NFT: Mike Trout - Can we say this....

Guys like Nicklaus and Norman crushed the wound ball with persimmon clubs. They were better because they ch\rushed their drives by hitting the sweet spot. Give them "twist face" and they'd be right there. Jones could easily be Zack Johnson from a distance perspective only way more consistent.

In comment 14537541 bw in dc said:

Quote:

With the game now fully integrated, the expansion of the game globally, etc, I just can't see how many can say with a straight face that Ruth is still the greatest player.

If that's true, it's just as true that nobody can say anyone was greater than Ruth with a straight face.

Trout- 73.3, 5218 plate appearances
Jeter- 73.2, 12602 plate appearances

(they are both tied at 72.4 in baseball-reference WAR)

Just an incredible pace in what will hopefully be a long career.

In comment 14537278 Milton said:

Quote:

And his ability to play three different infield positions during a year of multiple injuries on the team gives him significant added value. I think a strong argument could be made on his behalf.

.

So is Devers, really look at the kid's numbers.
They are eye popping, what a breakout year at age 22.

player in this century.

This is silly.

In comment 14537359 SchindlersFist said:

Quote:

.

First, that statement is bullshit.

Second - if if it wasn't, look more closely at what Ruth did compared to everyone else during that era. Was anyone else even close to what he could do on the mound AND the plate. During his prime, he hit more home runs in several seasons by himself than 8-10 TEAMS did.

He was head and shoulders above not only everyone else during his ERA, but is rightfully considered one of - if not the - best of all time.

And Ottavino would definitely have not struck out Ruth "every time", lol. Would he have had some success? Sure - even the best players fail 7 of 10 times. But Ruth would have no doubt taken him yard a few times.

Ruth played in an era where players often had jobs in the offseason. Spring training was needed to literally get the players in shape. If he played today, he'd have the same access to training that everyone else did today- as someone above said, he'd look like Trout, etc.

In comment 14538106 Mike in Long Beach said:

Quote:

This is silly.

Mike, come with us into the 21st century. You're using RBI to try to define the greatest player of all-time? A stat that is largely dependent on your teammates ability to get on base in front of you. Now that is silly. Separate team accomplishments from individual in this debate

Trout has also most often hit 2nd in the order, a spot not normally conducive to accumulating RBI

In comment 14538115 Kyle in NY said:

Quote:

In comment 14538106 Mike in Long Beach said: Quote: This is silly. Mike, come with us into the 21st century. You're using RBI to try to define the greatest player of all-time? A stat that is largely dependent on your teammates ability to get on base in front of you. Now that is silly. Separate team accomplishments from individual in this debate

Got it, thanks Kyle. Tell me the stats you've pre-approved.

And btw, that is a strawman argument. I'm not using RBIs solely to define the player. In fact, our only other exchange on this thread was on a completely different statistic. So not sure why you're projecting that when you more than anyone know I'm not focusing on one thing. It's just one of a litany of factors that makes the "best player" silly.

If you want to live and die by WAR, then go ahead. I think there's far more that goes into a player than one stat. That's just me. Once again, we are talking about the best player ever. The guy has driven in 100 runs twice in a 9 year career and has never won a playoff game. That's not keeping him from the HOF, but I don't think you're fully grasping the weight of the crown that is "Best Player Ever." You can't have any gaps, and Trout has plenty.

In comment 14538106 Mike in Long Beach said:

Quote:

This is silly.

So? RBIs are contingent on players getting on base ahead of you. Trout is hitting .346 this year with RISP, with an OPS of 1304.

In comment 14538106 Mike in Long Beach said:

Quote:

This is silly.

You can only drive in runs when guys are on base.

In his career,
RISP: .321/.471/.614 (181 wRC+)

His overall slash line, as well as batting average, OBP, and SLG are all individually higher with RISP than they are with no one on, or with guys on base, generally.

Your complaint about how often he has driven in 100 runs is an indictment of his teammates and of who precedes him in the batting order and says nothing of actual consequence about what he does at the plate.

Hank Aaron, the all-time RBI leader has this RISP slash
.323/.423/.573

And yet, with terrible teammates, but an awesome performance at the plate, Trout is still 9th in RBI since he joined the league in 2011.

