At the end of the day, getting into the Hall of Fame isn't a math problem, despite many efforts to make it so. Trout is popular, as his card prices demonstrate. He has really solid career numbers, and if he can even have decent numbers over the next 3-4 years he will get over a couple of major milestones. He (like Ernie Banks, Griffey Jr., etc.) hasn't had the chance to perform in the World Series. One playoff series is hardly sufficient to say he "doesn't perform in the postseason." It is absolutely true that he doesn't have the storybook moment, but he does have both strong career numbers plus popularity. That combo will absolutely get him into the HOF, regardless of his lack of a WS title. For guys going into the HOF in the first year or two of eligibility, it sure seems that the stats + popularity = HOF is as simple an explanation as it can get. Trout will go in, quickly.
kevin
@olb31 said:
a 2009 bowman chrome orange numbered to 25 bgs 9.5 auto 10 trout sold for $54,000. there are 3 mickey mantle cards that have sold for more the last 3 months on ebay all 1952 Topps. Both have won 3 mvp's. Mickey won 7 WS Championships, trout is 0-3 in the playoffs. Mickey hit 18 WS HR's. Most ever.
In no circumstance should any Mike Trout card sell for anywhere near a 1952 Topps Mantle decent 1 and above.. No way...Trout isn't 25% the player Randy Johnson was, yet his cards sell for Mickey mantle prices. That's just freaking stupid.
No disagreement there on the card price approximating Mantle prices. But, card price does has nothing to do with HOF worthiness.
Disagree on Trout being less than 25% the player Randy Johnson was. Randy > Trout, but you're drastically discounting Trout.
Trout started off hot. by 28 he looked average. Randy didn't come into his own until he was nearly 26 and played until he was 43. I mean the dude shredded a bird, who can do that? I loved watching Randy pitch. Nolan, Randy and Roger are three of kind. just plain studs. All played a long time.
As far as WAR goes, it's a metric and I like metrics. Maybe we shouldn't say it means a lot more than other metrics, but it does measure ability to some degree. I am a big fan of success. Eli M was a 500 QB for his career, but when it came time to beat Tom Brady, he did it twice. He showed up when it mattered and got his team to the end. Trout is just the opposite of Eli M. great regular season success and zilch when it mattered.
Trout hasn't had enough opportunities in the postseason for me to make a judgement. Otherwise I would have to look at Bonds and say things like... He didn't get the job done in the post-season until 2002.
I wasn't really pushing WAR for any particular reason. I agree with anyone that says there is room for improvement in WAR. But for my point, it could have been pink bows or pet rocks. I was just saying.... Look at all these players with pink bows... They're all in the HOF... with the exception of these guys who also have pet rocks... They're not because having a pet rock is bad. But a pink bow is good and Trout sure looks like he has a pink bow. See? When it's not WAR, it's fine. If Trout doesn't get into the HOF, please accept my "You were right", but I was just trying to answer your question honestly.
WAR.
Huh.
Good God Y'all.
Stats + popularity is also a good way to look at it.
Don't give up on WAR. It will continue getting better, but it's not an answer... only an indicator, even when it appears to also be an answer.
@olb31 said:
a 2009 bowman chrome orange numbered to 25 bgs 9.5 auto 10 trout sold for $54,000. there are 3 mickey mantle cards that have sold for more the last 3 months on ebay all 1952 Topps. Both have won 3 mvp's. Mickey won 7 WS Championships, trout is 0-3 in the playoffs. Mickey hit 18 WS HR's. Most ever.
In no circumstance should any Mike Trout card sell for anywhere near a 1952 Topps Mantle decent 1 and above.. No way...Trout isn't 25% the player Randy Johnson was, yet his cards sell for Mickey mantle prices. That's just freaking stupid.
No disagreement there on the card price approximating Mantle prices. But, card price does has nothing to do with HOF worthiness.
Disagree on Trout being less than 25% the player Randy Johnson was. Randy > Trout, but you're drastically discounting Trout.
Trout started off hot. by 28 he looked average. Randy didn't come into his own until he was nearly 26 and played until he was 43. I mean the dude shredded a bird, who can do that? I loved watching Randy pitch. Nolan, Randy and Roger are three of kind. just plain studs. All played a long time.
As far as WAR goes, it's a metric and I like metrics. Maybe we shouldn't say it means a lot more than other metrics, but it does measure ability to some degree. I am a big fan of success. Eli M was a 500 QB for his career, but when it came time to beat Tom Brady, he did it twice. He showed up when it mattered and got his team to the end. Trout is just the opposite of Eli M. great regular season success and zilch when it mattered.
Yeah, it that will still not matter when it comes to him getting in. It's a small hiccup in an otherwise remarkable set of work. Same argument can be said about your guy Kershaw, but nobody is going to hold his post season failures against him when he gets in. He's deserving dispite his post season failures, even if you eliminate the Covid championship where he finally pitched well.
Although post season matters, I feel baseball is the sport it matters least when considering HOF qualifications. Eli Manning will get in the football HOF because of defeating Brady twice. Joe Namath does not belong in the HOF based on his numbers or record, but he's in because of what they did to the Colts in the super bowl. In basketball, you can't have a conversation about all-time greats without people talking about post season success. So, I think using a baseball to football to basketball comparision is apples to oranges.
As far as the argument if Trout should be in the HOF , only the writers decide. Does anyone here have any information or knowledge as to how they or any particular writer would vote?
@CardGeek said:
Are you sure the best pitchers win over time? You don't hear about the great pitchers who don't get any run support.
Just like WAR won't tell you about the guy who gets on base a ton but doesn't get hit in.
Its subjective but for me yeah. The guy with the most wins is who they used to name the award for best pitcher. #2 on the list is Walter Johnson who is arguably the best ever. Then as mentioned, its tough for the more modern guys to play at those levels with wins but you still have Clemens and Maddux at 8 and 9. Some might say Kershaw in the 220s in wins fits right in there with them but I wouldn't. I think winning the game often is important. Playing less I think hurts the resume even if the pitcher played well when they pitched.
