OT: Trout vs. Mantle

[HOF Auto Rookies]

I know, I know. Absurd. Here's the thing, I just would love to hear from the boards members who have gotten to witness both play. I have spoken with several individuals, involved with the game and outside it, IF Trout compared with Mantle (so far obviously) If yes, was he a better player. Internally heard about a 50/50 split on this.

I have seen Trout too many times in person, but unfortunately never got to see Mantle. All I have to rely on are film and stories. I have met Trout a good amount of times outside of the field as well and he is extremely nice and polite.

I honestly don't care who is better or not. What I care about is that I may actually be witnessing a legend in the making first hand from day one. And IF he finishes amongst the all-time greats, thennn have truly been blessed in the sense of the game that I got to witness a talent like this for 20 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FourStrikes]

helluva player - I've watched him plenty of times on TV and I think IF he keeps it up he's got a helluva future...MY opinion is that IF he doesn't buy all into all of the (perhaps deserved???) media hype, he'll be amazing. he appears - thus far - to be fairly grounded, but only time will tell...

4/5 tool player - Yes, but only 3+ years isn't necessarily a fair measuring stick for "next Mantle" comparisons, IMHO.

SB's are down, strike outs climbing each year, BUT his overall numbers are solid. his TWO seasons (in his first two years) as runner-up MVP show genuine promise, but let's just give him the time to grow as a player and a person and see how it plays out rather than calling him "The Next" - insert name here - (see Strawberry, Murcer, et al, as reference).

disclaimer: as to your appeal for "anybody who has seen BOTH", I'm way too young to have seen Mantle play, but I'd be thrilled IF we're seeing the "second coming" of the Mick...

that said, I'm a believer in his abilities, and I think he just MAY be the one to one day fulfill your / our expectations as a player...

again, JMHO.

[sycks22]

Originally Posted by FourStrikes

helluva player - I've watched him plenty of times on TV and I think IF he keeps it up he's got a helluva future...MY opinion is that IF he doesn't buy all into all of the (perhaps deserved???) media hype, he'll be amazing. he appears - thus far - to be fairly grounded, but only time will tell...

4/5 tool player - Yes, but only 3+ years isn't necessarily a fair measuring stick for "next Mantle" comparisons, IMHO.

SB's are down, strike outs climbing each year, BUT his overall numbers are solid. his TWO seasons (in his first two years) as runner-up MVP show genuine promise, but let's just give him the time to grow as a player and a person and see how it plays out rather than calling him "The Next" - insert name here - (see Strawberry, Murcer, et al, as reference).

disclaimer: as to your appeal for "anybody who has seen BOTH", I'm way too young to have seen Mantle play, but I'd be thrilled IF we're seeing the "second coming" of the Mick...

that said, I'm a believer in his abilities, and I think he just MAY be the one to one day fulfill your / our expectations as a player...

again, JMHO.

Curious which of the 5 tools he's lacking to only be a 4 tool player?

[BradH]

Originally Posted by sycks22

Curious which of the 5 tools he's lacking to only be a 4 tool player?

He does not have a great throwing arm.

Although he’s had an admittedly small sample size so far (three years), he is probably the single best overall player I’ve ever seen play in person – and that’s from a pretty large sample of greats that I’ve watched. Just an amazing talent and a nice guy. I hope he stays healthy and we can watch him doing what he does for another 12-15 years.

[t206blogcom]

I've seen him play a couple of times and he's off to a great start to his career. If he continues at this pace, he'll definitely remain an all-star.

Way too early to compare him to anyone else, HOF or not. I don't understand why the media today feel compelled to always pump up rookies, compare them to past players and put that added pressure on these guys. Being on the east coast I don't hear as much about Trout as I do another player, Bryce Harper.

I cannot count the number of times I hear Harper being compared to Pete Rose. I see Harper play a few times a week at Nats Park. He hustles, can hit towering HRs and make great catches (when he's not running into walls). He's a two-time All Star. He has the potential to be a long term star if he remains healthy. But the constant expectations from him I find ridiculous. So what happens when he doesn't hit a million HRs in a season or when he strikes out when a base hit is needed? People start saying 'oh, he sucks. I thought this kid was supposed to be good.' I hear it all the time while at a game.

