Possibly The best baseball player of all time???
Now obvious this is a little premature. And he does have to do it for a decade or more. Getting into the playoffs would help too and get rid of the injury bug he seems to get once in awhile but...
But he is on pace for over 600 HRs, 1000 runs scored, 300 steals, hit around .300. He is going to win his 3rd MVP this year (should be closer to 5). His OPS and OPS+ are just ridiculous.
I think its time the conversation about him being the best ever get a tad bit warmer.
It's a team game, so you can be an all-star or even an HOFer without success in the postseason. But to even be a fart in the room where the best player ever discussion is happening, you need to have done something in the postseason. He has zero wins.
So we can't say that. We can't even consider it as a possibility. He isn't in the discussion.
But what's funny - when I looked at Robinson's Baseball Reference page just now to confirm some of what I'm thinking - his "by age" comparison is Mike Trout!
It's a team game, so you can be an all-star or even an HOFer without success in the postseason. But to even be a fart in the room where the best player ever discussion is happening, you need to have done something in the postseason. He has zero wins.
So we can't say that. We can't even consider it as a possibility. He isn't in the discussion.
I think you're mostly right here but I also think there are exceptions to every rule. Ted Williams went to the WS in 1946. His lone World Series, and lost. Ted Williams, to me, is the greatest hitter ever. If you want to argue Lou Gehrig, that's fine. But I think there is a level of individual greatness that can be achieved and recognized independent of team success.
I don't think Trout is the best ever. I think by the time he's done, he may be in the conversation. And part of it really is his defense.
It's a team game, so you can be an all-star or even an HOFer without success in the postseason. But to even be a fart in the room where the best player ever discussion is happening, you need to have done something in the postseason. He has zero wins.
So we can't say that. We can't even consider it as a possibility. He isn't in the discussion.
9th season so he isn't even eligible for HoF yet! Need 10 - ask Thurman Munson.
Greatest of all time - no. Top 10 absolutely. Top 5 close.
In no particular order: (my 5)
Ruth (my #1)
Williams
Mays
Aaron
Griffey, Jr
Is he better than Arod or Bonds - 'roids or not? Bonds probably yes. Arod - that is mighty close, I may say Arod.
(neither likely to get in during my life)
Quote:
But this will be his 9th season in the majors. He hasn't won a single playoff game. Not one. Zero.
It's a team game, so you can be an all-star or even an HOFer without success in the postseason. But to even be a fart in the room where the best player ever discussion is happening, you need to have done something in the postseason. He has zero wins.
So we can't say that. We can't even consider it as a possibility. He isn't in the discussion.
I think you're mostly right here but I also think there are exceptions to every rule. Ted Williams went to the WS in 1946. His lone World Series, and lost. Ted Williams, to me, is the greatest hitter ever. If you want to argue Lou Gehrig, that's fine. But I think there is a level of individual greatness that can be achieved and recognized independent of team success.
I don't think Trout is the best ever. I think by the time he's done, he may be in the conversation. And part of it really is his defense.
Ruth and Bonds. Pretty boring here. Mays and Henderson.
Well since you are half in the bag most of the time, would this be unusual? LOL. Just busting ya!
It's a team game, so you can be an all-star or even an HOFer without success in the postseason. But to even be a fart in the room where the best player ever discussion is happening, you need to have done something in the postseason. He has zero wins.
So we can't say that. We can't even consider it as a possibility. He isn't in the discussion.
Baseball is the least "team game" of the team sports, if that makes any sense. What else can Trout do to get his team to the playoffs? He's doing his part and then some, it's not his fault they can't put the right team around him.
Yes, he is in the discussion. Showing no signs of slowing down, good chance he's in the top 5 WAR all time when he's done. Certainly the greatest player I've seen outside of steroid era Bonds
Quote:
& I wouldn't even notice. I don't know other sport you can that about, hockey probably for me too.
Well since you are half in the bag most of the time, would this be unusual? LOL. Just busting ya!
Haha. Touche.
What I do think is an interesting discussion is should the Angels trade him.
As highlighted here, the Angels have made the playoffs once in his career and won zero games.