In terms of the great pitchers who dont get any run support its hard to find that guy who had bad run support for 17 years. Blyleven maybe. But the pitchers who are good and stick around, the wins add up. The case for bad run support seems relevant for a short period of time. They made the case for Felix Hernandez. But if he stayed at the top of his game and healthy he would have had a lot of wins.
War 8.3 1973 Bobby Grich .251 BA/.373 OBA/.387 SLG / .760 OPS 12 HR 51 rbis
WAR 7.1 2012 Miguel Cabrera .330 BA/ .393 OBA / .606 SLG / .999 OPS 44 HR 139 RBI's Triple Crown, MVP, Silver Slugger, All Star
Yet, people look at that career WAR number as if it tells the whole story of a career. WAR is severely flawed and, at this point, should be disregarded.
Art,
This is kinda the head scratcher I talked about above, but when you break it down to how he is getting it, it starts to make a little more sense even if it is not nearly an absolute.
Grich had a .763 OPS that year. WAR compares his offense to the offensive production of the other 2B in the league. So he is getting a position adjustment. The league average second baseman had a .687 OPS. That would put Grich 11 percent better than the league average second baseman. It would be around 20% better than the league replacement value(approximation here).
Keep in mind that Grich had 702 plate appearances, so he is 20% above replacement value with over 700 plate appearances so he is racking up 'replacement' runs at a high clip there due to his rate above replacement and his sheer amount of plate appearances.
He is being credited with 5.1 wins above his offensive replacement at his position, or about 50 runs.
Defensively Grich led the league in Putouts, Assists, and double plays turned, and games played. Again, he is racking up the runs saved by both rate and volume. 4. wins above replacement defensively
Cabrera is being credited with 7.7 wins above his position offensively....Grich 5.1 wins.
Cabrera is being credited with -.2 runs defensively above his replacement level defensively....Grich 4.0 wins.
So you can see the difference. WAR is saying Cabreras offense(baserunning too don't forget) was 2.6 wins better vs his positional peers as Grich's was vs his. It is vs the positional peers that make the difference. Without that, the gap is much more vast between the two.
The difference really comes in the defense. It is giving Grich a historic defensive season.
Like I said above, the biggest problem WAR has is isolating that defensive number for an individual(from the pitcher and luck on number of easy chances)...which is nearly impossible and a lot of guessing. The positional adjustment can be problematic too, though not as much.
Do you agree that some credit has to be given for defensive ability and some credit also given to being able to play the middle infield position and hit better than a MLB average level?
I'm really trying to understand WAR.
Is what your saying that Grich at 8.3 WAR is not necessarily better than Cabrera at 7.1, because they are not being compared against each other, but guys at their respective positions?
Yes, that is the jist of it. It's estimating the players value based on who typically would be their replacement among the available talent pool of MLB and MiLB.
It depends on a case by case basis. The 8.3 of Grich is higher than the 7.1 of Cabrera...but like I said before, Grich is getting higher because of his defensive contribution being so high. Grich led the league in PO, A, and double plays turned, but there is no way to differentiate if he led those stats because of the pitching staff and simply having more routine balls hit his way, or from it being purely from his defensive ability,
I wouldn't say the word better, but I would say that Cabrera's figure is far more reliable than Grich's due to the fact that defensive measurements are so unreliable.
In a nutshell, if I was starting a team from scratch and we were to replay the 1973 and 2012 teams from scratch, I would take Cabrera's season every single time because I know it is not a product of having more routine ground balls hit his way than his league peers, and he would most likely produce the same regardless of the team(or pitchers on his defense).
As for the OP's obsession with Trout, Trout's war is so high because he was the best offensive player in MLB for eight years and by a good margin, so Trout's war is legit, unlike the Grich singular example above. Maybe a slight boost to being a weak CF his last five years, but he barely played those years any way.
@olb31 said:
a 2009 bowman chrome orange numbered to 25 bgs 9.5 auto 10 trout sold for $54,000. there are 3 mickey mantle cards that have sold for more the last 3 months on ebay all 1952 Topps. Both have won 3 mvp's. Mickey won 7 WS Championships, trout is 0-3 in the playoffs. Mickey hit 18 WS HR's. Most ever.
In no circumstance should any Mike Trout card sell for anywhere near a 1952 Topps Mantle decent 1 and above.. No way...Trout isn't 25% the player Randy Johnson was, yet his cards sell for Mickey mantle prices. That's just freaking stupid.
25% of Randy Johnson? Lol.
I agree that no manufactured rarity should rival the older elite cards, but it doesn't matter what I think. Like Joe Dirt said, its not what you think, its what the consumer thinks. You have the choice to buy those Mantles at a bargain compared to the Trout card, so why are you complaining? You should be happy to get a bargain. Just buy the Mantle cards and be happy.
Again, the market(and baseball world) disagree with your assessments on Trout in every way. You and a few others have a weird obsession and try to use every convoluted argument to discount how good he was.
I have always said that the defensive measurements are more a product of opportunity than skill(assuming a baseline skill of being able to play defense at the MLB at that position). Skill matters...but it matters more to get more routine balls hit your way(in terms of getting a high defensive war).
Grich's defensive war in 1973 is so high because of two reasons, one he got a lot more chances than his league mates and he only made five errors. So he did do something great with the low errors that was not team dependent.
The next year(1974) Grich also led the league in PO, Assists, and Double pays turned...but he made 20 errors so his defensive war wins was only 1.6...a huge difference than the 4.1. Yes that is a monumental difference in baseball terms.
Then in 1975 Grich led the league in all three categories AGAIN, but made 21 errors so his defensive WAR was 2.5.
So in essence his histoirc 1973 season was impressive since he only made 5 errors in all those chances...but his WAR is so high because he got all those chances to begin with.
Heck, look what Dave Johnson did at 2B in 1972 compared to Grich. Behind the same team, Johnson actually had better fielding numbers...hardly something I would expect compared to someone being touted as an all time best candidate 2B defensively.
