in history.
wouldnt you think that one of the very greatest sluggers of all time would also be the greatest, or at least one of the very greatest sluggers of his own time?
how many times has Trout led his league in 2b, 3b or HR?
let me answer that one for you... 0. thats right. this all time great slugger has never even led his own peers in 2b, 3b or HR.
I am so sorry you cant seem to grasp this fact, but, you know what they say about some peoples ability to reason and wet paper bags...
You also dont seem to understand the concept of positional adjustment when it comes to WAR.
dont worry, I am patient. we will get you through this.
CF is considered a more "important" position when it comes to WAR. therefore, in the WAR calculation, those who play CF (and C, SS, 2B, 3B) get an extra added bump for playing that position. those who play other positions: LF, RF, 1B, DH get neged for playing those positions. Trout has played CF for i believe his entire career (not particularly well I may add) so he gets that positional bump when it comes to the WAR calculation. from here on out, when he is playing LF then 1b then dh, he will no longer be getting that positive positional adjustment. truth be told, he probably shouldnt have been playing CF for the last few seasons due to ineffectiveness and injury risk.
So... much of Trouts "shine" comes from gaudy WAR numbers. I focused on BB and positional adjustment as those are the two things trout seems to be all time great at and it is reflected in his WAR totals.
you seem to believe that a player who has never led his league in 2b, 3b or HR is one of the "all time great" sluggers, though he cant seem to lead his very own peers in one of the power categories.
there, hows that. i tried to give you the 3rd grade version. if it is still a little tough to understand you can make an appointment for after school and we can try again.
If you are going to simply ignore the percentages and apply those standards to other elite HOFers, then do that to someone like George Brett.
Per your method, through age 29 George Brett averaged 14 home runs and 78 RBI PER YEAR(not counting his brief first year). So by YOUR method, George Brett is awful and not even a HOFer.
I would like for you to explain how drawing walks is a negative when he has batted 2nd for the majority of his career plate appearances, and then batted third and even many times in the leadoff position...and then tell me how Rickey Henderson is the best all time lead off hitter by virtue of his elite on base percentage and somehow Trout's walks are a negative batting second??
Through age 29 Mike Trout has a better on base percentage than Rickey Henderson( .419 to .398) and a better slugging percentage than George Brett(by a mile) and the SAME slugging percentage as Willie Mays through same age.
Those are all inner circle....Brett really isn't inner circle(but if you read these boards he was God), and Brett is absolutely dwarfed in slugging by Trout...and in YOUR method Brett only averaged 14 home runs a year and 78 RBI per year so that would mean he is average.
PS 203 stolen bases to only 37 caught stealing...is elite.
Another PS....you aren't going to rack up 100 RBI years batting second as much as Trout did.
If your premise is ONLY that his career will amount to nothing going forward, then yes, you have a point. The other stuff you are saying has ZERO merit.
your post is so full of straw men that I am afraid to read it too close to an open flame.
first of all, when did I say drawing walks was a negative???
I didn't
none of my points were about where in the batting order trout hits or had anything to do with rickey
I believe the vast majority of my posts in this thread were discussing how Trout is not an all time inner circle elite power hitter. Not sure how Brett made it into your post, but he too is yet another of your straw men. I don't think anyone would consider Brett to be an elite inner circle slugger. not sure why you would even bring him up.
as far as stolen bases go, Trout has had a grand total of 60 in the last 5 seasons. that sure is elite. great point. I believe i said trout had very good speed in the beginning of his career but not so much now. you know, the part where he had 143 steals in his first 5 years...
when did I ever mention RBI???
I am waiting...
nice try. i am thinking your entire post has zero merit. maybe I should write zero in ALL CAPS for extra special added emphasis.
why don't you run along home now and let the grown ups talk...
You have mentioned ALL of those things in many different posts throughout these boards, including demonstrating a zero understanding on the value of a base on balls...and have been wrong EACH time you have tried to claim the nonsense you continue to believe.
You are in above your head....so if you actually are a grown up, have mercy.
You are actually one of the people that believe striking out is worse than hitting into a double play...so there is that.
Saying your nonsense about "letting the adults talk," please. I have more baseball knowledge than you on my little finger than you do in your entire existence...and I can run you into the ground in athletic endeavors, so please, keep enlightening me with your fallacies. I will sit back and enjoy.
wow. we have a real live internet tough guy here. a keyboard warrior in the flesh.
I am so impressed at your incredible athletic endeavors. I am sure they are vast and amazing. as I am sure all others here on the boards are as well.
your athletic prowess sure does add credibility to your otherworldly debating skills.
you must have a really big little finger huh...
with the thinly veiled insults and failure to address any actual points, I am beginning to wonder if this is actually dallas' burner account.
you do realize the optics when one stops debating and starts relying on flexing right...
I will tell you that I didn't realize until right now how comfortable it is living in your head. to remember different things I said in other threads and how much they bother you and to bring them into other threads...
your a treat
Hence why you first said, "let the grown ups talk," you fool. Everything you just said points directly at you pal. You lost right there by your own words. Good try.
Tell me again how striking out is worse than hitting into a double play.
straw man.
why don't you go finish your homework. you are out of your depth here.
I like to imagine you are sitting at your desktop waiting with bated breath and white knuckles for me to post a reply.
waiting with such great antici
pation.
Tell me again how a strikeout is worse than hitting into a double play.
Then tell me why Trout is not elite because one year(this year) he had a better teammate. Is that similar to Jim Rice being the third best outfielder on is own team?
straw man.
you know what, I really like it here. In fact, I am going to sign the lease and move in.
Right into your head.
The furniture, appliances, everything. the whole deal.
apparently, you also have really big fingers, I can move all of my baseball knowledge right into your pinky finger. that way it wont take up any unnecessary space in your head so you can remember all of your elite athletic accomplishments and tell all of us here on CU the stories of your elite athletic prowess.
@countdouglas said:
We need more pictures in this thread. Some Mike Trout postseason highlights.
.
you are so right. we needed some pictures.
I was wondering if you would mind framing up one of those for me. nothing fancy. you see, I just moved into a new place and the decor is a little sparse....
@craig44 said:
the reason i mentioned BB is because he is better at drawing walks than slugging. he has led his league 4 times in obp, 3 times in slugging. yes, he is lower on the all time OBP list, but more dominant against his peers.
In the future, the way to express that thought in the English language is "Trout is among the greatest of all time at both slugging and getting on base, but he is slightly better at getting on base, including taking walks, than he is at slugging". What makes absolutely zero sense, if you are trying to express that thought, is to mention walks and his fielding position, and not acknowledge that he is also one of the greatest sluggers of all time. Because to express it that way allows for only two possibilities: (1) you knew Trout was an epic slugger but chose to hide it to make a very different point than the one you now claim you were trying to make, or (2) you didn't know how great a slugger Trout was, in which case you shouldn't be surprised when someone sets you straight.
In any event, Trout's OPS+ of 176 is comprised of two pieces: 1.33 for OBP and 1.43 for slugging. So, granting that your highness was trying to make the point you claim to have been trying to make, the point you were trying to make was incorrect. Trout is better than league average in slugging by a greater margin than he is better than league average at OBP.
lets baby step you through this again.
Trout is NOT one of the very greatest sluggers in history.
wouldnt you think that one of the very greatest sluggers of all time would also be the greatest, or at least one of the very greatest sluggers of his own time?
how many times has Trout led his league in 2b, 3b or HR?
let me answer that one for you... 0. thats right. this all time great slugger has never even led his own peers in 2b, 3b or HR.
I am so sorry you cant seem to grasp this fact, but, you know what they say about some peoples ability to reason and wet paper bags...
You also dont seem to understand the concept of positional adjustment when it comes to WAR.
dont worry, I am patient. we will get you through this.