Is having Trout worth it?
It's a team game, so you can be an all-star or even an HOFer without success in the postseason. But to even be a fart in the room where the best player ever discussion is happening, you need to have done something in the postseason. He has zero wins.
So we can't say that. We can't even consider it as a possibility. He isn't in the discussion.
Remind when Trout has had pitchers like Clemens, Pettitte, Mussina, Rivera, etc on his team to do perform that act called pitching...
Maybe Adell will be the guy who benefits him but he is only 21.
Bonds went west to San Fran. And his first five appearances in the playoffs he was 19/97, 1 HR, 6 RBIs.
Then he broke out in 2002, when the roids really kicked it...
Michael Jordan says hold my beer.
Ruth was certainly great when the league was lily white.
May I remind you of a man named Wayne Gretzky. Too often he gets lost in these conversations...
It doesn't make sense, ha. You negated you own point. What else can Trout do to get his team to the playoffs? Nothing. There are people out there arguing he's in the mix for best player ever, and his teams still can't make the playoffs... which is why, like I was saying, it's a team game and not an individual game.
The point I think you're trying to make is, when analyzing an individual player, baseball is the type of sport where you would least look at the success of the teams the player was on in comparison to other sports. To that point, presuming that's what you meant, I agree. But the sport itself is one of the most centric sports as 1 or 2 or 3 individuals can't carry the load... unless they all happen to be in the rotation... and even that model is fading with the rise of bullpen importance.
Quote:
in any team sport. Not really open for discussion. Trout is a certain HOF'er and probably the best player of the past decade. No player can ever match the domination Ruth had in the time he played.
Michael Jordan says hold my beer.
No, totally disagree and LeBron probably disagrees too.
Maybe Adell will be the guy who benefits him but he is only 21.
Angels are scoring this year. Actually have a very good offense.
As usual, their pitching is abysmal.
Arod is better than Barry, imho. Bonds was a very good batter before roids and great hitter after roids but overrated as OF. ARod was a far superior fielder and probably better pre-roids batter.
Both whack jobs, too.
If he never makes the playoffs again, and continues to perform like this for another 6-8 years before a natural decline, he's in the discussion for greatest player of all time no matter what.
Quote:
in any team sport. Not really open for discussion. Trout is a certain HOF'er and probably the best player of the past decade. No player can ever match the domination Ruth had in the time he played.
Michael Jordan says hold my beer.
Trout a great player. Greatest of all time? Hard to say that given the juiced ball but depending on how the rest of his career goes, it's not an unreasonable position.
If he never makes the playoffs again, and continues to perform like this for another 6-8 years before a natural decline, he's in the discussion for greatest player of all time no matter what.
Fair enough, though I disagree. Again, we're not talking about the Hall of Fame. We're going into the world of "Best Player of all Time." And while I do agree with you that, when analyzing a baseball player, you need to have more of (or the most) disconnect between the player and the team success, it's not irrelevant. I don't need him to win a World Series, but he has to win a couple playoff games. That's a check box I simply need checked off. If he can't manage to pull that off in an 18 year career or whatever it winds up being, then it's not enough.
I don't think you're giving enough credence to the rarefied air and how selective and critical we should be when putting someone in that conversation.
No, totally disagree and LeBron probably disagrees too.
Well Leselfish is a moron. And his case for GOAT ended years ago.
The steroids kicked in the year after he hit 73 homers?
WAR measures each player in terms of total contribution to the team. It strips out other players, neutralizes ballpark,
So, while it's not perfect per se, it's probably a better measure of am individual players contribution than any metric in any other sport.
Quote:
No, totally disagree and LeBron probably disagrees too.
Well Leselfish is a moron. And his case for GOAT ended years ago.
Like MJ the personality better, also.
What the hell did Ohtani see in that bunch of losers? I get that he would only play on the West Coast, fine, but why the Angels over the Dodgers or the Giants?
agree with this, but I do think as flawed as they are they're probably consistent. So as good as any other defensive metric. The important point for evaluating Trout is that he's not overly valued for his defense. In fact his DEF ratings and how they fluctuate year to year are probably a good indicator of the unreliability of the defense part of WAR.