The leader in RBI from 2011- present is Edwin Encarnacion

During that span, here is Encarnacion's splits with RISP
.274/.385/.529

Again, compare that with Trout's RISP line of .321/.471/.614

In no world would anyone say that Encarnacion was a better hitter with RISP than Trout.

So what was the cause of Encarnacion leading the league in driving in runs? 1451 plate appearances with RISP compared with only 1165 plate appearances for Trout. Generally, Encarnacion had 400 more plate appearances with men on base than Trout has in the same time span.

In comment 14538124 Mike in Long Beach said:

Quote:

In comment 14538115 Kyle in NY said: Quote: In comment 14538106 Mike in Long Beach said: Quote: This is silly. Mike, come with us into the 21st century. You're using RBI to try to define the greatest player of all-time? A stat that is largely dependent on your teammates ability to get on base in front of you. Now that is silly. Separate team accomplishments from individual in this debate Got it, thanks Kyle. Tell me the stats you've pre-approved. And btw, that is a strawman argument. I'm not using RBIs solely to define the player. In fact, our only other exchange on this thread was on a completely different statistic. So not sure why you're projecting that when you more than anyone know I'm not focusing on one thing. It's just one of a litany of factors that makes the "best player" silly. If you want to live and die by WAR, then go ahead. I think there's far more that goes into a player than one stat. That's just me. Once again, we are talking about the best player ever. The guy has driven in 100 runs twice in a 9 year career and has never won a playoff game. That's not keeping him from the HOF, but I don't think you're fully grasping the weight of the crown that is "Best Player Ever." You can't have any gaps, and Trout has plenty.

And I don't think you're fully grasping the idea that you continue to reference team dependent accomplishments in a debate for greatest individual player of all time. It's pretty simple. Don't get snippy because you made a silly post that has now been picked apart by others besides me.

Based on what he can control, there are almost no gaps in Trout's resume.

Quote:

And I don't think you're fully grasping the idea that you continue to reference team dependent accomplishments in a debate for greatest individual player of all time.

Yikes. So again. Other than WAR. What stats are allowed? Still waiting.

In comment 14538128 bw in dc said:

Quote:

In comment 14538106 Mike in Long Beach said: Quote: This is silly. So? RBIs are contingent on players getting on base ahead of you. Trout is hitting .346 this year with RISP, with an OPS of 1304.

Career .321/.470/.1083 slash line with runners in scoring position. Absurd.

Just about any stat that doesn't rely on the productivity of his teammates. There's plenty to choose from

than a star position player in baseball. At best, he gets up 11% of the time. Any influence he has over what other teammates do at the plate is negligible vis a vis other sports. He can't swing the bat for his teammates. Being on base could help the player up after him, and being a great player could offer some protection for the guy hitting in front of him (though some would argue that notion is a myth).

In the field, if he's good he will play a premier defensive position that sees more action than other parts of the field, but he has no control over where the ball is hit and he still likely only sees a handful of balls a game. He also can't control whether the pitcher performs well.

Star baseball players can't demand the ball and they can't force the action to effectively decide to "take over the game."

Not winning a playoff game has nothing to do with Trout and everything to do with his team.

22 years
156.4 WAR
660 home runs
2062 runs
1903 RBI
338 SB
.302 BA
.384 OBP
.557 SLG
.941 OPS
156 OPS+

Almost 9 years
72.5 WAR
282 home runs
894 runs
746 RBI
199 SB
.306 BA
.419 OBP
.582 SLG
1.001 OPS
176 OPS+

Mays v. Trout
FWIW

In comment 14538146 Beezer said:

Quote:

22 years 156.4 WAR 660 home runs 2062 runs 1903 RBI 338 SB .302 BA .384 OBP .557 SLG .941 OPS 156 OPS+ Almost 9 years 72.5 WAR 282 home runs 894 runs 746 RBI 199 SB .306 BA .419 OBP .582 SLG 1.001 OPS 176 OPS+ Mays v. Trout FWIW

Good stuff. It's always seemed like Trout is the closest to Mays we've seen. He was obviously before my time but from everything we hear, it was a similar experience watching each play.

