Which all-time record is Trout most likely to break?

[Blarg]

If Mays or Aaron had the ability to switch to DH instead of playing the field there is no telling how much more productive their hitting stats would have been and if they could have squeezed out a few more productive years. 

[makepeac]

Aaron did finish out his career as the Milwaukee Brewers DH in his early forties.

[Docwaukee]

bonds age 36-39 yo seasons are crazy steroid induced.  He was very similar to Mays and Aaron to that point.  If Bonds ages normally, the three are on par with one another in my view.  

[Oz27]

17 hours ago, disarcina said:

you would have a tough time convincing me that Barry Bonds was better than either Willie Mays or Hank Aaron.

 

Barry Bonds once hit .362/.609/.812. I really feel that should just be the end of that discussion.

[Blarg]

He was jacked up on roids that no other player dared to venture. He had Hall of Fame career going and started a normal decline at age 32 then became a freak of science. There is nothing admirable about what he did and deserves no greater standing just because he could cheat his way to the numbers you seem to think are relevant in the discussion.

[Oz27]

14 minutes ago, Blarg said:

He was jacked up on roids that no other player dared to venture. He had Hall of Fame career going and started a normal decline at age 32 then became a freak of science. There is nothing admirable about what he did and deserves no greater standing just because he could cheat his way to the numbers you seem to think are relevant in the discussion.

What? That is bullshit. A huge chunk of the players he played against were doing exactly the same thing.

[disarcina]

everyone has a right to their opinion. Oz27 has his -- I have mine.

Mays and Aaron above the rest -- including Barry Bonds.

one thing that is truly ridiculous about Barry Bonds is that at the point he started roiding (and, YES, others were doing it as well but that, to me, is a lame excuse) at the point in his career that Barry Bonds started roiding (do you read the book about it and the San Mateo based lab and all that?) he already had HOF numbers.

He already was a great player........why tarnish that with roids just to push himself to some super stat totals that all end up with an asterisk.

[Tank]

On 1/3/2017 at 3:58 PM, mrwicked said:

ralsty - what a legend!

i forgot he got traded at the deadline to the phillies that one year and racked up 548 dingers in two months.

Was that some kind of record? It sounds pretty good.

[Tank]

I'd take Aaron or Mays over Bonds any day of the week.

Bonds cheated, and for me that nullifies his numbers over the last few years of his career.

[Oz27]

2 hours ago, disarcina said:

everyone has a right to their opinion. Oz27 has his -- I have mine.

Mays and Aaron above the rest -- including Barry Bonds.

one thing that is truly ridiculous about Barry Bonds is that at the point he started roiding (and, YES, others were doing it as well but that, to me, is a lame excuse) at the point in his career that Barry Bonds started roiding (do you read the book about it and the San Mateo based lab and all that?) he already had HOF numbers.

He already was a great player........why tarnish that with roids just to push himself to some super stat totals that all end up with an asterisk.

Even if you take out all of Bonds' performance post 1999, he was still a better hitter than Mays or Aaron. Bonds' OPS+ up to the end of 1999 was 163, better than the career marks of both of the other guys.

If Bonds came back and went 0-for-2000, he would still have a better on-base percentage than Mays. He could go 0-for-2400 and still have a better OBP than Aaron. Even if you turn all his intentional walks into outs, his OBP is still far better than either of them.

Part of the reason for Bonds' public perception being less than it should be is the steroids, obviously. But part of it is people undervaluing walking. He got on base at a ridiculous clip because he was so good at walking, before, during and after any steroids. People talk about how Mays and Aaron got more hits but that's silly, because Bonds got on base at such an absurdly better rate than either of the other two and therefore made outs much less of the time. If you want to diminish his performance because of steroids then that is your right. But you have to diminish it by a lot to get it down to the level of Mays and Aaron. Based on pure performance, there has never been a better baseball player.

[Blarg]

Apples to apples, what would be the career OPS+ for Mays and Aaron if you only took up to their age 34 season. What you are doing is taking Bonds peak seasons and comparing that sample size to players that put in another 8 years of natural decline.

I only ask because I'm on a tablet that won't do the calculations on BBRef.

[Oz27]

11 hours ago, Blarg said:

Apples to apples, what would be the career OPS+ for Mays and Aaron if you only took up to their age 34 season. What you are doing is taking Bonds peak seasons and comparing that sample size to players that put in another 8 years of natural decline.