CF is considered a more "important" position when it comes to WAR. therefore, in the WAR calculation, those who play CF (and C, SS, 2B, 3B) get an extra added bump for playing that position. those who play other positions: LF, RF, 1B, DH get neged for playing those positions. Trout has played CF for i believe his entire career (not particularly well I may add) so he gets that positional bump when it comes to the WAR calculation. from here on out, when he is playing LF then 1b then dh, he will no longer be getting that positive positional adjustment. truth be told, he probably shouldnt have been playing CF for the last few seasons due to ineffectiveness and injury risk.
So... much of Trouts "shine" comes from gaudy WAR numbers. I focused on BB and positional adjustment as those are the two things trout seems to be all time great at and it is reflected in his WAR totals.
you seem to believe that a player who has never led his league in 2b, 3b or HR is one of the "all time great" sluggers, though he cant seem to lead his very own peers in one of the power categories.
there, hows that. i tried to give you the 3rd grade version. if it is still a little tough to understand you can make an appointment for after school and we can try again.
If you are going to simply ignore the percentages and apply those standards to other elite HOFers, then do that to someone like George Brett.
Per your method, through age 29 George Brett averaged 14 home runs and 78 RBI PER YEAR(not counting his brief first year). So by YOUR method, George Brett is awful and not even a HOFer.
I would like for you to explain how drawing walks is a negative when he has batted 2nd for the majority of his career plate appearances, and then batted third and even many times in the leadoff position...and then tell me how Rickey Henderson is the best all time lead off hitter by virtue of his elite on base percentage and somehow Trout's walks are a negative batting second??
Through age 29 Mike Trout has a better on base percentage than Rickey Henderson( .419 to .398) and a better slugging percentage than George Brett(by a mile) and the SAME slugging percentage as Willie Mays through same age.
Those are all inner circle....Brett really isn't inner circle(but if you read these boards he was God), and Brett is absolutely dwarfed in slugging by Trout...and in YOUR method Brett only averaged 14 home runs a year and 78 RBI per year so that would mean he is average.
PS 203 stolen bases to only 37 caught stealing...is elite.
Another PS....you aren't going to rack up 100 RBI years batting second as much as Trout did.
If your premise is ONLY that his career will amount to nothing going forward, then yes, you have a point. The other stuff you are saying has ZERO merit.
your post is so full of straw men that I am afraid to read it too close to an open flame.
first of all, when did I say drawing walks was a negative???
I didn't
none of my points were about where in the batting order trout hits or had anything to do with rickey
I believe the vast majority of my posts in this thread were discussing how Trout is not an all time inner circle elite power hitter. Not sure how Brett made it into your post, but he too is yet another of your straw men. I don't think anyone would consider Brett to be an elite inner circle slugger. not sure why you would even bring him up.
as far as stolen bases go, Trout has had a grand total of 60 in the last 5 seasons. that sure is elite. great point. I believe i said trout had very good speed in the beginning of his career but not so much now. you know, the part where he had 143 steals in his first 5 years...
when did I ever mention RBI???
I am waiting...
nice try. i am thinking your entire post has zero merit. maybe I should write zero in ALL CAPS for extra special added emphasis.
why don't you run along home now and let the grown ups talk...
You have mentioned ALL of those things in many different posts throughout these boards, including demonstrating a zero understanding on the value of a base on balls...and have been wrong EACH time you have tried to claim the nonsense you continue to believe.
You are in above your head....so if you actually are a grown up, have mercy.
You are actually one of the people that believe striking out is worse than hitting into a double play...so there is that.
Saying your nonsense about "letting the adults talk," please. I have more baseball knowledge than you on my little finger than you do in your entire existence...and I can run you into the ground in athletic endeavors, so please, keep enlightening me with your fallacies. I will sit back and enjoy.
wow. we have a real live internet tough guy here. a keyboard warrior in the flesh.
I am so impressed at your incredible athletic endeavors. I am sure they are vast and amazing. as I am sure all others here on the boards are as well.
your athletic prowess sure does add credibility to your otherworldly debating skills.
you must have a really big little finger huh...
with the thinly veiled insults and failure to address any actual points, I am beginning to wonder if this is actually dallas' burner account.
you do realize the optics when one stops debating and starts relying on flexing right...
I will tell you that I didn't realize until right now how comfortable it is living in your head. to remember different things I said in other threads and how much they bother you and to bring them into other threads...
your a treat
Hence why you first said, "let the grown ups talk," you fool. Everything you just said points directly at you pal. You lost right there by your own words. Good try.
Tell me again how striking out is worse than hitting into a double play.
straw man.
why don't you go finish your homework. you are out of your depth here.
I like to imagine you are sitting at your desktop waiting with bated breath and white knuckles for me to post a reply.
waiting with such great antici
pation.
Tell me again how a strikeout is worse than hitting into a double play.
Then tell me why Trout is not elite because one year(this year) he had a better teammate. Is that similar to Jim Rice being the third best outfielder on is own team?
straw man.
you know what, I really like it here. In fact, I am going to sign the lease and move in.
Right into your head.
The furniture, appliances, everything. the whole deal.
apparently, you also have really big fingers, I can move all of my baseball knowledge right into your pinky finger. that way it wont take up any unnecessary space in your head so you can remember all of your elite athletic accomplishments and tell all of us here on CU the stories of your elite athletic prowess.
this is going to be so much fun.
Nah, its just that some of the most ridiculous things said are easy to remember. When you took the stance that striking out is worse than hitting into double plays, that stands tall amongst the many fallacies(that you continue to promote).
Explain again why striking out is worse than hitting into a double play.
@craig44 said:
the reason i mentioned BB is because he is better at drawing walks than slugging. he has led his league 4 times in obp, 3 times in slugging. yes, he is lower on the all time OBP list, but more dominant against his peers.
In the future, the way to express that thought in the English language is "Trout is among the greatest of all time at both slugging and getting on base, but he is slightly better at getting on base, including taking walks, than he is at slugging". What makes absolutely zero sense, if you are trying to express that thought, is to mention walks and his fielding position, and not acknowledge that he is also one of the greatest sluggers of all time. Because to express it that way allows for only two possibilities: (1) you knew Trout was an epic slugger but chose to hide it to make a very different point than the one you now claim you were trying to make, or (2) you didn't know how great a slugger Trout was, in which case you shouldn't be surprised when someone sets you straight.
In any event, Trout's OPS+ of 176 is comprised of two pieces: 1.33 for OBP and 1.43 for slugging. So, granting that your highness was trying to make the point you claim to have been trying to make, the point you were trying to make was incorrect. Trout is better than league average in slugging by a greater margin than he is better than league average at OBP.
lets baby step you through this again.
Trout is NOT one of the very greatest sluggers in history.
wouldnt you think that one of the very greatest sluggers of all time would also be the greatest, or at least one of the very greatest sluggers of his own time?
how many times has Trout led his league in 2b, 3b or HR?
let me answer that one for you... 0. thats right. this all time great slugger has never even led his own peers in 2b, 3b or HR.
I am so sorry you cant seem to grasp this fact, but, you know what they say about some peoples ability to reason and wet paper bags...
You also dont seem to understand the concept of positional adjustment when it comes to WAR.
dont worry, I am patient. we will get you through this.
CF is considered a more "important" position when it comes to WAR. therefore, in the WAR calculation, those who play CF (and C, SS, 2B, 3B) get an extra added bump for playing that position. those who play other positions: LF, RF, 1B, DH get neged for playing those positions. Trout has played CF for i believe his entire career (not particularly well I may add) so he gets that positional bump when it comes to the WAR calculation. from here on out, when he is playing LF then 1b then dh, he will no longer be getting that positive positional adjustment. truth be told, he probably shouldnt have been playing CF for the last few seasons due to ineffectiveness and injury risk.