Trout continues to up the ante each season, getting better when it seems almost impossible to improve on what's come before. He's going to hit 50 home runs this season. It really is a shame his management can't find a way to put a better team around him so we can see him on the big stage more often. Hopefully he doesn't waste away his entire career. He's shown a lot of loyalty

Trout is better at the plate with RISP than he is with no one on base, or than with men on, generally. He hits for better average, gets on base more, and hits for more power.

His rates are not only more productive with RISP than the all-time leader in driving in runs but they blow away his contemporary who leads the league in driving in runs since Trout entered the league.

So, Mike, why do you think Trout has only driven in 100 runs twice in his career? You said it as a critique, so what is the hole in his game causing it?

What I do know is that he entered the league playing at a Hall of Fame "inner circle" level, has not faltered for 9 years, and over that span has been far and away the most dominant player during a time when the sport has never put in more effort mining the globe for talent.

for Mays is pretty amazing when you consider Trout is widely considered the best player in the game today and is racking up MVPs.

Trout would pretty much need to have another 9 years very close to the last 9 to get close to Mays in career WAR.

and then Trout will be 37.

Trout will have seasons 38 - 42 If he plays 22 years) to amass the 12 WAR needed to match Mays, but just that perspective helps not only show how great Trout has been, but also how great he'll need to be to truly be mentioned with the all-time greats. Longevity is a big part of it and tomorrow is guaranteed for no one.

In comment 14538124 Mike in Long Beach said:

Quote:

The guy has never won a playoff game. That's not keeping him from the HOF, but I don't think you're fully grasping the weight of the crown that is "Best Player Ever." You can't have any gaps, and Trout has plenty.

.

Ted Williams never won a WS; using your logic, is that a "gap" in his resume in any discussion for him to be considered GOAT?

Looking at his baseball-reference page, Mays accumulated a significant amount of defensive WAR in his career (18.2). Which, going back to the earlier points, I really have no idea how they can quantify that from the 1950s and 60s. Not taking anything away from Willie, but that got me thinking.

Still though, Trout will need the longevity to be near the top of some of these lists. He seems capable but who knows how aging will affect him. But he's certainly on a pace to be in the conversation whether or not the team around him ever improves.
Link - ( New Window )

Don't have a good answer now.

Speedy. Ted Williams is the classic example here and it's my opinion that it's not a fair comparison. For a few reasons.

1) I didn't say anything about having to win the World Series. I said a playoff game. Ted's teams won 3 of them. So that's a false equivalency.

2) Goes without saying, but.. it's fair easy to win a playoff game these days than it was then. The Angels in any given year can sneak into the Wild Card game with a sub 90 win season, and it's been that way for Trout for a few years now. Ted Williams' team would have had to finish in 1st place out of 8 teams to qualify for the postseason.

3) Williams missed three seasons in the prime of his career to fight in the war. Trout got to accumulate more WAR without a war.

In comment 14538173 Mike in Long Beach said:

Quote:

Don't have a good answer now. Speedy. Ted Williams is the classic example here and it's my opinion that it's not a fair comparison. For a few reasons. 1) I didn't say anything about having to win the World Series. I said a playoff game. Ted's teams won 3 of them. So that's a false equivalency. 2) Goes without saying, but.. it's fair easy to win a playoff game these days than it was then. The Angels in any given year can sneak into the Wild Card game with a sub 90 win season, and it's been that way for Trout for a few years now. Ted Williams' team would have had to finish in 1st place out of 8 teams to qualify for the postseason. 3) Williams missed three seasons in the prime of his career to fight in the war. Trout got to accumulate more WAR without a war.

HAHA! You're picking nits that Williams teams won a whopping 3 more playoff games than Trout?!

FYI - in his lone playoff (WS) appearance, he batted 200, with OPS of 533; should THAT be used as a "gap" in his resume?

You seem to continue to miss the point others have made over and over again - making the playoffs are out of his control, it should not be used against any argument that is on GOAT trajectory.

is an interesting case for "greatest of all time" since he lost 3 years of his prime to WWII and then almost 2 full years in his 30's to Korea (I won't say his prime, but tail end of his prime for the last almost 2 years in Korea).

If you add 40 fWAR to Williams he's #1.

But he didn't so it's all conjecture, but IMO that is a fair argument vs injury or other "what ifs".

