Who was better in their prime years? Albert Pujols or Mike Trout?

[happybat4]

9 minutes ago, ScottT said:

Trout's been better offensively when you take everything into account.  Mainly the run scoring environment.

Trout was also an elite base runner for a good stretch.   Pujols is a smart base runner and had okay speed in his prime, but nothing like Trout.  

Defensively, it seems like a wash. They've both been solid and had their good moments, but nothing amazing.  Pujols' two gold gloves came before the new era of defensive statistics. Not sure he'd win those today.

Didn't Pujols have one of the highest single season DWAR in history for a 1st basemen?

[happybat4]

According to BWAR Pujols defense netween 2006-2008 was better than any three years of trout.

[ScottT]

4 minutes ago, happybat4 said:

Didn't Pujols have one of the highest single season DWAR in history for a 1st basemen?

Maybe...  2.3.  No other year above 1.0.

dWAR stinks

[Claude]

Albert played in 77 postseason games so their careers are not even comparable. Not many players have 19 hr’s and 54 postseason RBI’s and two championships. 

[ScottT]

Ted Williams doesn't compare to Pujols either.

I guess.

[Claude]

6 minutes ago, ScottT said:

Ted Williams doesn't compare to Pujols either.

I guess.

Ted Williams can be compared to Mike Trout.

[Angelsjunky]

3 hours ago, stormngt said:

If he was 2 years older in HS why dudnt he dominate HS to the point he would be drafted high enough to sign right out if HS?

He did dominate high school. According to Wikipedia he hit 8 HR in 33 at bats as a senior, being intentionally walked 55 times. He left high school a semester early, given a scholarship to community college. Wikipedia also said that there were concerns about his real age, thus his late drafting.

I do think it likely--or at least possible--that he's older than listed. For one, it fits his decline pattern better: his last great year was 2010 when he was "30", or possibly 32-33. It is more common for players of his caliber to start declining around then. Secondly, he's given away his hypothetical real age several times, like here. That would have made him 41 years old when he gave that interview, 2 years ago - meaning, he's 43 right now, or +3 years.

Ultimately it doesn't matter - his career as an Angel is in the books, and has been hugely disappointing by any measure - but it does make more sense if he started his Angels career, already in decline, at age 35, rather than the listed 32, when he should have been a lot closer to his prime.

[JustATroutFan]

Ted Williams was way better as a hitter than Pujols could ever dreamed of. There's no comparison between the two. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

3 hours ago, stormngt said:

If he was 2 years older in HS why dudnt he dominate HS to the point he would be drafted high enough to sign right out if HS?

 

3 hours ago, Stradling said:

Exactly.  He wasn’t drafted out of high school.  He went to a community college.  Then drafted in like the 15th round.  

 

3 hours ago, stormngt said:

Must have sure sucked for a guy 2 years older than everyone.

I go back and forth on this one. My understanding is that he flat out dominated Juco ball but scouts did not think he had the physical tools to last in MLB. I think the scouts missing on him makes more sense in the context of him being two years older than he claimed. You see a kid who is 19-20 but the stat sheet says 17-18 it changes the way you view his achievements and the way you project him to mature physically.

[Stradling]

Ted Williams is the greatest hitter of all time.  Better than Albert, better than Trout, better than Bonds.

[beatlesrule]

If you're going by bWAR, isn't Trouts better than Pujols so far in their careers up until today?

[ScottT]

Ted Williams was amazing.

He led the league in AVG/OBP/SLG (all three) five times.  The last time, he was 38.

Led the league in AVG 6 times, OBP 12 times, and SLG  9 times.    

You could go on and on. He was robbed of at least two MVP. 

All while missing three years in his twenties.

No World Series titles though.   What a waste.  I guess.

[stormngt]

1 hour ago, Angelsjunky said:

He did dominate high school. According to Wikipedia he hit 8 HR in 33 at bats as a senior, being intentionally walked 55 times. He left high school a semester early, given a scholarship to community college. Wikipedia also said that there were concerns about his real age, thus his late drafting.

I do think it likely--or at least possible--that he's older than listed. For one, it fits his decline pattern better: his last great year was 2010 when he was "30", or possibly 32-33. It is more common for players of his caliber to start declining around then. Secondly, he's given away his hypothetical real age several times, like here. That would have made him 41 years old when he gave that interview, 2 years ago - meaning, he's 43 right now, or +3 years.

Ultimately it doesn't matter - his career as an Angel is in the books, and has been hugely disappointing by any measure - but it does make more sense if he started his Angels career, already in decline, at age 35, rather than the listed 32, when he should have been a lot closer to his 

I do not see hoi w 2 or 3 years  older matter out of high school.  What's the difference between that and drafting a college junior.

If you dominated you should have been drafted higher than 15th r ok ind regardless if he was 2 or 3 years older.

[Claude]

Pujols in 2003 & 2004 was at his best. Mike Trout has never put together a season like either of those. 

[Angelsjunky]

2 minutes ago, RendZone said:

Pujols in 2003 & 2004 was at his best. Mike Trout has never put together a season like either of those. 