So... much of Trouts "shine" comes from gaudy WAR numbers. I focused on BB and positional adjustment as those are the two things trout seems to be all time great at and it is reflected in his WAR totals.
you seem to believe that a player who has never led his league in 2b, 3b or HR is one of the "all time great" sluggers, though he cant seem to lead his very own peers in one of the power categories.
there, hows that. i tried to give you the 3rd grade version. if it is still a little tough to understand you can make an appointment for after school and we can try again.
If you are going to simply ignore the percentages and apply those standards to other elite HOFers, then do that to someone like George Brett.
Per your method, through age 29 George Brett averaged 14 home runs and 78 RBI PER YEAR(not counting his brief first year). So by YOUR method, George Brett is awful and not even a HOFer.
I would like for you to explain how drawing walks is a negative when he has batted 2nd for the majority of his career plate appearances, and then batted third and even many times in the leadoff position...and then tell me how Rickey Henderson is the best all time lead off hitter by virtue of his elite on base percentage and somehow Trout's walks are a negative batting second??
Through age 29 Mike Trout has a better on base percentage than Rickey Henderson( .419 to .398) and a better slugging percentage than George Brett(by a mile) and the SAME slugging percentage as Willie Mays through same age.
Those are all inner circle....Brett really isn't inner circle(but if you read these boards he was God), and Brett is absolutely dwarfed in slugging by Trout...and in YOUR method Brett only averaged 14 home runs a year and 78 RBI per year so that would mean he is average.
PS 203 stolen bases to only 37 caught stealing...is elite.
Another PS....you aren't going to rack up 100 RBI years batting second as much as Trout did.
If your premise is ONLY that his career will amount to nothing going forward, then yes, you have a point. The other stuff you are saying has ZERO merit.
your post is so full of straw men that I am afraid to read it too close to an open flame.
first of all, when did I say drawing walks was a negative???
I didn't
none of my points were about where in the batting order trout hits or had anything to do with rickey
I believe the vast majority of my posts in this thread were discussing how Trout is not an all time inner circle elite power hitter. Not sure how Brett made it into your post, but he too is yet another of your straw men. I don't think anyone would consider Brett to be an elite inner circle slugger. not sure why you would even bring him up.
as far as stolen bases go, Trout has had a grand total of 60 in the last 5 seasons. that sure is elite. great point. I believe i said trout had very good speed in the beginning of his career but not so much now. you know, the part where he had 143 steals in his first 5 years...
when did I ever mention RBI???
I am waiting...
nice try. i am thinking your entire post has zero merit. maybe I should write zero in ALL CAPS for extra special added emphasis.
why don't you run along home now and let the grown ups talk...
You have mentioned ALL of those things in many different posts throughout these boards, including demonstrating a zero understanding on the value of a base on balls...and have been wrong EACH time you have tried to claim the nonsense you continue to believe.
You are in above your head....so if you actually are a grown up, have mercy.
You are actually one of the people that believe striking out is worse than hitting into a double play...so there is that.
Saying your nonsense about "letting the adults talk," please. I have more baseball knowledge than you on my little finger than you do in your entire existence...and I can run you into the ground in athletic endeavors, so please, keep enlightening me with your fallacies. I will sit back and enjoy.
wow. we have a real live internet tough guy here. a keyboard warrior in the flesh.
I am so impressed at your incredible athletic endeavors. I am sure they are vast and amazing. as I am sure all others here on the boards are as well.
your athletic prowess sure does add credibility to your otherworldly debating skills.
you must have a really big little finger huh...
with the thinly veiled insults and failure to address any actual points, I am beginning to wonder if this is actually dallas' burner account.
you do realize the optics when one stops debating and starts relying on flexing right...
I will tell you that I didn't realize until right now how comfortable it is living in your head. to remember different things I said in other threads and how much they bother you and to bring them into other threads...
your a treat
Hence why you first said, "let the grown ups talk," you fool. Everything you just said points directly at you pal. You lost right there by your own words. Good try.
Tell me again how striking out is worse than hitting into a double play.
straw man.
why don't you go finish your homework. you are out of your depth here.
I like to imagine you are sitting at your desktop waiting with bated breath and white knuckles for me to post a reply.
waiting with such great antici
pation.
Tell me again how a strikeout is worse than hitting into a double play.
Then tell me why Trout is not elite because one year(this year) he had a better teammate. Is that similar to Jim Rice being the third best outfielder on is own team?
straw man.
you know what, I really like it here. In fact, I am going to sign the lease and move in.
Right into your head.
The furniture, appliances, everything. the whole deal.
apparently, you also have really big fingers, I can move all of my baseball knowledge right into your pinky finger. that way it wont take up any unnecessary space in your head so you can remember all of your elite athletic accomplishments and tell all of us here on CU the stories of your elite athletic prowess.
this is going to be so much fun.
Nah, its just that some of the most ridiculous things said are easy to remember. When you took the stance that striking out is worse than hitting into double plays, that stands tall amongst the many fallacies(that you continue to promote).
Explain again why striking out is worse than hitting into a double play.
straw man.
you do understand what a straw man argument is, right? I mean you could run me into the ground with your athletic endeavors so you must be really really smart.
maybe you thought I was talking about Darryl Strawberry.
by the way, is the first of the month ok for rent? I wouldn't want to be late...
@craig44 said:
the reason i mentioned BB is because he is better at drawing walks than slugging. he has led his league 4 times in obp, 3 times in slugging. yes, he is lower on the all time OBP list, but more dominant against his peers.
In the future, the way to express that thought in the English language is "Trout is among the greatest of all time at both slugging and getting on base, but he is slightly better at getting on base, including taking walks, than he is at slugging". What makes absolutely zero sense, if you are trying to express that thought, is to mention walks and his fielding position, and not acknowledge that he is also one of the greatest sluggers of all time. Because to express it that way allows for only two possibilities: (1) you knew Trout was an epic slugger but chose to hide it to make a very different point than the one you now claim you were trying to make, or (2) you didn't know how great a slugger Trout was, in which case you shouldn't be surprised when someone sets you straight.
In any event, Trout's OPS+ of 176 is comprised of two pieces: 1.33 for OBP and 1.43 for slugging. So, granting that your highness was trying to make the point you claim to have been trying to make, the point you were trying to make was incorrect. Trout is better than league average in slugging by a greater margin than he is better than league average at OBP.
lets baby step you through this again.
Trout is NOT one of the very greatest sluggers in history.
wouldnt you think that one of the very greatest sluggers of all time would also be the greatest, or at least one of the very greatest sluggers of his own time?
how many times has Trout led his league in 2b, 3b or HR?
let me answer that one for you... 0. thats right. this all time great slugger has never even led his own peers in 2b, 3b or HR.
I am so sorry you cant seem to grasp this fact, but, you know what they say about some peoples ability to reason and wet paper bags...
You also dont seem to understand the concept of positional adjustment when it comes to WAR.
dont worry, I am patient. we will get you through this.
CF is considered a more "important" position when it comes to WAR. therefore, in the WAR calculation, those who play CF (and C, SS, 2B, 3B) get an extra added bump for playing that position. those who play other positions: LF, RF, 1B, DH get neged for playing those positions. Trout has played CF for i believe his entire career (not particularly well I may add) so he gets that positional bump when it comes to the WAR calculation. from here on out, when he is playing LF then 1b then dh, he will no longer be getting that positive positional adjustment. truth be told, he probably shouldnt have been playing CF for the last few seasons due to ineffectiveness and injury risk.
So... much of Trouts "shine" comes from gaudy WAR numbers. I focused on BB and positional adjustment as those are the two things trout seems to be all time great at and it is reflected in his WAR totals.
you seem to believe that a player who has never led his league in 2b, 3b or HR is one of the "all time great" sluggers, though he cant seem to lead his very own peers in one of the power categories.
there, hows that. i tried to give you the 3rd grade version. if it is still a little tough to understand you can make an appointment for after school and we can try again.
If you are going to simply ignore the percentages and apply those standards to other elite HOFers, then do that to someone like George Brett.