I absolutely agree with this. I'm not as conversant as I should be in the metrics, but defensive metrics are just not believable or trustworthy.
Quote:
in any team sport. Not really open for discussion. Trout is a certain HOF'er and probably the best player of the past decade. No player can ever match the domination Ruth had in the time he played.
Ruth was certainly great when the league was lily white.
May I remind you of a man named Wayne Gretzky. Too often he gets lost in these conversations...
probably Gretzky in the modern era. Non-team sports i'd go with Karelin.
exactly, like I posted above:
The important point for evaluating Trout is that he's not overly valued for his defense.
He will get votes, but he's not close to Trout unless you are of the mindset you don't vote MVP for players not on winning teams.
Even then there's probably a couple players ahead of LeMahieu
Quote:
But this will be his 9th season in the majors. He hasn't won a single playoff game. Not one. Zero.
It's a team game, so you can be an all-star or even an HOFer without success in the postseason. But to even be a fart in the room where the best player ever discussion is happening, you need to have done something in the postseason. He has zero wins.
So we can't say that. We can't even consider it as a possibility. He isn't in the discussion.
9th season so he isn't even eligible for HoF yet! Need 10 - ask Thurman Munson.
Greatest of all time - no. Top 10 absolutely. Top 5 close.
In no particular order: (my 5)
Ruth (my #1)
Williams
Mays
Aaron
Griffey, Jr
Is he better than Arod or Bonds - 'roids or not? Bonds probably yes. Arod - that is mighty close, I may say Arod.
(neither likely to get in during my life)
Jr. and possibly Aroid over Mantle? Musial? Good grief.
Quote:
in any team sport. Not really open for discussion. Trout is a certain HOF'er and probably the best player of the past decade. No player can ever match the domination Ruth had in the time he played.
Michael Jordan says hold my beer.
Wilt Chamberlain averaged fifty pts PER GAME for a season. He also averaged 33 rebounds PER GAME for a season. Michael can hold his beer.
He will get votes, but he's not close to Trout unless you are of the mindset you don't vote MVP for players not on winning teams.
Even then there's probably a couple players ahead of LeMahieu
Bregman will have a good case with the Astros for sure...
Quote:
In comment 14537104 Mike in Long Beach said:
Quote:
But this will be his 9th season in the majors. He hasn't won a single playoff game. Not one. Zero.
It's a team game, so you can be an all-star or even an HOFer without success in the postseason. But to even be a fart in the room where the best player ever discussion is happening, you need to have done something in the postseason. He has zero wins.
So we can't say that. We can't even consider it as a possibility. He isn't in the discussion.
9th season so he isn't even eligible for HoF yet! Need 10 - ask Thurman Munson.
Greatest of all time - no. Top 10 absolutely. Top 5 close.
In no particular order: (my 5)
Ruth (my #1)
Williams
Mays
Aaron
Griffey, Jr
Is he better than Arod or Bonds - 'roids or not? Bonds probably yes. Arod - that is mighty close, I may say Arod.
(neither likely to get in during my life)
Jr. and possibly Aroid over Mantle? Musial? Good grief.
Yes. The Mick was my all time favorite Yankee - so yeah I can make that call. You can rank Gehrig(for certain), DiMaggio and Yogi over Mickey and not be wrong.
Stan was a great player, but top 5?
Quote:
He will get votes, but he's not close to Trout unless you are of the mindset you don't vote MVP for players not on winning teams.
Even then there's probably a couple players ahead of LeMahieu
Bregman will have a good case with the Astros for sure...
I think LeMahieu should be the MVP, though I have no delusions about it happening. I know it's going to be Trout. But the Yankees have set records this year for injuries. Literally the most injured team ever. And they still have the record in baseball, and LeMahieu's play has been nothing short of remarkable. I don't think the Yankees are where they are without him. He'd get my vote.
And it could be argued that had he started as a full time player, he'd have easily hit another 100 home runs and driven in another 300 runs and scored another 300 runs.
