I hope people realize what they are witnessing

[AngelsLakersFan]

With the trainers and medical staff currently available, the ability to fly to games, the data and video available on opposing pitchers, and the incredibly short porch at the new Yankees Stadium, and who knows, Ruth's numbers could be even better.

Let Ruth hit during the steroid era and may have averaged 70 HRs a year.

 

I believe old Yankees stadium was much more favorable to Ruth than todays' would be.

[Dick B Back]

I believe old Yankees stadium was much more favorable to Ruth than todays' would be.

It looks like neither us know anything.

I just looked it up on the yanks website and the two stadiums have the same exact dimensions.

[LAA Road Tripper]

Well yeah he was playing against cavemen who couldnt throw that fast.

Hey, some of those cavemen could throw really fast. Sure, their body hair and hunchbacks got in the way but....

[AngelsLakersFan]

It looks like neither us know anything.

I just looked it up on the yanks website and the two stadiums have the same exact dimensions.

 

That is definitely not true. Old Yankee stadium was like 470 to left center field.

[fan_since79]

Babe Ruth's numbers should have an asterisk next to them.  Absolutely no way he could replicate Trout's numbers in this day and age.

 

Babe Ruth had one of the largest effective hitting zones in baseball history, and enormous power when he connected. Many of his home runs were in excess of 450 feet. The only question is could he get around on the 95+ mph fastballs hurled today.

[fan_since79]

That is definitely not true. Old Yankee stadium was like 470 to left center field.

 

Ruth had 136 career triples and those dimensions were part of that.

[tdawg87]

0-4 with 2 K's and a DP since this thread was made.

 

Get ready for the banhammer, Doc.

[fan_since79]

Just for fun, the Babe's 1921 season:

 

.378/.512/.846

 

177 Runs, 59 HR, 168 RBI, 145 BB

457 Total Bases (all-time MLB record)

[Dick B Back]

Anyone ever clock Walter Johnson?

[wopphil]

Just for fun, the Babe's 1921 season:

.378/.512/.846

177 Runs, 59 HR, 168 RBI, 145 BB

457 Total Bases (all-time MLB record)

And yet his OPS wasn't as good as Bonds' in 2004. Edited July 19, 2015 by wopphil

[wopphil]

Or Bonds' 2001 and 2002.

Damn, Bonds was good. I wonder what kind of numbers Trout could put up if he took world class steroids.

[fan_since79]

And yet his OPS wasn't as good as Bonds' in 2004.

 

Well, they walked Bonds a lot more. All-time record of 232 BB that year which helped produce an OBP of .609.

 

Contrast Bonds' career OPS+ of 182 with Ruth's average of 206.

[ELEVEN]

Babe Ruth had one of the largest effective hitting zones in baseball history, and enormous power when he connected. Many of his home runs were in excess of 450 feet. The only question is could he get around on the 95+ mph fastballs hurled today.

No, because Ruth would be like 120 years old. Duh.

[ELEVEN]

Anyone ever clock Walter Johnson?

I believe Ty Cobb clocked him pretty good once.

[fan_since79]

No, because Ruth would be like 120 years old. Duh.

 

Obviously it's a hypothetical. If Ruth lived in modern times instead, could he have put up those kind of numbers?

 

I'm not that dumb.

[seenoevil]

[ELEVEN]

Obviously it's a hypothetical. If Ruth lived in modern times instead, could he have put up those kind of numbers?

I'm not that dumb.

Hi. My name is ELEVEN. I am a sarcastic bastard.

[101halo]

Pujols currently has an OPS 100 points below what he did for us in 2012, but is considered 5% more productive compared to league avg than in 2012. Comparing raw slash lines vs 3 years is asinine, let alone from many decades ago. Different eras produce different baseline results for a variety of reasons. Trout's current results using slash lines alone would've been "pretty darn good" instead of "ridiculous" in the early 2000's. His slash lone this year is almost identical to Glaus' 2000 season. Trout and Glaus are not exactly on the same level.

[Inside Pitch]

Question for the guys on here who are good at doing research. As much as i like reading how good he is, im hesitant to go overboard on how much i gush. I guess id just like to see him keep it up a few more years before he truly is in an argument with the sacred cows like mantle, mays etc.

But how does trouts start of bis career compare to some of the legends. Better, same, worse? It would be interesting to compare in both regular stats and advanced

 

BBRef has similarity scores on each players' page.

 

Trouts top ten through age 22:

1. Mickey Mantle (941) *
2. Frank Robinson (935) *
3. Hank Aaron (923) *
4. Ken Griffey (922)
5. Miguel Cabrera (918)
6. Al Kaline (914) *
7. Vada Pinson (914)
8. Cesar Cedeno (911)
9. Tony Conigliaro (911)
10. Orlando Cepeda (910) *

You can check out the actual stats here http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/scomp_bat.cgi?I=troutmi01:Mike%20Trout&st=age&compage=22&age=22

 

Man -- his OPS+ and WAR completely blow away his most similar comps.

[ten ocho recon scout]

I just hope AJ wasnt right about trout turning into griffey. Thats not a knock on griffey, i just would prefer trout keeps his higher average up and runs vs more and more slugging

(It was a good comp by the way AJ)

[JoJo26]

"Baby Ruth? Wasn't he a pitcher? Must have played in the National League"

 

[tdawg87]

0-7, 3 K's, 2 DP since this thread was made.

 

Pls ban.

[Blarg]

Trout collapsed after the home run derby, He never should have showed up

 

 

to watch.