Per your method, through age 29 George Brett averaged 14 home runs and 78 RBI PER YEAR(not counting his brief first year). So by YOUR method, George Brett is awful and not even a HOFer.
I would like for you to explain how drawing walks is a negative when he has batted 2nd for the majority of his career plate appearances, and then batted third and even many times in the leadoff position...and then tell me how Rickey Henderson is the best all time lead off hitter by virtue of his elite on base percentage and somehow Trout's walks are a negative batting second??
Through age 29 Mike Trout has a better on base percentage than Rickey Henderson( .419 to .398) and a better slugging percentage than George Brett(by a mile) and the SAME slugging percentage as Willie Mays through same age.
Those are all inner circle....Brett really isn't inner circle(but if you read these boards he was God), and Brett is absolutely dwarfed in slugging by Trout...and in YOUR method Brett only averaged 14 home runs a year and 78 RBI per year so that would mean he is average.
PS 203 stolen bases to only 37 caught stealing...is elite.
Another PS....you aren't going to rack up 100 RBI years batting second as much as Trout did.
If your premise is ONLY that his career will amount to nothing going forward, then yes, you have a point. The other stuff you are saying has ZERO merit.
your post is so full of straw men that I am afraid to read it too close to an open flame.
first of all, when did I say drawing walks was a negative???
I didn't
none of my points were about where in the batting order trout hits or had anything to do with rickey
I believe the vast majority of my posts in this thread were discussing how Trout is not an all time inner circle elite power hitter. Not sure how Brett made it into your post, but he too is yet another of your straw men. I don't think anyone would consider Brett to be an elite inner circle slugger. not sure why you would even bring him up.
as far as stolen bases go, Trout has had a grand total of 60 in the last 5 seasons. that sure is elite. great point. I believe i said trout had very good speed in the beginning of his career but not so much now. you know, the part where he had 143 steals in his first 5 years...
when did I ever mention RBI???
I am waiting...
nice try. i am thinking your entire post has zero merit. maybe I should write zero in ALL CAPS for extra special added emphasis.
why don't you run along home now and let the grown ups talk...
You have mentioned ALL of those things in many different posts throughout these boards, including demonstrating a zero understanding on the value of a base on balls...and have been wrong EACH time you have tried to claim the nonsense you continue to believe.
You are in above your head....so if you actually are a grown up, have mercy.
You are actually one of the people that believe striking out is worse than hitting into a double play...so there is that.
Saying your nonsense about "letting the adults talk," please. I have more baseball knowledge than you on my little finger than you do in your entire existence...and I can run you into the ground in athletic endeavors, so please, keep enlightening me with your fallacies. I will sit back and enjoy.
wow. we have a real live internet tough guy here. a keyboard warrior in the flesh.
I am so impressed at your incredible athletic endeavors. I am sure they are vast and amazing. as I am sure all others here on the boards are as well.
your athletic prowess sure does add credibility to your otherworldly debating skills.
you must have a really big little finger huh...
with the thinly veiled insults and failure to address any actual points, I am beginning to wonder if this is actually dallas' burner account.
you do realize the optics when one stops debating and starts relying on flexing right...
I will tell you that I didn't realize until right now how comfortable it is living in your head. to remember different things I said in other threads and how much they bother you and to bring them into other threads...
your a treat
Hence why you first said, "let the grown ups talk," you fool. Everything you just said points directly at you pal. You lost right there by your own words. Good try.
Tell me again how striking out is worse than hitting into a double play.
straw man.
why don't you go finish your homework. you are out of your depth here.
I like to imagine you are sitting at your desktop waiting with bated breath and white knuckles for me to post a reply.
waiting with such great antici
pation.
Tell me again how a strikeout is worse than hitting into a double play.
Then tell me why Trout is not elite because one year(this year) he had a better teammate. Is that similar to Jim Rice being the third best outfielder on is own team?
straw man.
you know what, I really like it here. In fact, I am going to sign the lease and move in.
Right into your head.
The furniture, appliances, everything. the whole deal.
apparently, you also have really big fingers, I can move all of my baseball knowledge right into your pinky finger. that way it wont take up any unnecessary space in your head so you can remember all of your elite athletic accomplishments and tell all of us here on CU the stories of your elite athletic prowess.
this is going to be so much fun.
Nah, its just that some of the most ridiculous things said are easy to remember. When you took the stance that striking out is worse than hitting into double plays, that stands tall amongst the many fallacies(that you continue to promote).
Explain again why striking out is worse than hitting into a double play.
straw man.
you do understand what a straw man argument is, right? I mean you could run me into the ground with your athletic endeavors so you must be really really smart.
maybe you thought I was talking about Darryl Strawberry.
by the way, is the first of the month ok for rent? I wouldn't want to be late...
You would have been better off talking about the Straw man instead of showing your baseball ignorance by believing that striking out is worse than hitting into a double play.
Are you the same guy that said if he were the manager that he would bench Willie Mays in the World Series in favor of Lenny Dykstra because Dykstra has better World Series numbers??
@craig44 said:
the reason i mentioned BB is because he is better at drawing walks than slugging. he has led his league 4 times in obp, 3 times in slugging. yes, he is lower on the all time OBP list, but more dominant against his peers.
In the future, the way to express that thought in the English language is "Trout is among the greatest of all time at both slugging and getting on base, but he is slightly better at getting on base, including taking walks, than he is at slugging". What makes absolutely zero sense, if you are trying to express that thought, is to mention walks and his fielding position, and not acknowledge that he is also one of the greatest sluggers of all time. Because to express it that way allows for only two possibilities: (1) you knew Trout was an epic slugger but chose to hide it to make a very different point than the one you now claim you were trying to make, or (2) you didn't know how great a slugger Trout was, in which case you shouldn't be surprised when someone sets you straight.
In any event, Trout's OPS+ of 176 is comprised of two pieces: 1.33 for OBP and 1.43 for slugging. So, granting that your highness was trying to make the point you claim to have been trying to make, the point you were trying to make was incorrect. Trout is better than league average in slugging by a greater margin than he is better than league average at OBP.
lets baby step you through this again.
Trout is NOT one of the very greatest sluggers in history.
wouldnt you think that one of the very greatest sluggers of all time would also be the greatest, or at least one of the very greatest sluggers of his own time?
how many times has Trout led his league in 2b, 3b or HR?
let me answer that one for you... 0. thats right. this all time great slugger has never even led his own peers in 2b, 3b or HR.
I am so sorry you cant seem to grasp this fact, but, you know what they say about some peoples ability to reason and wet paper bags...
You also dont seem to understand the concept of positional adjustment when it comes to WAR.
dont worry, I am patient. we will get you through this.
CF is considered a more "important" position when it comes to WAR. therefore, in the WAR calculation, those who play CF (and C, SS, 2B, 3B) get an extra added bump for playing that position. those who play other positions: LF, RF, 1B, DH get neged for playing those positions. Trout has played CF for i believe his entire career (not particularly well I may add) so he gets that positional bump when it comes to the WAR calculation. from here on out, when he is playing LF then 1b then dh, he will no longer be getting that positive positional adjustment. truth be told, he probably shouldnt have been playing CF for the last few seasons due to ineffectiveness and injury risk.
So... much of Trouts "shine" comes from gaudy WAR numbers. I focused on BB and positional adjustment as those are the two things trout seems to be all time great at and it is reflected in his WAR totals.
you seem to believe that a player who has never led his league in 2b, 3b or HR is one of the "all time great" sluggers, though he cant seem to lead his very own peers in one of the power categories.
there, hows that. i tried to give you the 3rd grade version. if it is still a little tough to understand you can make an appointment for after school and we can try again.
If you are going to simply ignore the percentages and apply those standards to other elite HOFers, then do that to someone like George Brett.