The team gave Johnson the chances and like 90% of MLB starters he converted them into outs. I have no doubt Johnson would have had the same amount of assists, put outs, and double plays turned that Grich had from 1973-1975.
But you do have to give Grich his props for only 5 errors in 1973.
Zone Rating, which would have been used for 73 season was based on outs / opportunities for balls within their zone, along with play-by-play and other anecdotal information. It's how 1948 SR tells it how it is. It's probably more accurate than it isn't, but it's not precise, if that makes sense. Modern "statcast era" data is much more informative.
@bgr said:
Zone Rating, which would have been used for 73 season was based on outs / opportunities for balls within their zone, along with play-by-play and other anecdotal information. It's how 1948 SR tells it how it is. It's probably more accurate than it isn't, but it's not precise, if that makes sense. Modern "statcast era" data is much more informative.
Yes.
I ask anyone, at what point does defense get credit? How much?
At what point does being able to play middle infield and hit above league average MLB get credit?
It seems the people who completely ignore WAR don't give those aspects ANY credit...but once they do and sit down and work through it like above you can see that it matters more than they think(but not as much as hard WAR defensive figure that WAR spits out says).
War 8.3 1973 Bobby Grich .251 BA/.373 OBA/.387 SLG / .760 OPS 12 HR 51 rbis
WAR 7.1 2012 Miguel Cabrera .330 BA/ .393 OBA / .606 SLG / .999 OPS 44 HR 139 RBI's Triple Crown, MVP, Silver Slugger, All Star
Yet, people look at that career WAR number as if it tells the whole story of a career. WAR is severely flawed and, at this point, should be disregarded.
Art,
This is kinda the head scratcher I talked about above, but when you break it down to how he is getting it, it starts to make a little more sense even if it is not nearly an absolute.
Grich had a .763 OPS that year. WAR compares his offense to the offensive production of the other 2B in the league. So he is getting a position adjustment. The league average second baseman had a .687 OPS. That would put Grich 11 percent better than the league average second baseman. It would be around 20% better than the league replacement value(approximation here).
Keep in mind that Grich had 702 plate appearances, so he is 20% above replacement value with over 700 plate appearances so he is racking up 'replacement' runs at a high clip there due to his rate above replacement and his sheer amount of plate appearances.
He is being credited with 5.1 wins above his offensive replacement at his position, or about 50 runs.
Defensively Grich led the league in Putouts, Assists, and double plays turned, and games played. Again, he is racking up the runs saved by both rate and volume. 4. wins above replacement defensively
Cabrera is being credited with 7.7 wins above his position offensively....Grich 5.1 wins.
Cabrera is being credited with -.2 runs defensively above his replacement level defensively....Grich 4.0 wins.
So you can see the difference. WAR is saying Cabreras offense(baserunning too don't forget) was 2.6 wins better vs his positional peers as Grich's was vs his. It is vs the positional peers that make the difference. Without that, the gap is much more vast between the two.
The difference really comes in the defense. It is giving Grich a historic defensive season.
Like I said above, the biggest problem WAR has is isolating that defensive number for an individual(from the pitcher and luck on number of easy chances)...which is nearly impossible and a lot of guessing. The positional adjustment can be problematic too, though not as much.
Do you agree that some credit has to be given for defensive ability and some credit also given to being able to play the middle infield position and hit better than a MLB average level?
I'm not arguing about how the numbers add up; my argument is that the formula is flawed and overcompensates. This is why I think it's flawed and why I think people put way too much emphasis on WAR.
I have always said that the defensive measurements are more a product of opportunity than skill(assuming a baseline skill of being able to play defense at the MLB at that position). Skill matters...but it matters more to get more routine balls hit your way(in terms of getting a high defensive war).
Grich's defensive war in 1973 is so high because of two reasons, one he got a lot more chances than his league mates and he only made five errors. So he did do something great with the low errors that was not team dependent.
The next year(1974) Grich also led the league in PO, Assists, and Double pays turned...but he made 20 errors so his defensive war wins was only 1.6...a huge difference than the 4.1. Yes that is a monumental difference in baseball terms.
Then in 1975 Grich led the league in all three categories AGAIN, but made 21 errors so his defensive WAR was 2.5.
So in essence his histoirc 1973 season was impressive since he only made 5 errors in all those chances...but his WAR is so high because he got all those chances to begin with.
Heck, look what Dave Johnson did at 2B in 1972 compared to Grich. Behind the same team, Johnson actually had better fielding numbers...hardly something I would expect compared to someone being touted as an all time best candidate 2B defensively.
The team gave Johnson the chances and like 90% of MLB starters he converted them into outs. I have no doubt Johnson would have had the same amount of assists, put outs, and double plays turned that Grich had from 1973-1975.
But you do have to give Grich his props for only 5 errors in 1973.
While I feel Baseballs-Refs weight on Defense is too high, I think it's fair to say Grich had an historic 2B defensive season. Which is something that those (which is most everyone) only looking at offensive numbers simply will not see. It's also difficult to quantify how many runs were actually saved by Grich's nearly flawless 1973 2b Defense
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972) Not even a minute do I buy the whole buh buh buh I'm a man-child japery - Me 2025
I have always said that the defensive measurements are more a product of opportunity than skill(assuming a baseline skill of being able to play defense at the MLB at that position). Skill matters...but it matters more to get more routine balls hit your way(in terms of getting a high defensive war).
Grich's defensive war in 1973 is so high because of two reasons, one he got a lot more chances than his league mates and he only made five errors. So he did do something great with the low errors that was not team dependent.
The next year(1974) Grich also led the league in PO, Assists, and Double pays turned...but he made 20 errors so his defensive war wins was only 1.6...a huge difference than the 4.1. Yes that is a monumental difference in baseball terms.
Then in 1975 Grich led the league in all three categories AGAIN, but made 21 errors so his defensive WAR was 2.5.
So in essence his histoirc 1973 season was impressive since he only made 5 errors in all those chances...but his WAR is so high because he got all those chances to begin with.