In comment 14538216 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

is an interesting case for "greatest of all time" since he lost 3 years of his prime to WWII and then almost 2 full years in his 30's to Korea (I won't say his prime, but tail end of his prime for the last almost 2 years in Korea). If you add 40 fWAR to Williams he's #1. But he didn't so it's all conjecture, but IMO that is a fair argument vs injury or other "what ifs".

Excellent point. To me, best ever really could be argued for a few MLB players. Ruth, Mays, Mantle, Bonds. That would be about it. Maybe Trout one day, but not now. If you want to throw in DiMaggio and Williams, I think those are also valid. But, I have always felt DiMaggio was slightly overrated in that regard.

to win playoff games. And again, no "best" player has less of an impact on his team's success than a baseball position player.

The fact that the Angels have made the postseason only one time since Trout has entered the league should be all the proof needed to show that star players only have so much impact on their teams making the postseason.

Alex Rodriguez was a superstar with the Mariners. They made the postseason a few years in a row.

He then signed with the Rangers where he arguably had the best years of his career as a great offensive player AND perhaps the best defensive short stop in the league (h/t Adam Everett). For three seasons, the Rangers don't win more than 73 games and obviously don't make the postseason.

ARod then goes to the Yankees where he mixes in some monster seasons at the plate and good seasons while deteriorating defensively and no longer playing shortstop. And yet, ARod makes the postseason nearly every season with the Yankees.

So what was ARod doing in Seattle and New York that he wasn't doing in Texas which caused him to not win playoff games in Texas?

In 2004, Bonds put up a slash line of .362/.609/.812.
In terms of wRC+ it was the 4th best season in history. In terms of fangraphs offensive contribution, it was 6th . In terms of overall WAR (including fielding), it was 11th all-time.

And yet, that Giants team didn't make the postseason.

And since someone mentioned Ruth was the beneficiary of Yankee Stadium, his road numbers were better.

In comment 14538107 speedywheels said:

Quote:

In comment 14537359 SchindlersFist said: Quote: . First, that statement is bullshit. Second - if if it wasn't, look more closely at what Ruth did compared to everyone else during that era. Was anyone else even close to what he could do on the mound AND the plate. During his prime, he hit more home runs in several seasons by himself than 8-10 TEAMS did. He was head and shoulders above not only everyone else during his ERA, but is rightfully considered one of - if not the - best of all time. And Ottavino would definitely have not struck out Ruth "every time", lol. Would he have had some success? Sure - even the best players fail 7 of 10 times. But Ruth would have no doubt taken him yard a few times. Ruth played in an era where players often had jobs in the offseason. Spring training was needed to literally get the players in shape. If he played today, he'd have the same access to training that everyone else did today- as someone above said, he'd look like Trout, etc.

Babe Ruth couldn't be a bench bat in the current major league

In comment 14538263 SchindlersFist said:

Quote:

In comment 14538107 speedywheels said: Quote: In comment 14537359 SchindlersFist said: Quote: . First, that statement is bullshit. Second - if if it wasn't, look more closely at what Ruth did compared to everyone else during that era. Was anyone else even close to what he could do on the mound AND the plate. During his prime, he hit more home runs in several seasons by himself than 8-10 TEAMS did. He was head and shoulders above not only everyone else during his ERA, but is rightfully considered one of - if not the - best of all time. And Ottavino would definitely have not struck out Ruth "every time", lol. Would he have had some success? Sure - even the best players fail 7 of 10 times. But Ruth would have no doubt taken him yard a few times. Ruth played in an era where players often had jobs in the offseason. Spring training was needed to literally get the players in shape. If he played today, he'd have the same access to training that everyone else did today- as someone above said, he'd look like Trout, etc. Babe Ruth couldn't be a bench bat in the current major league

He'd be 124 years old, no shit he couldn't be a bench bat. He probably couldn't lift a bat.

In comment 14538263 SchindlersFist said:

Quote:

Babe Ruth couldn't be a bench bat in the current major league

Quote:

HAHA! You're picking nits that Williams teams won a whopping 3 more playoff games than Trout?!

You're attacking a position I didn't take.