Per your method, through age 29 George Brett averaged 14 home runs and 78 RBI PER YEAR(not counting his brief first year). So by YOUR method, George Brett is awful and not even a HOFer.
I would like for you to explain how drawing walks is a negative when he has batted 2nd for the majority of his career plate appearances, and then batted third and even many times in the leadoff position...and then tell me how Rickey Henderson is the best all time lead off hitter by virtue of his elite on base percentage and somehow Trout's walks are a negative batting second??
Through age 29 Mike Trout has a better on base percentage than Rickey Henderson( .419 to .398) and a better slugging percentage than George Brett(by a mile) and the SAME slugging percentage as Willie Mays through same age.
Those are all inner circle....Brett really isn't inner circle(but if you read these boards he was God), and Brett is absolutely dwarfed in slugging by Trout...and in YOUR method Brett only averaged 14 home runs a year and 78 RBI per year so that would mean he is average.
PS 203 stolen bases to only 37 caught stealing...is elite.
Another PS....you aren't going to rack up 100 RBI years batting second as much as Trout did.
If your premise is ONLY that his career will amount to nothing going forward, then yes, you have a point. The other stuff you are saying has ZERO merit.
your post is so full of straw men that I am afraid to read it too close to an open flame.
first of all, when did I say drawing walks was a negative???
I didn't
none of my points were about where in the batting order trout hits or had anything to do with rickey
I believe the vast majority of my posts in this thread were discussing how Trout is not an all time inner circle elite power hitter. Not sure how Brett made it into your post, but he too is yet another of your straw men. I don't think anyone would consider Brett to be an elite inner circle slugger. not sure why you would even bring him up.
as far as stolen bases go, Trout has had a grand total of 60 in the last 5 seasons. that sure is elite. great point. I believe i said trout had very good speed in the beginning of his career but not so much now. you know, the part where he had 143 steals in his first 5 years...
when did I ever mention RBI???
I am waiting...
nice try. i am thinking your entire post has zero merit. maybe I should write zero in ALL CAPS for extra special added emphasis.
why don't you run along home now and let the grown ups talk...
You have mentioned ALL of those things in many different posts throughout these boards, including demonstrating a zero understanding on the value of a base on balls...and have been wrong EACH time you have tried to claim the nonsense you continue to believe.
You are in above your head....so if you actually are a grown up, have mercy.
You are actually one of the people that believe striking out is worse than hitting into a double play...so there is that.
Saying your nonsense about "letting the adults talk," please. I have more baseball knowledge than you on my little finger than you do in your entire existence...and I can run you into the ground in athletic endeavors, so please, keep enlightening me with your fallacies. I will sit back and enjoy.
wow. we have a real live internet tough guy here. a keyboard warrior in the flesh.
I am so impressed at your incredible athletic endeavors. I am sure they are vast and amazing. as I am sure all others here on the boards are as well.
your athletic prowess sure does add credibility to your otherworldly debating skills.
you must have a really big little finger huh...
with the thinly veiled insults and failure to address any actual points, I am beginning to wonder if this is actually dallas' burner account.
you do realize the optics when one stops debating and starts relying on flexing right...
I will tell you that I didn't realize until right now how comfortable it is living in your head. to remember different things I said in other threads and how much they bother you and to bring them into other threads...
your a treat
Hence why you first said, "let the grown ups talk," you fool. Everything you just said points directly at you pal. You lost right there by your own words. Good try.
Tell me again how striking out is worse than hitting into a double play.
straw man.
why don't you go finish your homework. you are out of your depth here.
I like to imagine you are sitting at your desktop waiting with bated breath and white knuckles for me to post a reply.
waiting with such great antici
pation.
Tell me again how a strikeout is worse than hitting into a double play.
Then tell me why Trout is not elite because one year(this year) he had a better teammate. Is that similar to Jim Rice being the third best outfielder on is own team?
straw man.
you know what, I really like it here. In fact, I am going to sign the lease and move in.
Right into your head.
The furniture, appliances, everything. the whole deal.
apparently, you also have really big fingers, I can move all of my baseball knowledge right into your pinky finger. that way it wont take up any unnecessary space in your head so you can remember all of your elite athletic accomplishments and tell all of us here on CU the stories of your elite athletic prowess.
this is going to be so much fun.
Nah, its just that some of the most ridiculous things said are easy to remember. When you took the stance that striking out is worse than hitting into double plays, that stands tall amongst the many fallacies(that you continue to promote).
Explain again why striking out is worse than hitting into a double play.
straw man.
you do understand what a straw man argument is, right? I mean you could run me into the ground with your athletic endeavors so you must be really really smart.
maybe you thought I was talking about Darryl Strawberry.
by the way, is the first of the month ok for rent? I wouldn't want to be late...
You would have been better off talking about the Straw man instead of showing your baseball ignorance by believing that striking out is worse than hitting into a double play.
Are you the same guy that said if he were the manager that he would bench Willie Mays in the World Series in favor of Lenny Dykstra because Dykstra has better World Series numbers??
Straw man
you seem to have a really short attention span. I will remind you, the conversation has been about trouts status as an all time elite slugger. guess you forgot, what with waiting by the computer hoping I will post again and all.
nope, never mentioned anything about Nails and Mays. you must be slipping.
don't worry though. Im all moved in. I have some art being shipped in to class the place up. I am sitting in my easy chair thinking about how many HR crowns Mike Trout has.
I sure hope you can tell us all some more stories about your elite athletic endeavors.
but, I really shouldn't keep you up anymore. it is a school night and I don't want you to be late to first period. the bell rings at 8 sharp.
@craig44 said:
the reason i mentioned BB is because he is better at drawing walks than slugging. he has led his league 4 times in obp, 3 times in slugging. yes, he is lower on the all time OBP list, but more dominant against his peers.
In the future, the way to express that thought in the English language is "Trout is among the greatest of all time at both slugging and getting on base, but he is slightly better at getting on base, including taking walks, than he is at slugging". What makes absolutely zero sense, if you are trying to express that thought, is to mention walks and his fielding position, and not acknowledge that he is also one of the greatest sluggers of all time. Because to express it that way allows for only two possibilities: (1) you knew Trout was an epic slugger but chose to hide it to make a very different point than the one you now claim you were trying to make, or (2) you didn't know how great a slugger Trout was, in which case you shouldn't be surprised when someone sets you straight.
In any event, Trout's OPS+ of 176 is comprised of two pieces: 1.33 for OBP and 1.43 for slugging. So, granting that your highness was trying to make the point you claim to have been trying to make, the point you were trying to make was incorrect. Trout is better than league average in slugging by a greater margin than he is better than league average at OBP.
lets baby step you through this again.
Trout is NOT one of the very greatest sluggers in history.
wouldnt you think that one of the very greatest sluggers of all time would also be the greatest, or at least one of the very greatest sluggers of his own time?
how many times has Trout led his league in 2b, 3b or HR?
let me answer that one for you... 0. thats right. this all time great slugger has never even led his own peers in 2b, 3b or HR.
I am so sorry you cant seem to grasp this fact, but, you know what they say about some peoples ability to reason and wet paper bags...
You also dont seem to understand the concept of positional adjustment when it comes to WAR.
dont worry, I am patient. we will get you through this.
CF is considered a more "important" position when it comes to WAR. therefore, in the WAR calculation, those who play CF (and C, SS, 2B, 3B) get an extra added bump for playing that position. those who play other positions: LF, RF, 1B, DH get neged for playing those positions. Trout has played CF for i believe his entire career (not particularly well I may add) so he gets that positional bump when it comes to the WAR calculation. from here on out, when he is playing LF then 1b then dh, he will no longer be getting that positive positional adjustment. truth be told, he probably shouldnt have been playing CF for the last few seasons due to ineffectiveness and injury risk.