You no understand statistics.

[Claude]

5 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

You no understand statistics.

We can agree that they were both great players and leave it at that.

[Angelsjunky]

2 hours ago, stormngt said:

I do not see hoi w 2 or 3 years  older matter out of high school.  What's the difference between that and drafting a college junior.

If you dominated you should have been drafted higher than 15th r ok ind regardless if he was 2 or 3 years older.

I'm not sure what "r ok ind" means, but I'm going on Wikipedia - which said that people were unsure about his age, so drafted him lower. The reason this matters is that players develop a lot in their early 20s. A 19-20 year old dominating in college is a lot more impressive than a 22-23 year old.

Now of course whether he was 21 or actually 24 doesn't make his debut season any less impressive. He was immediately a fully formed elite player, with one of the best rookie seasons ever. His peak years from 2001-10 was incredible, comparable to Gehrig and Foxx - the two greatest first basemen ever. Looking back in hindsight, it makes more sense that this span was age 23-32 or 24-33 years old than it does his listed 21-30, especially considering how quickly he declined after. Very few superstars just suddenly become above average starters at age 31-32, like Pujols was in 2011-12.

But we may never know.

[Angelsjunky]

9 minutes ago, RendZone said:

We can agree that they were both great players and leave it at that.

Yes, they were (and are, for Trout) both great players. But the record clearly shows that Trout has been at least as good as Pujols in his prime. Maybe some day stat-nerds will come up with more accurate stats than WAR and wRC+, but for now I think we should go with the best stats available - and those are probably the best.

[stormngt]

51 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

I'm not sure what "r ok ind" means, but I'm going on Wikipedia - which said that people were unsure about his age, so drafted him lower. The reason this matters is that players develop a lot in their early 20s. A 19-20 year old dominating in college is a lot more impressive than a 22-23 year old.

Now of course whether he was 21 or actually 24 doesn't make his debut season any less impressive. He was immediately a fully formed elite player, with one of the best rookie seasons ever. His peak years from 2001-10 was incredible, comparable to Gehrig and Foxx - the two greatest first basemen ever. Looking back in hindsight, it makes more sense that this span was age 23-32 or 24-33 years old than it does his listed 21-30, especially considering how quickly he declined after. Very few superstars just suddenly become above average starters at age 31-32, like Pujols was in 2011-12.

But we may never know.

Since you cant figure out round was a typo.

What is the difference of drafting a 21 year old college junior or an HS graduate who claims to be 18 but might be 20?

If he dominated he should have been drafted someplace.  Hell we drafted the GMs nephew in round 25 (I believe not sure).  I would think if there was an undrafted high school stud with age questions someone would have said "what the hell give him a shot".

That is my point

[Angelsjunky]

9 minutes ago, stormngt said:

Since you cant figure out round was a typo.

What is the difference of drafting a 21 year old college junior or an HS graduate who claims to be 18 but might be 20?

If he dominated he should have been drafted someplace.  Hell we drafted the GMs nephew in round 25 (I believe not sure).  I would think if there was an undrafted high school stud with age questions someone would have said "what the hell give him a shot".

That is my point

It was likely due to poor scouting. Whatever his age, he should have been drafted higher than the 13th round - that can only be explained by poor drafting.

I mean, it isn't unlike Trout slipping to the Angels in 2009. Not quite as extreme as it was still the 1st round, but that's 22 teams who blew it.

[kevinb]

Pujols was a bad bad man when he was in his prime. 

[JustATroutFan]

Prime Trout's a better hitter than prime Pujols. Prime Trout has posted an OPS+ of at least 168 or better eight times. Prime Pujols did it 7 times. Pujols' numbers were inflated by the offensive era that he played in from 2001-2009. You put Trout in the offensive era from 2001-2009 and his career slash line right now might be something like .330/.450/.650. Raw stats are overrated. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

1 hour ago, stormngt said:

Since you cant figure out round was a typo.

What is the difference of drafting a 21 year old college junior or an HS graduate who claims to be 18 but might be 20?

If he dominated he should have been drafted someplace.  Hell we drafted the GMs nephew in round 25 (I believe not sure).  I would think if there was an undrafted high school stud with age questions someone would have said "what the hell give him a shot".

That is my point

If you read the scouting reports at the time he had old man skills. No one thought he could stick at third or play a competent first base. They knew he could hit but didn't think he'd contribute anything else. Teams really don't draft DH's, and no one would have predicted that he'd hit the way he ended up hitting.

[JustATroutFan]

2 hours ago, RendZone said:

Pujols in 2003 & 2004 was at his best. Mike Trout has never put together a season like either of those. 

Try Trout's 2018 season, buddy. Trout put up a 198 OPS+ that season. Pujols's never even posted that high of an OPS+. Again, raw stats? Stupid in this situation when comparing hitters in different hitting environment. 

[Inside Pitch]

6 hours ago, JustATroutFan said:

Ted Williams was way better as a hitter than Pujols could ever dreamed of. There's no comparison between the two. 

He was a way better hitter than Trout too.  Career OPS+ of 191