Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

Here's the thing: Mike Trout is the GOAT


Recommended Posts

Watching the way LeMahieu was mentioned during the Yankee,/Red Sox game on Sunday, they feel his is the runaway MVP this year.

It really cute to the old argument. Most valuable overall, or most valuable to his team.

Trout wins by a country mile on the latter definition. The Yankees still coast to first place without LeMahieu.

But stats wise it's close. Batting average or power prioritized? 

And of course, the perennial east coast,big  market prejudice versus the west coast player who they can't stay awake long enough to watch. And first place juggernaut versus mid pack team. 

Trout is such a well known commodity that he's taken for granted.  but LeMahieu is the never novelty flavor of the season. 

Trout will have to really pound out big numbers the rest of the way and LeMahieu fade to make a decisive case.

And other players may also enter the mix as spoilers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pray to God that Trout is not the victim of a "one season wonder" like LeMahieu.  It's cost him an MVP award in the past and I hope it doesn't this year.  Team record should not be considered. like you mentioned Duren, Duren.  The Yankees are a runaway with or without LeMahieu.  

Trout just needs to keep doing what he's doing and I believe he will garner the MVP this year, regardless of how the Angels finish the season.  At least I hope so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Trout's career will end up better than guys like Mantle and Mays, but the odds of him surpassing Ruth and Ted Williams seem low. Ruth is Ruth, and Williams has some amazing stats that would be even crazier if he didn't miss 3 years of his prime for war service.

He's clearly the best player of the last 60 years though, which is insane to think about

I think he'll be the 3rd best player of all time. Let's get him a ring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Duren, Duren said:

Watching the way LeMahieu was mentioned during the Yankee,/Red Sox game on Sunday, they feel his is the runaway MVP this year.

It really cute to the old argument. Most valuable overall, or most valuable to his team.

Trout wins by a country mile on the latter definition. The Yankees still coast to first place without LeMahieu.

But stats wise it's close. Batting average or power prioritized? 

And of course, the perennial east coast,big  market prejudice versus the west coast player who they can't stay awake long enough to watch. And first place juggernaut versus mid pack team. 

Trout is such a well known commodity that he's taken for granted.  but LeMahieu is the never novelty flavor of the season. 

Trout will have to really pound out big numbers the rest of the way and LeMahieu fade to make a decisive case.

And other players may also enter the mix as spoilers.

LeMahieu is no longer in the conversation except to people in NY. By WAR, he's tied for 10th in the American League. in other words, he's nowhere close.

If anyone had a shot at it, it would be Bogaerts (who at present is also outside the playoffs) or Bregman.

By basically any metric, LeMahieu barely merits a top ten vote. The only one that you could point to is average, which basically everyone except a few rubes recognize is nearly meaningless in regards to determining value. You can count on one hand the number of voters on one hand who will vote based on his average. 

Even by the logically vacant argument "most valuable to his team in making the playoffs" (which is so subjective it makes any actual analysis or debate pointless because there is no possible right answer in most cases), he isn't the most valuable in the AL by a long shot. Bogaerts, Semian, Bregman, Devers, Betts, Chapman, and Springer all have higher WAR on playoff level teams.

LeMahieu is only talked about because he's a Yankee. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GrittyVeterans said:

I think Trout's career will end up better than guys like Mantle and Mays, but the odds of him surpassing Ruth and Ted Williams seem low. 

He's clearly the best player of the last 60 years though, which is insane to think about

 

What kind of numbers does Babe Ruth put up today..... different era. 

 

This is was a time where people threw 85 mph and threw the whole game. If you put Ruth up against pitchers today he’d be lucky to hit .260

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bronson said:

What kind of numbers does Babe Ruth put up today..... different era. 

 

This is was a time where people threw 85 mph and threw the whole game. If you put Ruth up against pitchers today he’d be lucky to hit .260

Same bullshit argument as usual. Ruth didn't have the benefit of advanced coaching, scouting, video, nutrition (duh), exercise, training regimens, etc that Trout does.

I don't believe for one second if he had all those things he wouldn't have been great in this era. Of course if you brought him in a time machine from 1918 and dropped him off in 2019 he wouldn't be nearly as good, but that's a pointless argument.

You judge players on how they did against their peers. It's the only fair way to measure.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

"In Trout’s career, the AL MVP has either been Mike Trout or The Guy Who Was About As Good As Mike Trout And Had a Better Story. This year, Trout leads the AL in WAR again, though the vagaries of voting and his mediocre teammates may cost him the MVP award."

So sorry Baseball America, we will try not to let one of our starting pitchers die next year, and attempt to prevent all our players from being injured throughout the season, our apologies for not having 8 Yelich's and 5 Verlander's surround Mike Trout every season.

Edited by John Taylor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, fan_since79 said:

Trout is great, great, great, but Ruth is tops. Sorry.

Don't forget the Babe's pitching. In his five full seasons starting for Boston (1915-19), he won 87 games with a 2.16 ERA.

Postseason he held the record of 29.2 straight scoreless innings that stood for 43 years.