2 NCAA Championships.
11 Championships in 13 years.
He is out of this world great. Best of all time? I don't know... that's an incomplete until we know what his career numbers look like at the end and what he's accomplished.
But I'd certainly not rule it out at this point.
2 NCAA Championships.
11 Championships in 13 years.
With all due respect, Russell could barely dribble a basketball and played in the NBA when there were 8-10 teams. At one point, I think the Celtics shared the east with only three other teams.
Great player? Sure. But Auerbach was a just a brilliant coach and GM/talent evaluator. And stacked those teams...
But yes, he played in a white league, all day games, and his home park was tailored for him. He's not a slam dunk for GOAT.
Thought experiment: He was whoring, drinking (during prohibition) had bouts with VD (some of those "bellyaches") and other lifestyle issues that kept him out of a lot of games. He once held Miller Huggins, half his size, off the back of a moving train. If a modern player was spending his nights in whorehouses, binge-eating, snorting coke (as illegal now as booze was then) and missing a ton of time because of it, physically threatening his manager, and then got fat, what would the press coverage look like? How would that player be remembered? Ruth got thrown out trying to steal 2nd with Lou Gehrig at the plate to end the 1926 World Series. What would the coverage of, say, Darryl Strawberry have been if he'd done that?
Barry Bonds' steroid #s are cartoonish. He was in the conversation for GOAT before he went on steroids. Aaron is underrated because everybody was talking about Willie, Mickey and the Duke while Hank was dominating in Milwaukee.
I think Trout is going to be in the conversation for GOAT.
Quote:
in any team sport. Not really open for discussion. Trout is a certain HOF'er and probably the best player of the past decade. No player can ever match the domination Ruth had in the time he played.
Ruth was certainly great when the league was lily white.
May I remind you of a man named Wayne Gretzky. Too often he gets lost in these conversations...
Ruth’s batting prowess is legend, but often overlooked is his pitching prowess BEFORE he became a legendary hitter. 94-46 with a 2.28 ERA, including a 12 inning shutout. Wayne would need to have a Vezina 1st, and Michael has no second category in which to excel. No, not even close.
Quote:
In comment 14537197 averagejoe said:
Quote:
in any team sport. Not really open for discussion. Trout is a certain HOF'er and probably the best player of the past decade. No player can ever match the domination Ruth had in the time he played.
Ruth was certainly great when the league was lily white.
May I remind you of a man named Wayne Gretzky. Too often he gets lost in these conversations...
Ruth’s batting prowess is legend, but often overlooked is his pitching prowess BEFORE he became a legendary hitter. 94-46 with a 2.28 ERA, including a 12 inning shutout. Wayne would need to have a Vezina 1st, and Michael has no second category in which to excel. No, not even close.
Wayne Gretzky won 9 MVPs and 4 Stanley Cups in the modern era. Babe Ruth won 1 MVP, 1 ERA title, 7 Championships in an era where a guy that was later played in a movie by John Goodman could play 22 seasons. Holding a candle for a guy you never saw play, only played against white guys, and played in an era that is a joke in terms of athleticism is asinine. Adam Ottavino was not wrong, he's strike out Ruth every time he faced him.
The best players I’ve seen
1. Steroid Bonds 99-05
2. Mike Trout
3. Albert Pujols
4. Pre Steroid Bonds 86-98
5. Ken Griffey Jr
6. Alex Rodriguez Pre steroids 96-2001
Trout is easily the best clean players I’ve seen.
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.
He will get votes, but he's not close to Trout unless you are of the mindset you don't vote MVP for players not on winning teams.
Even then there's probably a couple players ahead of LeMahieu
There’s not a player close to Trout this year. He will win unanimously.
I have no problem saying Trout is the greatest player in his era and to me that's about the highest compliment I can give any player in any sport.
Quote:
In comment 14537216 bw in dc said:
Quote:
In comment 14537197 averagejoe said:
Quote:
in any team sport. Not really open for discussion. Trout is a certain HOF'er and probably the best player of the past decade. No player can ever match the domination Ruth had in the time he played.
Ruth was certainly great when the league was lily white.