Heck, look what Dave Johnson did at 2B in 1972 compared to Grich. Behind the same team, Johnson actually had better fielding numbers...hardly something I would expect compared to someone being touted as an all time best candidate 2B defensively.
The team gave Johnson the chances and like 90% of MLB starters he converted them into outs. I have no doubt Johnson would have had the same amount of assists, put outs, and double plays turned that Grich had from 1973-1975.
But you do have to give Grich his props for only 5 errors in 1973.
While I feel Baseballs-Refs weight on Defense is too high, I think it's fair to say Grich had an historic 2B defensive season. Which is something that those (which is most everyone) only looking at offensive numbers simply will not see. It's also difficult to quantify how many runs were actually saved by Grich's nearly flawless 1973 2b Defense
Good points. He was basically flawless that year. Gotta get some credit for it.
You do realize I was not serious and trying to be clever, based on others' HOF criteria in this thread - I guess it went over your head, hence Picard response.
@CardGeek said:
I believe that is what that means. How am I wrong? Educate me!
When you see Cabrera with a -1.6, that means they would have been better off playing someone else.
miguel cabrera was downright awful his last three years. he going to be a first ballot hall of famer but his last three years he was just collecting a overpaid paycheck. he still was a great player his first twelve years.
The replacement player isn't the best guy available. I believe it's an average replacement model player. I believe everyone is compared against the same average computer modeled player each season.
It's not so much that the team would have been better off with someone else. It's that he was upping up worse than average stats.
The replacement player isn't the best guy available. I believe it's an average replacement model player. I believe everyone is compared against the same average computer modeled player each season.
It's not so much that the team would have been better off with someone else. It's that he was upping up worse than average stats.
The replacement level is a delta below average. Negative WAR would mean his production is that much below replacement level, which is both below, and defined by, the league average at the time of measurement.
There was no way they were getting rid of Cabrera regardless when he was chasing 3000 hits.
2 time ws champ and played in 4. won 3 WS games and pitched in 39 playoff games.
now tell me about Trout.....LOL!!!
So, 3-2 in six starts with a 4.46 ERA in the World Series is good? Also, he only played in 3 WS - he was hurt last year.
Nobody is contesting Trout not having playoff numbers, but it doesn’t matter. Postseason is a factor for consideration, but his lack of will not prevent him from the hall. It takes a whole team to get to the postseason, not just one man.
Madison Bumgarner blows Kershaw out of the water in the post season. 4-0 in four starts with a 0.25 ERA in the World Series, plus a 5 inning save. That is legendary, but he’s not making the HOF. Again, it’s a factor to consider in the whole story.
2 time ws champ and played in 4. won 3 WS games and pitched in 39 playoff games.
now tell me about Trout.....LOL!!!
So, 3-2 in six starts with a 4.46 ERA in the World Series is good? Also, he only played in 3 WS - he was hurt last year.
Nobody is contesting Trout not having playoff numbers, but it doesn’t matter. Postseason is a factor for consideration, but his lack of will not prevent him from the hall. It takes a whole team to get to the postseason, not just one man.
Madison Bumgarner blows Kershaw out of the water in the post season. 4-0 in four starts with a 0.25 ERA in the World Series, plus a 5 inning save. That is legendary, but he’s not making the HOF. Again, it’s a factor to consider in the whole story.
If I am going to pay more for a Mike Trout than a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle, I would expect Trout to have at least half of Mickey's numbers in the playoffs and/or World series. Trout is batting .083 in his playoff history. That is pathetic. And the fact he has only played in a total of 3 playoff games in 15 years is pathetic. 12 out of the 30 teams get to go now, it's not like the 1940's.
As for Kershaw (which you brought up). Being the 5th the winningest playoff pitcher of all-time is pretty darn exceptional. As for last year, he still got a ring, correct? And no one is going out today and buying up a bunch of Madison B rookie cards, that's laughable. Kershaw is one of the best ever, not sure how you don't know that, everyone else does.
Being a Harold Baines HOF or having your card sell for more than Mickey Mantle's rookie are to separate things. Trout is a great player. but he is closer to being Dale Murphy than Mickey Mantle. But someone paid $55,000 for a trout rookie, that just blows my mind unless Mike bought it himself.
2 time ws champ and played in 4. won 3 WS games and pitched in 39 playoff games.
now tell me about Trout.....LOL!!!
So, 3-2 in six starts with a 4.46 ERA in the World Series is good? Also, he only played in 3 WS - he was hurt last year.
Nobody is contesting Trout not having playoff numbers, but it doesn’t matter. Postseason is a factor for consideration, but his lack of will not prevent him from the hall. It takes a whole team to get to the postseason, not just one man.
Madison Bumgarner blows Kershaw out of the water in the post season. 4-0 in four starts with a 0.25 ERA in the World Series, plus a 5 inning save. That is legendary, but he’s not making the HOF. Again, it’s a factor to consider in the whole story.
If I am going to pay more for a Mike Trout than a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle, I would expect Trout to have at least half of Mickey's numbers in the playoffs and/or World series. Trout is batting .083 in his playoff history. That is pathetic. And the fact he has only played in a total of 3 playoff games in 15 years is pathetic. 12 out of the 30 teams get to go now, it's not like the 1940's.
As for Kershaw (which you brought up). Being the 5th the winningest playoff pitcher of all-time is pretty darn exceptional. As for last year, he still got a ring, correct? And no one is going out today and buying up a bunch of Madison B rookie cards, that's laughable. Kershaw is one of the best ever, not sure how you don't know that, everyone else does.
Being a Harold Baines HOF or having your card sell for more than Mickey Mantle's rookie are to separate things. Trout is a great player. but he is closer to being Dale Murphy than Mickey Mantle. But someone paid $55,000 for a trout rookie, that just blows my mind unless Mike bought it himself.
sigh
I think you continue to miss the points:
Card prices have nothing to do with HOF worthiness.
Nobody is contesting Kershaw is HOF or his greatness. I brought him up because his trajectory is simialr to Trout. Several years of dominance - best player at his position, dismantled by injuries in the end.
