Angels Official Website: Trout on verge of sabermetric history

[AngelsWin.com]

Mike Trout has a chance to post a second straight season with a Wins Above Replacement rating of 10-plus, which would put him in group that includes only Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Rogers Hornsby, Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Willie May and Barry Bonds.

View the full article

[fan_since79]

If management doesn't do everything in their power to keep him here for the next ten years, there's something deeply wrong with them.

 

 

 

[TEvans]

Is it too late to see if he can pitch?

[Angel Oracle]

No more measly raises!

[Mudville]

Imagine how much better Hornsby, Cobb, Ruth, Williams, Mantle and Mays would have scored in WAR had anyone gave a shit to record all of their stats as accurately as Trout's have been.

But all we really have is the basic box scores for these guys so I guess you would just have to guess if Trout can track a ball better than Mantle or Mays in center, or really have such a precise control of the hitting zone as Williams or Hornsby.

Can he steal more bases than Cobb? Doubtfull, along with having a career batting average of .366 or hitting 714 home runs like Ruth.

I am sure, though, the sabermatricians will tell you confidently tgat all those greats were not so great, they had less competition through segregation then when that barrier broke down some other tangible reason that those guys are not as good as this guy. They have the numbers to prove he is. The only problem is their formula has huge gaps that those other guys can never fill in those blanks. So it is really a one sided argument.

[AngelsLakersFan]

Imagine how much better Hornsby, Cobb, Ruth, Williams, Mantle and Mays would have scored in WAR had anyone gave a shit to record all of their stats as accurately as Trout's have been.

But all we really have is the basic box scores for these guys so I guess you would just have to guess if Trout can track a ball better than Mantle or Mays in center, or really have such a precise control of the hitting zone as Williams or Hornsby.

Can he steal more bases than Cobb? Doubtfull, along with having a career batting average of .366 or hitting 714 home runs like Ruth.

I am sure, though, the sabermatricians will tell you confidently tgat all those greats were not so great, they had less competition through segregation then when that barrier broke down some other tangible reason that those guys are not as good as this guy. They have the numbers to prove he is. The only problem is their formula has huge gaps that those other guys can never fill in those blanks. So it is really a one sided argument.

 

Not sure what your point is, unless it is that Mike Trout doesn't belong in the discussion...

 

You are correct that the old timers don't have the same level of precision in their defense and baserunning records that today's players do, and that extra precision could have helped or hindered their numbers. That said those players DID have a lot of advantages today's players lack, some of them you list. Bottom line, the vast majority of popular advanced modern day stats are based around data that has been recorded for years. Of Trout's 10 WAR this season 9 are derived through a basic box score. People are trying to make it out like it's just some made up numbers - yes there is a little theory and some estimation thrown in - but for the most part it's old school, hits, doubles, homeruns, etc.

[tdawg87]

Imagine how much better Hornsby, Cobb, Ruth, Williams, Mantle and Mays would have scored in WAR had anyone gave a shit to record all of their stats as accurately as Trout's have been.

But all we really have is the basic box scores for these guys so I guess you would just have to guess if Trout can track a ball better than Mantle or Mays in center, or really have such a precise control of the hitting zone as Williams or Hornsby.

Can he steal more bases than Cobb? Doubtfull, along with having a career batting average of .366 or hitting 714 home runs like Ruth.

I am sure, though, the sabermatricians will tell you confidently tgat all those greats were not so great, they had less competition through segregation then when that barrier broke down some other tangible reason that those guys are not as good as this guy. They have the numbers to prove he is. The only problem is their formula has huge gaps that those other guys can never fill in those blanks. So it is really a one sided argument.

Dude you have become the biggest contrarian on angelswin. That is a huge title that comes with quite a bit of responsibility.

[YouthofToday]

Racism is a false concern? Racism is a false reality for baseball through the late 1940's?

[sneaky_flute]

Has anyone seriously considered why there were so many elite players in earlier periods of baseball? It's because their competition wasn't as good. People like Cobb, Mantle, etc. were the equivalent of today's average major league player.

[YouthofToday]

Has anyone seriously considered why there were so many elite players in earlier periods of baseball? It's because their competition wasn't as good. People like Cobb, Mantle, etc. were the equivalent of today's average major league player.

I absolutely agree.

[Angel Oracle]

Maybe Cobb, but Mantle would have been who he was in any era.

[Mudville]

Dude you have become the biggest contrarian on angelswin. That is a huge title that comes with quite a bit of responsibility.

Sorry, I will try and stay in lockstep with the rest of the parade from now on.

[tdawg87]

Now you're getting it!

[Docwaukee]

WAR is not comparing Trout to Cobb, Ruth and Mantle directly.  It's comparing Trout to other players in his era vs. those guys to other players in their era.  Which, frankly, makes Trout's numbers all that more impressive. 

[Angels Never Die]

I can't even fully comprehend how good Trout is and can be. It's kind of freaking me out that we actually have a player this great on our team (that came out of our system no less.)