So... much of Trouts "shine" comes from gaudy WAR numbers. I focused on BB and positional adjustment as those are the two things trout seems to be all time great at and it is reflected in his WAR totals.
you seem to believe that a player who has never led his league in 2b, 3b or HR is one of the "all time great" sluggers, though he cant seem to lead his very own peers in one of the power categories.
there, hows that. i tried to give you the 3rd grade version. if it is still a little tough to understand you can make an appointment for after school and we can try again.
If you are going to simply ignore the percentages and apply those standards to other elite HOFers, then do that to someone like George Brett.
Per your method, through age 29 George Brett averaged 14 home runs and 78 RBI PER YEAR(not counting his brief first year). So by YOUR method, George Brett is awful and not even a HOFer.
I would like for you to explain how drawing walks is a negative when he has batted 2nd for the majority of his career plate appearances, and then batted third and even many times in the leadoff position...and then tell me how Rickey Henderson is the best all time lead off hitter by virtue of his elite on base percentage and somehow Trout's walks are a negative batting second??
Through age 29 Mike Trout has a better on base percentage than Rickey Henderson( .419 to .398) and a better slugging percentage than George Brett(by a mile) and the SAME slugging percentage as Willie Mays through same age.
Those are all inner circle....Brett really isn't inner circle(but if you read these boards he was God), and Brett is absolutely dwarfed in slugging by Trout...and in YOUR method Brett only averaged 14 home runs a year and 78 RBI per year so that would mean he is average.
PS 203 stolen bases to only 37 caught stealing...is elite.
Another PS....you aren't going to rack up 100 RBI years batting second as much as Trout did.
If your premise is ONLY that his career will amount to nothing going forward, then yes, you have a point. The other stuff you are saying has ZERO merit.
your post is so full of straw men that I am afraid to read it too close to an open flame.
first of all, when did I say drawing walks was a negative???
I didn't
none of my points were about where in the batting order trout hits or had anything to do with rickey
I believe the vast majority of my posts in this thread were discussing how Trout is not an all time inner circle elite power hitter. Not sure how Brett made it into your post, but he too is yet another of your straw men. I don't think anyone would consider Brett to be an elite inner circle slugger. not sure why you would even bring him up.
as far as stolen bases go, Trout has had a grand total of 60 in the last 5 seasons. that sure is elite. great point. I believe i said trout had very good speed in the beginning of his career but not so much now. you know, the part where he had 143 steals in his first 5 years...
when did I ever mention RBI???
I am waiting...
nice try. i am thinking your entire post has zero merit. maybe I should write zero in ALL CAPS for extra special added emphasis.
why don't you run along home now and let the grown ups talk...
You have mentioned ALL of those things in many different posts throughout these boards, including demonstrating a zero understanding on the value of a base on balls...and have been wrong EACH time you have tried to claim the nonsense you continue to believe.
You are in above your head....so if you actually are a grown up, have mercy.
You are actually one of the people that believe striking out is worse than hitting into a double play...so there is that.
Saying your nonsense about "letting the adults talk," please. I have more baseball knowledge than you on my little finger than you do in your entire existence...and I can run you into the ground in athletic endeavors, so please, keep enlightening me with your fallacies. I will sit back and enjoy.
wow. we have a real live internet tough guy here. a keyboard warrior in the flesh.
I am so impressed at your incredible athletic endeavors. I am sure they are vast and amazing. as I am sure all others here on the boards are as well.
your athletic prowess sure does add credibility to your otherworldly debating skills.
you must have a really big little finger huh...
with the thinly veiled insults and failure to address any actual points, I am beginning to wonder if this is actually dallas' burner account.
you do realize the optics when one stops debating and starts relying on flexing right...
I will tell you that I didn't realize until right now how comfortable it is living in your head. to remember different things I said in other threads and how much they bother you and to bring them into other threads...
your a treat
Hence why you first said, "let the grown ups talk," you fool. Everything you just said points directly at you pal. You lost right there by your own words. Good try.
Tell me again how striking out is worse than hitting into a double play.
straw man.
why don't you go finish your homework. you are out of your depth here.
I like to imagine you are sitting at your desktop waiting with bated breath and white knuckles for me to post a reply.
waiting with such great antici
pation.
Tell me again how a strikeout is worse than hitting into a double play.
Then tell me why Trout is not elite because one year(this year) he had a better teammate. Is that similar to Jim Rice being the third best outfielder on is own team?
straw man.
you know what, I really like it here. In fact, I am going to sign the lease and move in.
Right into your head.
The furniture, appliances, everything. the whole deal.
apparently, you also have really big fingers, I can move all of my baseball knowledge right into your pinky finger. that way it wont take up any unnecessary space in your head so you can remember all of your elite athletic accomplishments and tell all of us here on CU the stories of your elite athletic prowess.
this is going to be so much fun.
Nah, its just that some of the most ridiculous things said are easy to remember. When you took the stance that striking out is worse than hitting into double plays, that stands tall amongst the many fallacies(that you continue to promote).
Explain again why striking out is worse than hitting into a double play.
straw man.
you do understand what a straw man argument is, right? I mean you could run me into the ground with your athletic endeavors so you must be really really smart.
maybe you thought I was talking about Darryl Strawberry.
by the way, is the first of the month ok for rent? I wouldn't want to be late...
You would have been better off talking about the Straw man instead of showing your baseball ignorance by believing that striking out is worse than hitting into a double play.
Are you the same guy that said if he were the manager that he would bench Willie Mays in the World Series in favor of Lenny Dykstra because Dykstra has better World Series numbers??
Straw man
you seem to have a really short attention span. I will remind you, the conversation has been about trouts status as an all time elite slugger. guess you forgot, what with waiting by the computer hoping I will post again and all.
nope, never mentioned anything about Nails and Mays. you must be slipping.
don't worry though. Im all moved in. I have some art being shipped in to class the place up. I am sitting in my easy chair thinking about how many HR crowns Mike Trout has.
I sure hope you can tell us all some more stories about your elite athletic endeavors.
but, I really shouldn't keep you up anymore. it is a school night and I don't want you to be late to first period. the bell rings at 8 sharp.
Your premise that striking out being worse than hitting into a double plays does pertain to Trout's all time greatness.
Your belief that having Lenny Dykstra in the World Series over Willie Mays also pertains to Trout as some people have mentioned no post season greatness for Trout. If that wasn't you who would bench Mays for Dykstra, then maybe it was YOUR burner account?_
I feel I do owe you a fee though. Not for rent, but for entertainment. I could rent one of the old Three Stooges movies or pay the fee to you for the same level of your baseball analysis.
This is a great reading thread. I remember listening to my dad and a friend arguing about Joe DiMaggio vs. Ted Williams. Then growing up in my younger years it was Mantle vs. Mays. Though there was no WAR, or even slugging and On base percentage that was debated, it was who was better and who compared with Ruth or Cobb. There are 3 types of lies....Lies, Damn lies, and statistics. I have not watched Trout play much since he's on the west coast. But the same arguing reads just like (almost exactly like I heard about Mantle. (what he could have been if not for his knee, not stealing bases, striking out etc) but what Mantle had was IT. It to more people. Big , friendly white guy that played in New York. plus the name that flowed from the lips . Only time and the fickleness of the public in the future will determine if Trout has IT or not. It will not be just stats.
Misses the point that in terms of MVP votes and JAWS and rate stats Trout is ALREADY better than Griffey was. Also misses the point that Griffey was essentially through after his first year in Cincinnati. 2005 was by no means a special year for Griffey, and the rest of his post-2000 career was just bad.
Also, the contract Trout has with the Angels precludes him signing with the Yankees for a VERY long time.
BTW, if Griffey had retired in 2000 rather than report to the Reds he would (still) have been an inner circle HoFer. Young Griffey was really that good. Young Trout is just better.