You cite Kershaw's postseason adequacies, which is only part of the story - doesn't mean Trout's lack thereof is a black mark that prevents his worthiness. Kershaw was fortuante to have the opportunities because he was on good teams. If Kershaw had zero post season appearances, he would still be headed to the hall based on what he's done in his career.
I bring up Bumgarner to show that post season success by itself does not equate to HOF worthiness. Bumgarner > Kershaw in the World Series with similar sample size, but that means nothing in terms of HOF worthiness.
2 time ws champ and played in 4. won 3 WS games and pitched in 39 playoff games.
now tell me about Trout.....LOL!!!
So, 3-2 in six starts with a 4.46 ERA in the World Series is good? Also, he only played in 3 WS - he was hurt last year.
Nobody is contesting Trout not having playoff numbers, but it doesn’t matter. Postseason is a factor for consideration, but his lack of will not prevent him from the hall. It takes a whole team to get to the postseason, not just one man.
Madison Bumgarner blows Kershaw out of the water in the post season. 4-0 in four starts with a 0.25 ERA in the World Series, plus a 5 inning save. That is legendary, but he’s not making the HOF. Again, it’s a factor to consider in the whole story.
If I am going to pay more for a Mike Trout than a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle, I would expect Trout to have at least half of Mickey's numbers in the playoffs and/or World series. Trout is batting .083 in his playoff history. That is pathetic. And the fact he has only played in a total of 3 playoff games in 15 years is pathetic. 12 out of the 30 teams get to go now, it's not like the 1940's.
As for Kershaw (which you brought up). Being the 5th the winningest playoff pitcher of all-time is pretty darn exceptional. As for last year, he still got a ring, correct? And no one is going out today and buying up a bunch of Madison B rookie cards, that's laughable. Kershaw is one of the best ever, not sure how you don't know that, everyone else does.
Being a Harold Baines HOF or having your card sell for more than Mickey Mantle's rookie are to separate things. Trout is a great player. but he is closer to being Dale Murphy than Mickey Mantle. But someone paid $55,000 for a trout rookie, that just blows my mind unless Mike bought it himself.
The ironic thing is you are blasting Trout for a mere 12 at bats in the playoffs, but it is Kershaw who has gained the tag of choking in the playoffs and you are somehow trying to justify his performance.
That there is a text book double standard.
One can even make the case that Trout and Kershaw have very similar careers. Huge prime and then a bunch of partial type seasons.
Per your definition, Kershaw averaged 12 wins a year for his career....hardly sounds HOFis per YOUR defintion,;)
2 time ws champ and played in 4. won 3 WS games and pitched in 39 playoff games.
now tell me about Trout.....LOL!!!
So, 3-2 in six starts with a 4.46 ERA in the World Series is good? Also, he only played in 3 WS - he was hurt last year.
Nobody is contesting Trout not having playoff numbers, but it doesn’t matter. Postseason is a factor for consideration, but his lack of will not prevent him from the hall. It takes a whole team to get to the postseason, not just one man.
Madison Bumgarner blows Kershaw out of the water in the post season. 4-0 in four starts with a 0.25 ERA in the World Series, plus a 5 inning save. That is legendary, but he’s not making the HOF. Again, it’s a factor to consider in the whole story.
If I am going to pay more for a Mike Trout than a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle, I would expect Trout to have at least half of Mickey's numbers in the playoffs and/or World series. Trout is batting .083 in his playoff history. That is pathetic. And the fact he has only played in a total of 3 playoff games in 15 years is pathetic. 12 out of the 30 teams get to go now, it's not like the 1940's.
As for Kershaw (which you brought up). Being the 5th the winningest playoff pitcher of all-time is pretty darn exceptional. As for last year, he still got a ring, correct? And no one is going out today and buying up a bunch of Madison B rookie cards, that's laughable. Kershaw is one of the best ever, not sure how you don't know that, everyone else does.
Being a Harold Baines HOF or having your card sell for more than Mickey Mantle's rookie are to separate things. Trout is a great player. but he is closer to being Dale Murphy than Mickey Mantle. But someone paid $55,000 for a trout rookie, that just blows my mind unless Mike bought it himself.
sigh
I think you continue to miss the points:
Card prices have nothing to do with HOF worthiness.
Nobody is contesting Kershaw is HOF or his greatness. I brought him up because his trajectory is simialr to Trout. Several years of dominance - best player at his position, dismantled by injuries in the end.
You cite Kershaw's postseason adequacies, which is only part of the story - doesn't mean Trout's lack thereof is a black mark that prevents his worthiness. Kershaw was fortuante to have the opportunities because he was on good teams. If Kershaw had zero post season appearances, he would still be headed to the hall based on what he's done in his career.
I bring up Bumgarner to show that post season success by itself does not equate to HOF worthiness. Bumgarner > Kershaw in the World Series with similar sample size, but that means nothing in terms of HOF worthiness.
Hey @olb31 Per your method of evaluation, Kershaw averaged 12 wins a year. Mark Buehrle averaged 13 wins per year(and on a lesser team and lesser organization).
Not to knock Buerhle as he was good...but your definition puts Kershaw and Buerhle in the same team photo.
And since you ignore small samples
Buehrle had a Post Season winning percentage of .667
Kershaw had a post season winning percentage of .500
See how your methods work when bias and convoluted analysis is put to work on everyone?
@CardGeek said:
Why didn't the Angels trade 1 great Trout for like 3 really good guys? So they could have a functional team.
I suspect that Trout's value to the franchise at this point is more than his contract's cost. Also that he wants to stay with the Angels, and he has a no trade clause. But you know this.
2 time ws champ and played in 4. won 3 WS games and pitched in 39 playoff games.
now tell me about Trout.....LOL!!!
So, 3-2 in six starts with a 4.46 ERA in the World Series is good? Also, he only played in 3 WS - he was hurt last year.
Nobody is contesting Trout not having playoff numbers, but it doesn’t matter. Postseason is a factor for consideration, but his lack of will not prevent him from the hall. It takes a whole team to get to the postseason, not just one man.