 

 

If Trout would drink alcohol and smoke cigars every day he would definitely be considered better than Ruth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now on pace for 54 Home Runs this season. If he averages 37 home runs over the next 6 years, he becomes only the third player besides Foxx, and AFRAUD, to hit 500 before his 34th birthday.

By the way, Pumpkinhead didn't hit his 500th until he was almost 37.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Calzone 2 said:

If Trout would drink alcohol and smoke cigars every day he would definitely be considered better than Ruth. 

The Babe Ruth stuff is crazy.  He’s a legendary figure.  In his time he was a probably the best player.  But the skill level was dramatically lower. The smoking fatass schtick wouldn’t have worked even 30 years after his playing days.  It’s silly to look at what Trout is doing to try and pretend that Babe Ruth is a comp.  Mike Trout a professional athletic machine.  He’s a freak.  Not in the same universe as Babe Ruth.  The context does matter.  

And Trout will be MVP this year.  That’ll be cool. 

 

Edited by UndertheHalo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the original topic. Trout is one of the best ever, but I dont see how you can accurately compare him to Babe Ruth... or even Mickey Mantle. The game changes so much in 10-20 years... forget 50-100.

It's why I dont get the whole obsession over steroids and home run numbers. 

It's fun to compare across eras but that's it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither Cobb nor Mantle nor Mays, however, played in the 2000s, the most difficult time for hitters in baseball history. Pitchers throw harder than they ever have before. They’re taller, releasing the baseball closer to home plate. They have pitches that previous greats never saw, not just modern inventions like the cut fastball, but things like “89 mph sliders” that would have seemed like witchcraft to previous generations.

Baseball has never been great about acknowledging what is obvious to observers of other sports, both team and individual: The players you’re watching today are the best who have ever lived. We elevate the heroes of the past and denigrate the stars of today, even though we can see the physical differences, and we understand the development of skills over time. It’s a stubborn blind spot, but one we need to begin seeing around to get at the truth.

Mike Trout, the best player of his era, is also the best baseball player ever.

 

End of argument.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love all these hypothetical comparisons of different eras in all sports. Great debating stuff! 

Short opinion:

Babe Ruth was potentially  a combination of Ohtani and Trout. If he pitched every fourth or fifth game he would have had high double digit wins. Based on his exclusive pitching record. As a hitter at the same time he would have somewhat reduced offensive numbers because of fewer plate appearances. But still about forty or so homers and a similar percentage in the other categories.

Long meandering musings:

Years ago I created some tabletop dice/charts games trying to factor in that 'normalization' issue. But it's all hypothetical, with dozens of factors. 

In the end one of the best way to compare is to see how much better a team or player was to their contemporaries. I called it 'degree of domination.' 

The argument about transposing players to different eras is usually a one way street. Taking an old player as he was, dropping him into today's game and pointing out the limitations. 

Reverse it. Take a modern player, put him in 1920, give him the type of body his genetics would have provided back then. Take away his knowledge of training, advanced stats, video and so on. 

And upgrade old players with the modern advantages.

Either way the best would find a way to maximize their potential under whatever circumstances. Average players would remain average, lesser players the same. Just with different roles and stats as determined by team philosophy and style of play. Sluggers would slug, but focussing on homers wouldn't be prioritized. Speedster would steal more if the style dictated that approach. Starters would go deeper in the past, but old pitchers transposed to today would be yanked earlier, based on philosophy rather than necessity. 

Of course the statistical core average of any era only refers to the components of that time. Physical averages of size, speed, strength and so on vary considerably over time and the gap becomes bigger in a linear direction.  But one thing never factored in is the subjective side.

Heart, will, motivation, hunger to win and succeed. How do you quantify that? 

Up until the late sixties/seventies players had little control of their careers in terms of contracts and salary. The very best could make demands or hold out, but the average player had no leverage. 

Salaries were so so low even within the framework of their financial era that many had to have off season jobs to make a decent living. Even when a great player was honored he was given practical gifts. Refrigerators, cars, furniture, kitchen.ware etc. Necessity.

Competition was ferocious back then. A major league salary, limited as it was, still was critical for families.

All pro sports were rough, rugged and dirty in those days. The players on different teams  never socialized and were viewed as enemies potentially taking bread off their table. There were no 'band of brothers' with solidarity across team boundaries. At least during the season. The superstars of the era like Williams/DiMaggio, Mantle/Mays respected each other and shared a bond but after the photo ops and multi player baseball card poses it was pride and intensity. 

World series bonuses were huge incentives, and insured a war like competitiveness. 

I really feel that if say the 1930s Yankees played the Yankees of the end of the 1990s it would really be close. The old school teams had their superstars, but the hunger to win might have elevated the entire roster to play with a cruel edge. Head hunting, spikes up, taunting (racial and otherwise) and so on. The old team probably would be roughly equal on skill, but would play more intently, focussed on the winning bonus.

The more recent team probably had much more athletic skill top to bottom, and their own superstars. Also more talented depth. Especially in the bullpen. But would they have the mental endurance to survive?

I'd bet on the 90s team in a series, but it would be a war, and bring in psychology as well as athletics. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...