I never once said Ted Williams is the greatest of all time. You guys are using it as an example of a player who had minimal playoff success/opportunity. You're attacking a candidate you brought up, not me. I don't think he's the greatest player of all time. So I don't know what you're trying to prove by bringing up Ted Williams.

played when African Americans and dark skinned Latino players weren't allowed to play. Please. Wayne Gretzky is the answer for GOAT- you can make arguments for multiple players in other sports, not in Hockey.

Since the convo's shifted a little, Wayne Gretzky is the best player of all time in any of the four major sports, and it isn't close.

In comment 14538286 Mike in Long Beach said:

Quote:

I never once said Ted Williams is the greatest of all time. You guys are using it as an example of a player who had minimal playoff success/opportunity. You're attacking a candidate you brought up, not me. I don't think he's the greatest player of all time. So I don't know what you're trying to prove by bringing up Ted Williams.

Can't speak for others, I mentioned Williams as in the conversation as greatest player of all time unrelated to your points about anything, but as a solid case that could be made based on his years lost to military service.

In comment 14538293 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

In comment 14538286 Mike in Long Beach said: Quote: I never once said Ted Williams is the greatest of all time. You guys are using it as an example of a player who had minimal playoff success/opportunity. You're attacking a candidate you brought up, not me. I don't think he's the greatest player of all time. So I don't know what you're trying to prove by bringing up Ted Williams. Can't speak for others, I mentioned Williams as in the conversation as greatest player of all time unrelated to your points about anything, but as a solid case that could be made based on his years lost to military service.

Yep, I got you. But my position on Trout not sniffing playoff success eliminating from the convo somehow turned into me backing Williams, lol.

He's in the same category for me, to be honest. Hall of Famer. One of the greatest. But not the greatest.

In comment 14538295 Mike in Long Beach said:

Quote:

In comment 14538293 pjcas18 said: Quote: In comment 14538286 Mike in Long Beach said: Quote: I never once said Ted Williams is the greatest of all time. You guys are using it as an example of a player who had minimal playoff success/opportunity. You're attacking a candidate you brought up, not me. I don't think he's the greatest player of all time. So I don't know what you're trying to prove by bringing up Ted Williams. Can't speak for others, I mentioned Williams as in the conversation as greatest player of all time unrelated to your points about anything, but as a solid case that could be made based on his years lost to military service. Yep, I got you. But my position on Trout not sniffing playoff success eliminating from the convo somehow turned into me backing Williams, lol. He's in the same category for me, to be honest. Hall of Famer. One of the greatest. But not the greatest.

I think the Mays comparison highlighted that even with Mays stellar D and the D contribution to his WAR that even if one day Trout might be/could be the greatest of all time he's got half a career left to prove it (or to prove otherwise).

Today it's wrong to say Trout is the greatest of all time.

When you match Trout against the players of the 2000's and see his consistancy of performance with zero signs of letting down or letting up. Every year in the top 3 to 5 for MVP if not actual MVP, I would put Trout up with every other player in MLB history. I'm not saying better. But without exception... deserving of being I'm the conversation.

but I need to inject the greatness of Michael Jack Schmidt.

I was a very young pup watching him in the '80s but what an absolute joy he was. Great power, great fielder, great arm, great athlete.

In comment 14538292 Mike in Long Beach said:

Quote:

Since the convo's shifted a little, Wayne Gretzky is the best player of all time in any of the four major sports, and it isn't close.

I tend to agree with this. Most dominant player I've seen in my lifetime in comparison to his peers and that includes Jordan and James. Look at some of his insane point totals, especially to the next closest players!

In comment 14538345 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

In comment 14538292 Mike in Long Beach said: Quote: Since the convo's shifted a little, Wayne Gretzky is the best player of all time in any of the four major sports, and it isn't close. I tend to agree with this. Most dominant player I've seen in my lifetime in comparison to his peers and that includes Jordan and James. Look at some of his insane point totals, especially to the next closest players!

I absolutely agree with this.

In comment 14538345 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

In comment 14538292 Mike in Long Beach said: Quote: Since the convo's shifted a little, Wayne Gretzky is the best player of all time in any of the four major sports, and it isn't close. I tend to agree with this. Most dominant player I've seen in my lifetime in comparison to his peers and that includes Jordan and James. Look at some of his insane point totals, especially to the next closest players!

I think this is right.. if you take away every single goal he ever scored, he still has the most points in NHL history.