Madison Bumgarner blows Kershaw out of the water in the post season. 4-0 in four starts with a 0.25 ERA in the World Series, plus a 5 inning save. That is legendary, but he’s not making the HOF. Again, it’s a factor to consider in the whole story.
If I am going to pay more for a Mike Trout than a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle, I would expect Trout to have at least half of Mickey's numbers in the playoffs and/or World series. Trout is batting .083 in his playoff history. That is pathetic. And the fact he has only played in a total of 3 playoff games in 15 years is pathetic. 12 out of the 30 teams get to go now, it's not like the 1940's.
As for Kershaw (which you brought up). Being the 5th the winningest playoff pitcher of all-time is pretty darn exceptional. As for last year, he still got a ring, correct? And no one is going out today and buying up a bunch of Madison B rookie cards, that's laughable. Kershaw is one of the best ever, not sure how you don't know that, everyone else does.
Being a Harold Baines HOF or having your card sell for more than Mickey Mantle's rookie are to separate things. Trout is a great player. but he is closer to being Dale Murphy than Mickey Mantle. But someone paid $55,000 for a trout rookie, that just blows my mind unless Mike bought it himself.
sigh
I think you continue to miss the points:
Card prices have nothing to do with HOF worthiness.
Nobody is contesting Kershaw is HOF or his greatness. I brought him up because his trajectory is simialr to Trout. Several years of dominance - best player at his position, dismantled by injuries in the end.
You cite Kershaw's postseason adequacies, which is only part of the story - doesn't mean Trout's lack thereof is a black mark that prevents his worthiness. Kershaw was fortuante to have the opportunities because he was on good teams. If Kershaw had zero post season appearances, he would still be headed to the hall based on what he's done in his career.
I bring up Bumgarner to show that post season success by itself does not equate to HOF worthiness. Bumgarner > Kershaw in the World Series with similar sample size, but that means nothing in terms of HOF worthiness.
@CardGeek said:
Why didn't the Angels trade 1 great Trout for like 3 really good guys? So they could have a functional team.
Too late. He's past his prime and due a ton of money.
Yeah, I mean years ago. I wasn't following baseball when Trout was doing well. Since I started paying attention again he hasn't been so great.
When I started paying attention to baseball again in 2020, one of my friends came over here and asked me if I knew who Mike Trout was. I had never heard of him. My friend said he was the generational player. The face of baseball.
So, not paying attention to baseball so much from about 2002-2020, I had never heard him mentioned. I watch and read news pretty much every day and have for the past 30 years. I don't usually closely examine the sports section though.
@CardGeek said:
Why didn't the Angels trade 1 great Trout for like 3 really good guys? So they could have a functional team.
Too late. He's past his prime and due a ton of money.
Yeah, I mean years ago. I wasn't following baseball when Trout was doing well. Since I started paying attention again he hasn't been so great.
When I started paying attention to baseball again in 2020, one of my friends came over here and asked me if I knew who Mike Trout was. I had never heard of him. My friend said he was the generational player. The face of baseball.
So, not paying attention to baseball so much from about 2002-2020, I had never heard him mentioned. I watch and read news pretty much every day and have for the past 30 years. I don't usually closely examine the sports section though.
I did not know he had a no trade clause.
In 2019 when he signed his current contract... you know. $430 Million for 12 years is nothing for Trout then. That was hometown discount. 2 MVPs already and it's only a question of how how high he's going to set the bar. After signing that deal he went on to win another MVP in 2019 as well. Obviously they knew it would be a reduction in output but the drop-off and the injuries... The Pujols deal was the one that I think screwed up their WS window there the most. Now $430M is what a guy like Alonso will probably get.
Comments
At the end of the day, getting into the Hall of Fame isn't a math problem, despite many efforts to make it so. Trout is popular, as his card prices demonstrate. He has really solid career numbers, and if he can even have decent numbers over the next 3-4 years he will get over a couple of major milestones. He (like Ernie Banks, Griffey Jr., etc.) hasn't had the chance to perform in the World Series. One playoff series is hardly sufficient to say he "doesn't perform in the postseason." It is absolutely true that he doesn't have the storybook moment, but he does have both strong career numbers plus popularity. That combo will absolutely get him into the HOF, regardless of his lack of a WS title. For guys going into the HOF in the first year or two of eligibility, it sure seems that the stats + popularity = HOF is as simple an explanation as it can get. Trout will go in, quickly.
kevin
Are you sure the best pitchers win over time? You don't hear about the great pitchers who don't get any run support.
Just like WAR won't tell you about the guy who gets on base a ton but doesn't get hit in.
I think you’re confusing ‘runs created’ and ‘runs saved’ within WAR lexicon with the actual runs a player scores.
Trout started off hot. by 28 he looked average. Randy didn't come into his own until he was nearly 26 and played until he was 43. I mean the dude shredded a bird, who can do that? I loved watching Randy pitch. Nolan, Randy and Roger are three of kind. just plain studs. All played a long time.
As far as WAR goes, it's a metric and I like metrics. Maybe we shouldn't say it means a lot more than other metrics, but it does measure ability to some degree. I am a big fan of success. Eli M was a 500 QB for his career, but when it came time to beat Tom Brady, he did it twice. He showed up when it mattered and got his team to the end. Trout is just the opposite of Eli M. great regular season success and zilch when it mattered.
Trout hasn't had enough opportunities in the postseason for me to make a judgement. Otherwise I would have to look at Bonds and say things like... He didn't get the job done in the post-season until 2002.
I wasn't really pushing WAR for any particular reason. I agree with anyone that says there is room for improvement in WAR. But for my point, it could have been pink bows or pet rocks. I was just saying.... Look at all these players with pink bows... They're all in the HOF... with the exception of these guys who also have pet rocks... They're not because having a pet rock is bad. But a pink bow is good and Trout sure looks like he has a pink bow. See? When it's not WAR, it's fine. If Trout doesn't get into the HOF, please accept my "You were right", but I was just trying to answer your question honestly.