Sorry Griffey was an RBI and HR machine plus 11 straight Gold Gloves and made a dismal Mariners team into a playoff bound team every year!! No way is younger Trout better sorry I will disagree on that one and you can throw JAWs and OPS at me all day long and will not convince me of anything!! I have no idea what Griffeys JAWs or WARs or OPS are and don’t care he was a generational 5 tool talent that played a somewhat boring game to the masses and gave it life and character!!
I'll leave defense out of this because I don't want to be confusing. Griffey couldn't have been a generational talent because he was never even the best player on his team. He was second best until 1994 and then he became third best. I don't mean that he didn't have the best years, just that on a career basis both Johnson and Rodriguez were better than Griffey. For his last six years in Seattle there were three HoFers on the team, and the best player (by far) on the team is not enshrined. It's hard to say that a team with Rodriguez, Martinez, and Johnson would have been dismal.
If I'm not mistaken, Griffey's Mariners, with a tremendous supporting cast, managed to win a grand total of one more postseason series than Trout's Angels. At this point Pujols has been better than Trout, but he left almost all his ability in St. Louis. I don't see any other lock, or even likely, HoFer at this point.
Griffey was likely more exciting, and his rookie card is far more iconic (only rookie card among the big three iconic baseball cards), but he had far better teammates. Young Trout is a vastly better player.
It is absolutely amazing to me that discussions like this must somehow devolve into personal attacks. There is no reason for it. If people start getting this nasty over talks about a ballplayer, I'd hate to see what happens when the subject is something really important.
Todd Tobias - Grateful Collector - I focus on autographed American Football League sets, Fleer & Topps, 1960-1969, and lacrosse cards.
Comments
As a fan, or if I was building a team I would want consistently very good. If I am a sports card investor, if I am wondering about long term values - then elite years are what moves the needle. Leading the league is something, or winning titles.
I agree. He is a fantastic player. Up to age 30, one of the top 10 ever, based on stats. For a $3 million dollar card though, he should have won several world series's and been WS MVP a couple of times by now. Collectors love winners!!
If you are going to simply ignore the percentages and apply those standards to other elite HOFers, then do that to someone like George Brett.
Per your method, through age 29 George Brett averaged 14 home runs and 78 RBI PER YEAR(not counting his brief first year). So by YOUR method, George Brett is awful and not even a HOFer.
I would like for you to explain how drawing walks is a negative when he has batted 2nd for the majority of his career plate appearances, and then batted third and even many times in the leadoff position...and then tell me how Rickey Henderson is the best all time lead off hitter by virtue of his elite on base percentage and somehow Trout's walks are a negative batting second??
Through age 29 Mike Trout has a better on base percentage than Rickey Henderson( .419 to .398) and a better slugging percentage than George Brett(by a mile) and the SAME slugging percentage as Willie Mays through same age.
Those are all inner circle....Brett really isn't inner circle(but if you read these boards he was God), and Brett is absolutely dwarfed in slugging by Trout...and in YOUR method Brett only averaged 14 home runs a year and 78 RBI per year so that would mean he is average.
PS 203 stolen bases to only 37 caught stealing...is elite.
Another PS....you aren't going to rack up 100 RBI years batting second as much as Trout did.
If your premise is ONLY that his career will amount to nothing going forward, then yes, you have a point. The other stuff you are saying has ZERO merit.
Craig44,
You don't lead the entire major leagues for a decade and have the 12th highest slugging percentage of all time without being a great slugger. You are ignoring the actual statistic that measures slugging when attempting to make the argument that Trout is not an all time great slugger. You realize that makes you look like you don't actually know what you are talking about right?
Now an argument can be made that Trout's slugging will decline as he ages but that is speculation (valid as it may be), whereas what he has accomplished through his first 10+ years in the majors is not.
Centauri,
Trout finished top 2 in MVP voting seven times with 3 wins, it doesn't get any more "elite" than that. I think his lack of postseason play and success will cost him in the all time great conversation because very little differentiates the all time greats. That said, for the next 30+ years Trout will be the measuring stick for every great young player, he will have constant hobby buzz because of it.
Robb
Trout is in the top 3 most talented players in baseball, but he's also in the top 3 most fragile players in baseball. The way this calf injury has played out happens a lot with Trout. Injuries that should be a certain amount of time turn into being out way too long. Based on that, I'd say it's very dicey to invest in Trout cards.
I'm afraid Fernando Tatis, JR's career may play out in a similar way. He's injured a lot for a 22 year old. Otherwise investing in Tatis just based on talent is as sure a thing as it gets.
I guess high MVP votes and slugging percentage are super sexy to some people. OTOH, I think players like Vlad and Soto will be more memorable in the coming decades - even if their WAR is lower. People will look back and notice Trout never led the league in anything people really care about.
Now we are talking 600 home runs - think it is unlikely as well - but not too many pages back people were saying he was not on pace for 500!
The people signing the pay checks, and their advisors, care a great deal about those things that Trout has done better than anyone else playing.
As for the average fan and baseball cards, Ozzie Smith never led in anything that "people care about' and Rickey Henderson didn't either....maybe stolen bases is 'cared' about(maybe...because it seems Trout's elite Stolen Base percentage is not cared about)..but nothing else Henderson did was what typical people "care" about...yet they are two extremely popular players to collect.
Except I'm not sure which people you refer to and what "caring about" means....so I guess to take a page from Dallas, that comment doesn't really mean much.
But I have to ask, if you "care" about an RBI, then why wouldn't you care about a "Run scored"???
If you cared about an RBI, then why would you not care about getting on second base when the following hitter fails to drive him in? Getting on second is a key ingredient in the creation of an RBI, isn't it? Shouldn't that scorn go to the guy making the out and failing to drive in the run, while the guy getting on second getting the appreciation he deserves regardless of what the outcome that was out of his control that happens afterwards?
Same for reaching first base. Isn't that the first step in the creation of an RBI(other than a home run of course)...so why is that not valued(getting to first) if you like RBI so much??
I'm enjoying this thread. Back in the 80's and early 90's when I was collecting, I don't remember anyone mentioning WAR.
@craig44 The list of players 10 year span and HR's, kind of odd not to see Hank Aaron's name. No need to respond.
i most certainly wasnt. was talking prewar guys like ruth. but i did have yankee season tickets when i lived in manhattan…primarily for the red sox games. so i agree. go sox! 😉
I think it's interesting to note, and other posters earlier have made the same point, that for all of Trout's getting on base, it doesn't seem to have translated to wins for his team. In the case of Ozzie Smith and Rickey Henderson, both of those guys' skill sets translated into team wins, up to and including multiple post season appearances and World Series wins for their teams. I think Trout is a great player. But his team doesn't seem to have benefited from his skills.
kevin
Rickey wouldn't be Rickey if he didn't own major all-time records. And as for Ozzie - If you are arguing Trout will be about as collectible as Ozzie Smith, even I think that is silly!
It translated into him producing runs for the team. If it didn't translate to wins, then that is because the rest of the teammates didn't do enough to produce runs, or in the in the case of pitchers prevent runs.
By your way of thinking, then you will also eliminate Ted Williams from this discussion since they didn't win anything either and all of his 'stats' didn't translate into enough wins either and not meaningful either. Foolish thinking I know, but that is what you are saying.
As for Henderson, his stolen bases and runs didn't do anything for the A's in his first stint with them...so what you are saying makes zero sense.
Ozzie Smiths contributions did absolutely nothing for San Diego.
Both those guys eventually won because their teammates were outstanding...far better than Trout's. Common sense. At least I though it was common sense
your post is so full of straw men that I am afraid to read it too close to an open flame.
first of all, when did I say drawing walks was a negative???
I didn't
none of my points were about where in the batting order trout hits or had anything to do with rickey
I believe the vast majority of my posts in this thread were discussing how Trout is not an all time inner circle elite power hitter. Not sure how Brett made it into your post, but he too is yet another of your straw men. I don't think anyone would consider Brett to be an elite inner circle slugger. not sure why you would even bring him up.
as far as stolen bases go, Trout has had a grand total of 60 in the last 5 seasons. that sure is elite. great point. I believe i said trout had very good speed in the beginning of his career but not so much now. you know, the part where he had 143 steals in his first 5 years...
when did I ever mention RBI???
