Here's the thing: Mike Trout is the GOAT

[robblin17]

Anyone that is comparing the competition Babe Ruth faces compared to what Trout is facing now is a Facking moron. 

Did Babe Ruth face international talent? You guys are morons. 

[Second Base]

1 hour ago, fan_since79 said:

Okay that's just plain silly.

Ruth had one of the greatest swings ever, while Blash was more like an out-of-control windmill at the plate. Not even in the same universe.

Ruth's swing would have been comically bad by today's standards.  Tons of holes in it. 

[GrittyVeterans]

32 minutes ago, robblin17 said:

Anyone that is comparing the competition Babe Ruth faces compared to what Trout is facing now is a Facking moron. 

Did Babe Ruth face international talent? You guys are morons. 

The inability you have to understand basic context is alarming

[fan_since79]

7 minutes ago, Second Base said:

Ruth's swing would have been comically bad by today's standards.  Tons of holes in it. 

LOL

[Angelsjunky]

4 hours ago, GrittyVeterans said:

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.

 

This, times ten. I get the argument that Trout faces stiffer competition and that in a way the best player right now is the best ever because of the way that skills develop over time (e.g. someone will someday break Usain Bolt's records). But a player can only ever face the competition and play in the context of his time. We can't judge Ruth because he didn't face "Negroes" or Dominicans or weird Japanese breaking pitches, or because he got to face starters pitching 400 innings. We can also never know how good Ruth would have been today with modern nutrition, training, etc, and it doesn't matter. 

These questions cannot be definitively answered. Ruth will always  be the "classic GOAT" because he has a career resume that will almost certainly never be surpassed, but we can also recognize that Trout is as good a player on the field as has ever played, possibly the greatest ever. Both are true.

 

[kevinb]

It’s really sad we have one of the all

time greats and for whatever reason we can’t put a great team around him. It’s just dumb. He deserves so much better than this. Whether it’s Eppler or the next GM Arte needs to make sure this guy has whatever he needs to win titles plural. He’s unbelievable!

[Stradling]

7 hours ago, Kevinb said:

It’s really sad we have one of the all

time greats and for whatever reason we can’t put a great team around him. It’s just dumb. He deserves so much better than this. Whether it’s Eppler or the next GM Arte needs to make sure this guy has whatever he needs to win titles plural. He’s unbelievable!

Extremely fresh take.  

[yk9001]

"Trout contributed a home run and a walk in the loss.." will be on Trout's bust at Cooperstown.

 

Or his gravestone.

[m0nkey]

Max Kellerman had a nice take on the difference between best and greatest. 

Best is taking a look at someone’s talent/performance, whereas greatest is what someone does relative to their peers.

[tdawg87]

[ten ocho recon scout]

14 hours ago, GrittyVeterans said:

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

I could totally see one of us on here getting down on one knee and proposing to him at the airport or somewhere like that.

[ten ocho recon scout]

13 hours ago, Dochalo said:

Babe Ruth would be a LHed Jabari Blash.  

he'd be playing out his 30's in Japan right now.  

 

[ten ocho recon scout]

10 hours ago, robblin17 said:

Did Babe Ruth face international talent? You guys are morons. 

This.

I agree with @GrittyVeterans. The guys today are "spoiled" in that they have far better training regiments, coaching, etc etc.

That said.

Lets be real. The old legends played before blacks were allowed to play... let alone any dominicans. For example, satchel paige came in to the league at like 100 years old and dominated...

Next, and ive mentioned this before regarding Williams (my fave). He sure as hell could have put up better numbers had he not left to war (twice). But the talent pool was also a lot thinner because of the war... (in Ruths case, WW1 AND the spanish flu took out untold numbers of potential players).

Lastly, money. The crazy money didnt come until later. Prior to that, it was a game, more or less. Not many kids were being pushed by their parents to get drafted... and not many young men were going to leave home to play a game if they were making money doing something else.

Again. The skill level was there... but the game became a lot harder.

[Jay]

Can't wait to see what Trout can do under the brightest of lights, i.e. in the World Series.

[IIIII]

Can't believe he's already 28. Only 4 more years (roughly) of prime baseball. Hopefully he can buck that trend as well and play just as well deep into his 30's.

[Taylor]

56 minutes ago, IIIII said:

Can't believe he's already 28. Only 4 more years (roughly) of prime baseball. Hopefully he can buck that trend as well and play just as well deep into his 30's.

This is an early candidate for worst post of the day.

[floplag]

17 hours 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.

Ignoring LaMehieu as a strong possibility is setting yourself up for a letdown.
Hes a Yankee
Hes in the top 5-10 in WAR
They dont want to vote for a losing team
They too have had many injuries
Im not saying its right or that the numbers support it, but he writers will want to vote for him.
The fact that Trout is fully 2 points better than any other hitter in the AL is the only thing hes got going for him in this case.

[tdawg87]

1 minute ago, floplag said:

Ignoring LaMehieu as a strong possibility is setting yourself up for a letdown.
Hes a Yankee
Hes in the top 5-10 in WAR
They dont want to vote for a losing team
They too have had many injuries
Im not saying its right or that the numbers support it, but he writers will want to vote for him.
The fact that Trout is fully 2 points better than any other hitter in the AL is the only thing hes got going for him in this case.

Just like in 2017, when Aaron Judge won the MVP. 

Oh wait.

[fan_since79]

I love Trout and everything he's meant to this team, but when he wins more than 94 games on the mound with a low 2 ERA I will be ready to agree he's the GOAT.

[tdawg87]

2 minutes ago, fan_since79 said:

I love Trout and everything he's meant to this team, but when he wins more than 94 games on the mound with a low 2 ERA I will be ready to agree he's the GOAT.

Shut the F*ck up.

[Blarg]

I don't think Flop understands what a flop his argument is. There is such a huge gap between Trout and any other player in the AL that it would require a voting block from 1930 to not give him the MVP. Sure, there will be a couple of jackasses that won't give him a first place vote, probably an idiot from Boston voting for Betts and an equal jackhole from New York voting Yankee, but the rest of the baseball writers are not going to look like clowns. 

 

[IIIII]

46 minutes ago, Taylor said:

This is an early candidate for worst post of the day.

How so? there is extensive research on this that says the avg mlb athlete starts their physical decline between 32-33. But hey bring in any evidence you have

[yk9001]

3 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

The stat comparisons to any other era than today are just idiotic.  So many things different, it may as well be a different sport.

[Taylor]

19 minutes ago, IIIII said:

How so? there is extensive research on this that says the avg mlb athlete starts their physical decline between 32-33. But hey bring in any evidence you have

It's Trout's 28th birthday, and you're talking about how he has "only" four years left in his prime. 

[fan_since79]

I don't see any 'decline' in Trout for many years to come. He keeps himself in great shape and lives a healthy lifestyle according to all accounts. No drinking binges and other self-destructive behaviors, things that cut short many other great athletes' careers like Mantle's or Jimmie Foxx, just to name two.

He's also great at adjusting to shore up any weaknesses in his game.