WAR.
Huh.
Good God Y'all.
Stats + popularity is also a good way to look at it.
Don't give up on WAR. It will continue getting better, but it's not an answer... only an indicator, even when it appears to also be an answer.
Yeah, it that will still not matter when it comes to him getting in. It's a small hiccup in an otherwise remarkable set of work. Same argument can be said about your guy Kershaw, but nobody is going to hold his post season failures against him when he gets in. He's deserving dispite his post season failures, even if you eliminate the Covid championship where he finally pitched well.
Although post season matters, I feel baseball is the sport it matters least when considering HOF qualifications. Eli Manning will get in the football HOF because of defeating Brady twice. Joe Namath does not belong in the HOF based on his numbers or record, but he's in because of what they did to the Colts in the super bowl. In basketball, you can't have a conversation about all-time greats without people talking about post season success. So, I think using a baseball to football to basketball comparision is apples to oranges.
As far as the argument if Trout should be in the HOF , only the writers decide. Does anyone here have any information or knowledge as to how they or any particular writer would vote?
Its subjective but for me yeah. The guy with the most wins is who they used to name the award for best pitcher. #2 on the list is Walter Johnson who is arguably the best ever. Then as mentioned, its tough for the more modern guys to play at those levels with wins but you still have Clemens and Maddux at 8 and 9. Some might say Kershaw in the 220s in wins fits right in there with them but I wouldn't. I think winning the game often is important. Playing less I think hurts the resume even if the pitcher played well when they pitched.
In terms of the great pitchers who dont get any run support its hard to find that guy who had bad run support for 17 years. Blyleven maybe. But the pitchers who are good and stick around, the wins add up. The case for bad run support seems relevant for a short period of time. They made the case for Felix Hernandez. But if he stayed at the top of his game and healthy he would have had a lot of wins.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/W_career.shtml
Yes, that is the jist of it. It's estimating the players value based on who typically would be their replacement among the available talent pool of MLB and MiLB.
It depends on a case by case basis. The 8.3 of Grich is higher than the 7.1 of Cabrera...but like I said before, Grich is getting higher because of his defensive contribution being so high. Grich led the league in PO, A, and double plays turned, but there is no way to differentiate if he led those stats because of the pitching staff and simply having more routine balls hit his way, or from it being purely from his defensive ability,
I wouldn't say the word better, but I would say that Cabrera's figure is far more reliable than Grich's due to the fact that defensive measurements are so unreliable.
In a nutshell, if I was starting a team from scratch and we were to replay the 1973 and 2012 teams from scratch, I would take Cabrera's season every single time because I know it is not a product of having more routine ground balls hit his way than his league peers, and he would most likely produce the same regardless of the team(or pitchers on his defense).
As for the OP's obsession with Trout, Trout's war is so high because he was the best offensive player in MLB for eight years and by a good margin, so Trout's war is legit, unlike the Grich singular example above. Maybe a slight boost to being a weak CF his last five years, but he barely played those years any way.
25% of Randy Johnson? Lol.
I agree that no manufactured rarity should rival the older elite cards, but it doesn't matter what I think. Like Joe Dirt said, its not what you think, its what the consumer thinks. You have the choice to buy those Mantles at a bargain compared to the Trout card, so why are you complaining? You should be happy to get a bargain. Just buy the Mantle cards and be happy.
Again, the market(and baseball world) disagree with your assessments on Trout in every way. You and a few others have a weird obsession and try to use every convoluted argument to discount how good he was.
@JoeBanzai
I have always said that the defensive measurements are more a product of opportunity than skill(assuming a baseline skill of being able to play defense at the MLB at that position). Skill matters...but it matters more to get more routine balls hit your way(in terms of getting a high defensive war).
Grich's defensive war in 1973 is so high because of two reasons, one he got a lot more chances than his league mates and he only made five errors. So he did do something great with the low errors that was not team dependent.
The next year(1974) Grich also led the league in PO, Assists, and Double pays turned...but he made 20 errors so his defensive war wins was only 1.6...a huge difference than the 4.1. Yes that is a monumental difference in baseball terms.
Then in 1975 Grich led the league in all three categories AGAIN, but made 21 errors so his defensive WAR was 2.5.
So in essence his histoirc 1973 season was impressive since he only made 5 errors in all those chances...but his WAR is so high because he got all those chances to begin with.
Heck, look what Dave Johnson did at 2B in 1972 compared to Grich. Behind the same team, Johnson actually had better fielding numbers...hardly something I would expect compared to someone being touted as an all time best candidate 2B defensively.
The team gave Johnson the chances and like 90% of MLB starters he converted them into outs. I have no doubt Johnson would have had the same amount of assists, put outs, and double plays turned that Grich had from 1973-1975.
But you do have to give Grich his props for only 5 errors in 1973.
Zone Rating, which would have been used for 73 season was based on outs / opportunities for balls within their zone, along with play-by-play and other anecdotal information. It's how 1948 SR tells it how it is. It's probably more accurate than it isn't, but it's not precise, if that makes sense. Modern "statcast era" data is much more informative.
Yes.
I ask anyone, at what point does defense get credit? How much?
At what point does being able to play middle infield and hit above league average MLB get credit?
It seems the people who completely ignore WAR don't give those aspects ANY credit...but once they do and sit down and work through it like above you can see that it matters more than they think(but not as much as hard WAR defensive figure that WAR spits out says).
I'm not arguing about how the numbers add up; my argument is that the formula is flawed and overcompensates. This is why I think it's flawed and why I think people put way too much emphasis on WAR.
This guy really sold during the 1982 ALCS. He shouldn't be in the HOF.
Yount shouldn't be in the HOF?
SERIOUSLY?
While I feel Baseballs-Refs weight on Defense is too high, I think it's fair to say Grich had an historic 2B defensive season. Which is something that those (which is most everyone) only looking at offensive numbers simply will not see. It's also difficult to quantify how many runs were actually saved by Grich's nearly flawless 1973 2b Defense
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Not even a minute do I buy the whole buh buh buh I'm a man-child japery - Me 2025
Good points. He was basically flawless that year. Gotta get some credit for it.