This one I know is right. What pair of brothers have the most combined points in NHL history? Why it's the Gretzky brothers! Wayne and Brett. Brett contributing 4 points to that total :)

In comment 14538216 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

is an interesting case for "greatest of all time" since he lost 3 years of his prime to WWII and then almost 2 full years in his 30's to Korea (I won't say his prime, but tail end of his prime for the last almost 2 years in Korea). If you add 40 fWAR to Williams he's #1. But he didn't so it's all conjecture, but IMO that is a fair argument vs injury or other "what ifs".

I'm saying he's the best hitter of all-time, which has nothing to with cumulative numbers, although his are elite. The man had a 1.096 OPS at age 41 in his final season. He won the triple crown twice, 6 batting titles, drove in 159 runs in 155 games one year, and the last man to break .400 (and he did it with a .406 average). I think his resume as an overall hitter is the best of all-time.

Honestly, Babe is up there, but really it's about the K's for me that puts Williams over the top. Ruth struck out 12.5% of his PA's in his career, Williams only 7.4%. Translates to the Babe striking out once every 6.3 ABs, Williams once every 10.9 ABs. I know conventional wisdom is Babe is the best ever. Best power hitter, I'd agree. Best overall hitter ever? Just my .02 cents but I'm going with Williams.

If you look at his first 8 full seasons, he put up a 71.9 WAR, compared to 72 for Trout, but he over the next 4, he was worth 41.3 over the next 4. 660 HR's, 3,300 hits, .940 OPS, 156 OPS+, and one of the greatest defensive CF's ever.

In comment 14538288 Gmen88 said:

Quote:

played when African Americans and dark skinned Latino players weren't allowed to play. Please. Wayne Gretzky is the answer for GOAT- you can make arguments for multiple players in other sports, not in Hockey.

Is this going to be the anti-Trout argument when in 50 years we have aliens and AI players in the league?

Please. It's always going to be Ruth because he was the perfect player at a critical time in the history of this game.

So consider this - at the ripe old age of 36, when many great players have hung it up, or hung on too long, Ruth hit .373 with 46 homers and 162 rbi, and an OBP of .495. Ridiculous. Just ridiculous. Longevity is a good measure of greatness.

1941 Teddy: Joe D - 187 wRC+ — Ted Williams — 221 wRC+
1957: Teddy: Mickey - 217 wRC+ — Ted Williams — 224 wRC+

Those are the career high hitting years for DiMaggio and Mantle and yet Teddy ballgame was a better or equal hitter for both. 17 years apart. 17.

I love the history of sports in America. The two dudes who stand out the most are Ruth and Bill Russell. The most transformational athletes in this country’s history. I am absolutely pissed at the way Bill Russell is treated. Give him 6 months today and he’d be the most impactful player in the NBA.

Babe Ruth redefined the way hitting is judged while also being a beast pitcher before that. He is the easy GOAT in terms of impact. He redefined the sport itself with his pure power and overall talent.

Ty Cobb was the best player of the original sport before Ruth destroyed it. Guys like Wagner and Hornsby were in the mix but Cobb was just perfection as a hitter for that era. While also being a speedy good CFer.

Mays has probably the best argument for baseball GOAT outside Ruth. In terms of 5-tool prowess, no one has ever been better. His combination of speed/power and peak/longevity is unreal. In an era where dark skinned players were actually allowed. His problem is mainly how Mickey Mantle had a better peak at the same time/position in the same city which makes it weird to call him GOAT.

Barry Bonds was a cheat code. But that’s because he cheated. Most dominant athlete I’ve seen but mainly because he cheated. He’s a GOAT candidate for sure and his steroid run was something else, but thats because he cheated Hard.

Cobb/Ruth/Mays/Bonds is the Mt. Rushmore of baseball.

Ted Williams would’ve made it 5 and lives up to the name of best hitter who ever lived. If he wasn’t an epic fighter pilot, he would be Bonds/Ruth level with less BS variables. He was a below average fielder/base-runner though, which makes it tough to call him the best ever.

Trout is the best player of the last 20-40 years. Better than Griffey or pre-roid Bonds or A-Rod or Schmidt/Pujols. He’s amazing. But he has a long way to go before this thread is actually worthy.