May I remind you of a man named Wayne Gretzky. Too often he gets lost in these conversations...
Ruth’s batting prowess is legend, but often overlooked is his pitching prowess BEFORE he became a legendary hitter. 94-46 with a 2.28 ERA, including a 12 inning shutout. Wayne would need to have a Vezina 1st, and Michael has no second category in which to excel. No, not even close.
Wayne Gretzky won 9 MVPs and 4 Stanley Cups in the modern era. Babe Ruth won 1 MVP, 1 ERA title, 7 Championships in an era where a guy that was later played in a movie by John Goodman could play 22 seasons. Holding a candle for a guy you never saw play, only played against white guys, and played in an era that is a joke in terms of athleticism is asinine. Adam Ottavino was not wrong, he's strike out Ruth every time he faced him.
You do realize the MVP award wasn't a thing until '22. Ruth won in '23 and part of the rules then were that once a player won it, they were no longer eligible to win the award.
Ruth’s batting prowess is legend, but often overlooked is his pitching prowess BEFORE he became a legendary hitter. 94-46 with a 2.28 ERA, including a 12 inning shutout. Wayne would need to have a Vezina 1st, and Michael has no second category in which to excel. No, not even close.
I'm not overlooking Ruth's pitching prowess. I'm just not overrating it.
Ruth was a great player in his era. That's as far as I'm willing to go.
With the game now fully integrated, the expansion of the game globally, etc, I just can't how many can say with a straight face that Ruth is still the greatest player.
Quote:
Ruth’s batting prowess is legend, but often overlooked is his pitching prowess BEFORE he became a legendary hitter. 94-46 with a 2.28 ERA, including a 12 inning shutout. Wayne would need to have a Vezina 1st, and Michael has no second category in which to excel. No, not even close.
I'm not overlooking Ruth's pitching prowess. I'm just not overrating it.
Ruth was a great player in his era. That's as far as I'm willing to go.
With the game now fully integrated, the expansion of the game globally, etc, I just can't how many can say with a straight face that Ruth is still the greatest player.
Ruth swung a tree. Everyone remembers the "fat" Babe. He wasn't that way early on. He also played during a time that players didn't workout year round. He was still 6'2" 215 back then. If he worked out like guys today, he'd be Mike Trout sized.
Quote:
In comment 14537474 pivo said:
Quote:
Ruth’s batting prowess is legend, but often overlooked is his pitching prowess BEFORE he became a legendary hitter. 94-46 with a 2.28 ERA, including a 12 inning shutout. Wayne would need to have a Vezina 1st, and Michael has no second category in which to excel. No, not even close.
I'm not overlooking Ruth's pitching prowess. I'm just not overrating it.
Ruth was a great player in his era. That's as far as I'm willing to go.
With the game now fully integrated, the expansion of the game globally, etc, I just can't how many can say with a straight face that Ruth is still the greatest player.
Sorry for the edit.
Ruth swung a tree; not a whip like bat the guys use today. Everyone remembers the "fat" Babe. He wasn't that way early on. He also played during a time that players didn't workout year round. He was still 6'2" 215 back then. If he worked out like guys today, he'd be Mike Trout sized with a pitcher's arm in right field in Yankee Stadium. He'd still have his great batter's eye. He'd easily be in the conversation.
Ruth swung a tree. Everyone remembers the "fat" Babe. He wasn't that way early on. He also played during a time that players didn't workout year round. He was still 6'2" 215 back then. If he worked out like guys today, he'd be Mike Trout sized.
Bill Tilden and Bobby Jones absolutely dominated tennis and golf, respectively, in that era, too. Great players. But it's a real stretch anymore to consider them the greatest in their sports with the evolution of tennis and golf.
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.
So is Devers, really look at the kid's numbers.
They are eye popping, what a breakout year at age 22.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yikes. So again. Other than WAR. What stats are allowed? Still waiting.
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.
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.
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
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
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?
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.
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?
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 )
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.
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.
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".
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".
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.
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
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.
Babe Ruth couldn't be a bench bat in the current major league
You're attacking a position I didn't take.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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 :)
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.
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.
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.