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.
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