I am waiting...
nice try. i am thinking your entire post has zero merit. maybe I should write zero in ALL CAPS for extra special added emphasis.
why don't you run along home now and let the grown ups talk...
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
And you still didn't say anything to dispute what I said. Trout's stolen bases have been completely ignored and many fans "don't care" about stolen bases....and almost no fan knows about defensive assists records, so your point is zero.
In the end, Trout is an all time great up to this point. He produced a better table setting ability than Rickey Henderson with a better on base percentage than him, and an equal Slugging ability to Willie Mays up through their age 29 seasons.
He also stole bases at an 85% clip. Find me how many players have stolen over 200 bases and maintained an 85% success rate.
That trifecta of ability is a feat that very few have been able to do....and he did it while playing centerfield (even if he is now no longer good enough going forward to handle that as he was most of his years for sure).
You have mentioned ALL of those things in many different posts throughout these boards, including demonstrating a zero understanding on the value of a base on balls...and have been wrong EACH time you have tried to claim the nonsense you continue to believe.
You are in above your head....so if you actually are a grown up, have mercy.
You are actually one of the people that believe striking out is worse than hitting into a double play...so there is that.
Saying your nonsense about "letting the adults talk," please. I have more baseball knowledge than you on my little finger than you do in your entire existence...and I can run you into the ground in athletic endeavors, so please, keep enlightening me with your fallacies. I will sit back and enjoy.
I get percentages. I fully understand them. really.
there are percentages and there are results. trout has very nice percentages. elite even. but his actual results are not elite. when you look at what he has actually produced on the baseball field, and not the percentage of times he has done certain things, he is not a top 5 or inner circle HOFer. He has a very good slugging percentage. what he doesn't have are all-time great results.
he has never ever ever ever led his league in HR, 2b or 3b. not once. not in 10 seasons.
he is not an all time slugger if he cannot even once lead his own peers in a power category that is not based on percentage.
I am tire of everyone waxing poetic about how generational Mike Trout is. How he is an all time top 5 player. he isn't even a 5 tool player for crying out loud.
he isn't even the best player on his own team...
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
wow. we have a real live internet tough guy here. a keyboard warrior in the flesh.
I am so impressed at your incredible athletic endeavors. I am sure they are vast and amazing. as I am sure all others here on the boards are as well.
your athletic prowess sure does add credibility to your otherworldly debating skills.
you must have a really big little finger huh...
with the thinly veiled insults and failure to address any actual points, I am beginning to wonder if this is actually dallas' burner account.
you do realize the optics when one stops debating and starts relying on flexing right...
I will tell you that I didn't realize until right now how comfortable it is living in your head. to remember different things I said in other threads and how much they bother you and to bring them into other threads...
your a treat
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Hence why you first said, "let the grown ups talk," you fool. Everything you just said points directly at you pal. You lost right there by your own words. Good try.
Tell me again how striking out is worse than hitting into a double play.
straw man.
why don't you go finish your homework. you are out of your depth here.
I like to imagine you are sitting at your desktop waiting with bated breath and white knuckles for me to post a reply.
waiting with such great antici
pation.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Tell me again how a strikeout is worse than hitting into a double play.
Then tell me why Trout is not elite because one year(this year) he had a better teammate. Is that similar to Jim Rice being the third best outfielder on is own team?
.
.
We need more pictures in this thread. Some Mike Trout postseason highlights.
.
straw man.
you know what, I really like it here. In fact, I am going to sign the lease and move in.
Right into your head.
The furniture, appliances, everything. the whole deal.
apparently, you also have really big fingers, I can move all of my baseball knowledge right into your pinky finger. that way it wont take up any unnecessary space in your head so you can remember all of your elite athletic accomplishments and tell all of us here on CU the stories of your elite athletic prowess.
this is going to be so much fun.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
you are so right. we needed some pictures.
I was wondering if you would mind framing up one of those for me. nothing fancy. you see, I just moved into a new place and the decor is a little sparse....
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Nah, its just that some of the most ridiculous things said are easy to remember. When you took the stance that striking out is worse than hitting into double plays, that stands tall amongst the many fallacies(that you continue to promote).
Explain again why striking out is worse than hitting into a double play.
straw man.
you do understand what a straw man argument is, right? I mean you could run me into the ground with your athletic endeavors so you must be really really smart.
maybe you thought I was talking about Darryl Strawberry.
by the way, is the first of the month ok for rent? I wouldn't want to be late...
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
You would have been better off talking about the Straw man instead of showing your baseball ignorance by believing that striking out is worse than hitting into a double play.
Are you the same guy that said if he were the manager that he would bench Willie Mays in the World Series in favor of Lenny Dykstra because Dykstra has better World Series numbers??
Straw man
you seem to have a really short attention span. I will remind you, the conversation has been about trouts status as an all time elite slugger. guess you forgot, what with waiting by the computer hoping I will post again and all.
nope, never mentioned anything about Nails and Mays. you must be slipping.
don't worry though. Im all moved in. I have some art being shipped in to class the place up. I am sitting in my easy chair thinking about how many HR crowns Mike Trout has.
I sure hope you can tell us all some more stories about your elite athletic endeavors.
but, I really shouldn't keep you up anymore. it is a school night and I don't want you to be late to first period. the bell rings at 8 sharp.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Your premise that striking out being worse than hitting into a double plays does pertain to Trout's all time greatness.
Your belief that having Lenny Dykstra in the World Series over Willie Mays also pertains to Trout as some people have mentioned no post season greatness for Trout. If that wasn't you who would bench Mays for Dykstra, then maybe it was YOUR burner account?_
I feel I do owe you a fee though. Not for rent, but for entertainment. I could rent one of the old Three Stooges movies or pay the fee to you for the same level of your baseball analysis.
Trout enjoys playing call of duty during the season..... Nuff said
This is a great reading thread. I remember listening to my dad and a friend arguing about Joe DiMaggio vs. Ted Williams. Then growing up in my younger years it was Mantle vs. Mays. Though there was no WAR, or even slugging and On base percentage that was debated, it was who was better and who compared with Ruth or Cobb. There are 3 types of lies....Lies, Damn lies, and statistics. I have not watched Trout play much since he's on the west coast. But the same arguing reads just like (almost exactly like I heard about Mantle. (what he could have been if not for his knee, not stealing bases, striking out etc) but what Mantle had was IT. It to more people. Big , friendly white guy that played in New York. plus the name that flowed from the lips . Only time and the fickleness of the public in the future will determine if Trout has IT or not. It will not be just stats.
I'll leave defense out of this because I don't want to be confusing. Griffey couldn't have been a generational talent because he was never even the best player on his team. He was second best until 1994 and then he became third best. I don't mean that he didn't have the best years, just that on a career basis both Johnson and Rodriguez were better than Griffey. For his last six years in Seattle there were three HoFers on the team, and the best player (by far) on the team is not enshrined. It's hard to say that a team with Rodriguez, Martinez, and Johnson would have been dismal.
If I'm not mistaken, Griffey's Mariners, with a tremendous supporting cast, managed to win a grand total of one more postseason series than Trout's Angels. At this point Pujols has been better than Trout, but he left almost all his ability in St. Louis. I don't see any other lock, or even likely, HoFer at this point.
Griffey was likely more exciting, and his rookie card is far more iconic (only rookie card among the big three iconic baseball cards), but he had far better teammates. Young Trout is a vastly better player.
It is absolutely amazing to me that discussions like this must somehow devolve into personal attacks. There is no reason for it. If people start getting this nasty over talks about a ballplayer, I'd hate to see what happens when the subject is something really important.