Exactly MY reaction to your post.
If I got it right.
If you decide to sell that Yount let me know.
This thread is a seven-layer guacamole dip.
You do realize I was not serious and trying to be clever, based on others' HOF criteria in this thread - I guess it went over your head, hence Picard response.
miguel cabrera was downright awful his last three years. he going to be a first ballot hall of famer but his last three years he was just collecting a overpaid paycheck. he still was a great player his first twelve years.
I'm sure he sold tickets.
The replacement player isn't the best guy available. I believe it's an average replacement model player. I believe everyone is compared against the same average computer modeled player each season.
It's not so much that the team would have been better off with someone else. It's that he was upping up worse than average stats.
The replacement level is a delta below average. Negative WAR would mean his production is that much below replacement level, which is both below, and defined by, the league average at the time of measurement.
There was no way they were getting rid of Cabrera regardless when he was chasing 3000 hits.
Yeah, that's why he sold tickets.
clayton kershaw stats
best wining % since 1920
fifth most victories in playoff history
2 time ws champ and played in 4. won 3 WS games and pitched in 39 playoff games.
now tell me about Trout.....LOL!!!
So, 3-2 in six starts with a 4.46 ERA in the World Series is good? Also, he only played in 3 WS - he was hurt last year.
Nobody is contesting Trout not having playoff numbers, but it doesn’t matter. Postseason is a factor for consideration, but his lack of will not prevent him from the hall. It takes a whole team to get to the postseason, not just one man.
Madison Bumgarner blows Kershaw out of the water in the post season. 4-0 in four starts with a 0.25 ERA in the World Series, plus a 5 inning save. That is legendary, but he’s not making the HOF. Again, it’s a factor to consider in the whole story.
If I am going to pay more for a Mike Trout than a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle, I would expect Trout to have at least half of Mickey's numbers in the playoffs and/or World series. Trout is batting .083 in his playoff history. That is pathetic. And the fact he has only played in a total of 3 playoff games in 15 years is pathetic. 12 out of the 30 teams get to go now, it's not like the 1940's.
As for Kershaw (which you brought up). Being the 5th the winningest playoff pitcher of all-time is pretty darn exceptional. As for last year, he still got a ring, correct? And no one is going out today and buying up a bunch of Madison B rookie cards, that's laughable. Kershaw is one of the best ever, not sure how you don't know that, everyone else does.
Being a Harold Baines HOF or having your card sell for more than Mickey Mantle's rookie are to separate things. Trout is a great player. but he is closer to being Dale Murphy than Mickey Mantle. But someone paid $55,000 for a trout rookie, that just blows my mind unless Mike bought it himself.
Have you ever written a letter to Mike expressing your thoughts?
sigh
I think you continue to miss the points:
Card prices have nothing to do with HOF worthiness.
Nobody is contesting Kershaw is HOF or his greatness. I brought him up because his trajectory is simialr to Trout. Several years of dominance - best player at his position, dismantled by injuries in the end.
You cite Kershaw's postseason adequacies, which is only part of the story - doesn't mean Trout's lack thereof is a black mark that prevents his worthiness. Kershaw was fortuante to have the opportunities because he was on good teams. If Kershaw had zero post season appearances, he would still be headed to the hall based on what he's done in his career.
I bring up Bumgarner to show that post season success by itself does not equate to HOF worthiness. Bumgarner > Kershaw in the World Series with similar sample size, but that means nothing in terms of HOF worthiness.
The ironic thing is you are blasting Trout for a mere 12 at bats in the playoffs, but it is Kershaw who has gained the tag of choking in the playoffs and you are somehow trying to justify his performance.
That there is a text book double standard.
One can even make the case that Trout and Kershaw have very similar careers. Huge prime and then a bunch of partial type seasons.
Per your definition, Kershaw averaged 12 wins a year for his career....hardly sounds HOFis per YOUR defintion,;)
Great post.
Hey @olb31 Per your method of evaluation, Kershaw averaged 12 wins a year. Mark Buehrle averaged 13 wins per year(and on a lesser team and lesser organization).
Not to knock Buerhle as he was good...but your definition puts Kershaw and Buerhle in the same team photo.
And since you ignore small samples
Buehrle had a Post Season winning percentage of .667
Kershaw had a post season winning percentage of .500
See how your methods work when bias and convoluted analysis is put to work on everyone?
I thought Wins no longer have any meaning in a Pitcher's Record context...!
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Not even a minute do I buy the whole buh buh buh I'm a man-child japery - Me 2025
Why didn't the Angels trade 1 great Trout for like 3 really good guys? So they could have a functional team.
I suspect that Trout's value to the franchise at this point is more than his contract's cost. Also that he wants to stay with the Angels, and he has a no trade clause. But you know this.
They don't really...but the stuff used to attempt to diminish Trout doesn't either...so just using that same method to show a point.
Too late. He's past his prime and due a ton of money.
Thank you, I appreciate it!
Yeah, I mean years ago. I wasn't following baseball when Trout was doing well. Since I started paying attention again he hasn't been so great.
When I started paying attention to baseball again in 2020, one of my friends came over here and asked me if I knew who Mike Trout was. I had never heard of him. My friend said he was the generational player. The face of baseball.
So, not paying attention to baseball so much from about 2002-2020, I had never heard him mentioned. I watch and read news pretty much every day and have for the past 30 years. I don't usually closely examine the sports section though.
I did not know he had a no trade clause.
In 2019 when he signed his current contract... you know. $430 Million for 12 years is nothing for Trout then. That was hometown discount. 2 MVPs already and it's only a question of how how high he's going to set the bar. After signing that deal he went on to win another MVP in 2019 as well. Obviously they knew it would be a reduction in output but the drop-off and the injuries... The Pujols deal was the one that I think screwed up their WS window there the most. Now $430M is what a guy like Alonso will probably get.