I only ask because I'm on a tablet that won't do the calculations on BBRef.

Through their age 34 seasons (which for Bonds is everything before 2000), Bonds and Mays both had a 163 OPS+ and Aaron was 157.

Also, that isn't taking Bonds' peak seasons. It's actually denying him his peak seasons, which were in the early 2000s.

[disarcina]

I don't think we're going to convince Oz27 any time soon. That's OK.

But I'll say this -- if I ask 100 true baseball fans age 50 and older who saw Barry Bonds, Willie Mays and Hank Aaron play, I am fairly certain a large majority of them would rate Mays and Aaron over Barry Bonds and then it would be close between Mays and Aaron with Mays winning out because of the perception (and, perhaps, reality) that Mays was a better all-around ballplayer including on defense -- but truth is, Aaron was a great defender as well -- perhaps not Mays but darned close.

And then there's something else - the obstacles that Mays and particularly Aaron faced during their breaking onto the scene were more difficult than anything Barry Bonds dealt with.

Aaron came up through the Sally/ Southern League system and faced abuse that rivaled and may have been worse than what Jackie Robinson during his career.

Honestly, when you consider the total set of their career work, I have some difficulty placing the names of Mays/Aaron in the same sentence as Barry Bonds.

Sorry, that's just how I feel.

[Blarg]

42 minutes ago, Oz27 said:

Through their age 34 seasons (which for Bonds is everything before 2000), Bonds and Mays both had a 163 OPS+ and Aaron was 157.

Also, that isn't taking Bonds' peak seasons. It's actually denying him his peak seasons, which were in the early 2000s.

Yes, I am denying his cheat seasons but leveling the playing field here by also refusing some of May's and Aaron's peak seasons after age 34. I think this a clearer representation of the three players in the proper context. 

[Angels#1Fan]

I saw Mays, Aaron and Bonds play (that makes me a geezer) and I have no doubt that Willie was the better of the three in all round performance. Willie was a great defender, a disrupter on the bases and a great hitter. Willie also had phenomenal baseball instincts that bordered on genius. Bonds career is tainted as are the others that did peds and because of that he will rightly (imo) never have the same respect as Mays or Aaron.. Henry Aaron on the other hand is vastly underrated imo..the guy was great but I think Willie was greater overall. I see Trout as being in a similar mold as Mays if he is able to sustain his high level of play but this remains to be seen because a lot can happen in the coming 10+ years and Willie set a very high bar for all round play.. It's just too early to anoint Trout at this point.

Having said all that I am convinced that Babe Ruth is the greatest baseball player of all time and I don't think it's even close. While I am a geezer I never saw the Babe play but it's my opinion that no player ever dominated both ends of the game the way he did. You can drag out all the metrics you want to, but nothing can accurately gage Ruth's overall domination of the sport. As most know Ruth started his career as a pitcher. He wasn't just a pitcher, he may have been the best left hander in the league! He dominated at the plate, in the field, and on the mound!

[Blarg]

3 minutes ago, hangin n wangin said:

Babe Ruth is great and all, but do you really think he could have put up the numbers he did in today's game?

That is a huge factor.

No athlete is going to translate their game 80 years into the future. 

[Oz27]

19 minutes ago, hangin n wangin said:

Babe Ruth is great and all, but do you really think he could have put up the numbers he did in today's game?

That is a huge factor.

And Ruth played against a select sample of white dudes. That isn't his fault, obviously, but it's important to remember it in that context. Bonds played in an integrated and international sport, meaning he truly played against the best in the world.

[Blarg]

In 90 years from now some asshat will state that Bonds didn't play against the finest athletes from Belisarius or some other domain not known to produce baseball players.

Bonds cheated, he doesn't deserve all the time you spend sniffing his jock.

[Oz27]

16 minutes ago, Blarg said:

In 90 years from now some asshat will state that Bonds didn't play against the finest athletes from Belisarius or some other domain not known to produce baseball players.

Bonds cheated, he doesn't deserve all the time you spend sniffing his jock.

The fact Ruth played in a segregated sport has to be a significant factor in evaluating him against players from a non-segregated era (Mays, Aaron, Bonds and many others are included in that, obviously). Playing at a time where the best talent was coming from around the world, instead of just America, is an obvious factor too. To argue otherwise would be a clear indicator of one being an "asshat".

[Angels#1Fan]

4 hours ago, hangin n wangin said:

That is a huge factor.

It's not a factor at all imo.

Talent is talent and he had plenty.

It's like saying Wilt Chamberlain couldn't compete in todays NBA. Wilt, like Ruth dominated both sides of his game the way no other ever has. I seriously doubt that there is a current NBA player that could stop Wilt from going to the hoop!

Greatness is greatness.

[disarcina]

Babe Ruth's dominance on both ends of the game is a major consideration and factor in his being among the very best in the game.

He may have been the only guy to have so dominated the game in that fashion.

All these players pretty much have to be gauged on how they fared against the competition in their era.

Obviously, ballplayers today and the past two decades, at least, are of another prototype -- they play baseball year around, they train, work out, lift weights and do nothing but keep their bodies (well, perhaps not Bartolo Colon and a few others) in playing shape. It's their 24/7 profession and the money is life-changing.

Compare that to the ballplayers in Ruth's day and all the way to the sixties/ even seventies who had to have off-season (real) jobs in order to meet their family's daily living expenses. The season ended, they went to work at a day job.

Bob Gibson, who I rank (particularly his 1968 and 1967 seasons in that order) as one of the all time greats, when he was pitching 360 innings a year, striking out 300 hitters a season, with 30-plus complete games a season -- during that time, Gibson - who went to Creighton University on a basketball scholarship -- in the baseball off-season, played for the Harlem Globetrotters because they paid him something like $25,000 to do so. He needed the money. Old man August Busch, cheapskate he was, along with his Cards GM, was horrified that their star pitcher was risking injury playing hoops against the Washington Generals......they begged him to quit but Gibson and his family needed the money -- finally the Cards front office asked Gibson -- how much are they paying you? Gibson told them and the Cards reluctantly opened their wallets to pay one of the greatest pitchers of all time an additional $30,000 NOT to play for the Harlem Globetrotters........today, a fifth starter can command a contract of $6 million a year and that might be considered a bargain.

Babe Ruth is considered by many as the greatest baseball player of all time.

I'll take Willie Mays as the best all around player of all time, I'll take Hank Aaron as a very close second combined with being the Game's No. 1 Gentleman Class Act and I'll take two other players tied as the Game's Number One All Around Good Guy/ Respectful of All -- Let's Play Two Mr. Ernie Banks and Mr. Stan Musial. Finer individuals than those cannot be found.

Barry Bonds is, IMO, way down the list on most of these categories...........in fact OFF the list completely of Class Act, Gentleman, All Around Good Guy categories.

[Docwaukee]

the competition ruth played against is certainly a consideration in any sort of comp.  It's also worth considering that Ruth didn't really start his career offensively until he was 25.  

he accumulated 20.6 WAR as a pitcher.  

Mays played from 1951-1973.  When he started the league was 2.9% AA.  2.8% Latin.  By the time he finished it was 17.4% AA and 11.0% Latin.  As of 2012 it's 7.2% AA and 26.9% Latin as well as 1.9% asian.  So do we consider that Mays and Aaron didn't really play in an integrated game?  

The demographics of baseball have changed considerably over the years.  

It's all about how and where it develops in different socioeconomic populations of various countries.  

Also, if you infused a bunch of talent into the game 

What about how many times a player has faced a pitcher and how many different ones they've faced?  

In a six year span from 1930 to 1935, Ruth faced 161 pitchers.  

Mays faced about 650 pitchers over his entire career.  Mays face relievers in 3300 of 12500 career PA.  25%

Bonds faced over 1200 pitchers. 

Trout has faced faced 600 pitchers in what amounts to a 5 year span.  Trout has faced a reliever in 1100 of his 3500 pa.  32%

Ruth also played in monster parks but had a short porch in RF.  Bonds home stadium was also tough.  But WAR should be able to account for that.

Ty Cobb, who is never mentioned in the discussion had  -10 wins from dWAR.  How the hell is that even remotely accurate?  Bonds was +20.  Maybe that's accurate.  Who knows.  

There are just too many variables to normalize.  

To somehow outright conclude that any one of the top 5 or even 10 players are somehow head and shoulders above any of the others is impossible.  We all have our opinions of course.