Harper has had a couple of injuries this year and missed a good deal of time. People don't understand that if you're on the DL for a month, it's like day one of spring training when you come off the DL. It takes time to find your swing again, get your timing down. And that's what Harper is doing. During a game a couple of weeks ago there was this annoying, know-it-all fan a few seats down from me. The kind of guy who constantly talks throughout the entire game, sometimes about baseball, sometimes about other topics I care not to share. He was a self-proclaimed baseball 'expert' and knows 'everything about everyone'. So when Harper got into the box for the first time, he was shocked at his then .250 batting average. He started a rant about 'how much he sucks, he's no Pete Rose.' I politely leaned over and suggested his average might be down a bit since he's coming off the DL and is working his way back to where he was before. His response? "If he wants to be the next Pete Rose, he needs to be hitting .350." Sigh.

Perhaps it's too easy to pump up a rookie and make millions off of the potential rather than grow fans through long term success. Perhaps we want too much 'now' and lack any sort of patience.

Going back to Trout and not to derail this thread, I hope he continues to play well and earn the money the Angels have decided to pay him. And I hope he is and remains drug-free.

I'm too young to have seen Mantle play in person. Will Trout be the next Mantle? Nobody knows and in my opinion a bit ridiculous to already be making the comparison. Let's see where we are in 10 years. That's when comparisons can start to be made, for Trout, Harper and anyone else.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Originally Posted by t206blogcom

I've seen him play a couple of times and he's off to a great start to his career. If he continues at this pace, he'll definitely remain an all-star.

Way too early to compare him to anyone else, HOF or not. I don't understand why the media today feel compelled to always pump up rookies, compare them to past players and put that added pressure on these guys. Being on the east coast I don't hear as much about Trout as I do another player, Bryce Harper.

I cannot count the number of times I hear Harper being compared to Pete Rose. I see Harper play a few times a week at Nats Park. He hustles, can hit towering HRs and make great catches (when he's not running into walls). He's a two-time All Star. He has the potential to be a long term star if he remains healthy. But the constant expectations from him I find ridiculous. So what happens when he doesn't hit a million HRs in a season or when he strikes out when a base hit is needed? People start saying 'oh, he sucks. I thought this kid was supposed to be good.' I hear it all the time while at a game.

Harper has had a couple of injuries this year and missed a good deal of time. People don't understand that if you're on the DL for a month, it's like day one of spring training when you come off the DL. It takes time to find your swing again, get your timing down. And that's what Harper is doing. During a game a couple of weeks ago there was this annoying, know-it-all fan a few seats down from me. The kind of guy who constantly talks throughout the entire game, sometimes about baseball, sometimes about other topics I care not to share. He was a self-proclaimed baseball 'expert' and knows 'everything about everyone'. So when Harper got into the box for the first time, he was shocked at his then .250 batting average. He started a rant about 'how much he sucks, he's no Pete Rose.' I politely leaned over and suggested his average might be down a bit since he's coming off the DL and is working his way back to where he was before. His response? "If he wants to be the next Pete Rose, he needs to be hitting .350." Sigh.

Perhaps it's too easy to pump up a rookie and make millions off of the potential rather than grow fans through long term success. Perhaps we want too much 'now' and lack any sort of patience.

Going back to Trout and not to derail this thread, I hope he continues to play well and earn the money the Angels have decided to pay him. And I hope he is and remains drug-free.

I'm too young to have seen Mantle play in person. Will Trout be the next Mantle? Nobody knows and in my opinion a bit ridiculous to already be making the comparison. Let's see where we are in 10 years. That's when comparisons can start to be made, for Trout, Harper and anyone else.

Mike Trout is the worst thing to happen to Bryce Harper.

[the 'stache]

Well, since this is a baseball card forum...



Trout's an amazing talent, but I hate it when people say "he's the next Mickey Mantle", or something like that. No, he's the first Mike Trout. Let him be who he is. From all accounts, he's a generally nice, humble young man. If he's not already, he's going to probably be the face of baseball for a while. Major League Baseball has been dreaming about having somebody like Trout come along for a long time.

Yes, his stolen bases are down. But I think he's being asked to run less. When he does run, he's still incredibly successful. He's stolen 12 bases in 14 tries. That's an 86% clip. The strikeouts are a concern, yes. But let's remember he's only just now turned 23 years old. That he's striking out 158 times per 162 games is definitely something he's going to have to cut down on. But while he's been striking out 158 times, he's still hitting .307 for his career with a .943 OPS. He's got 543 hits, 347 runs scored, 222 extra base hits including 91 home runs. And with all those strikeouts, he's leading the American League with 278 bases. After his home run last night (#30), he's 4 off the lead in the American League, and his 94 RBIs are 2 off the league lead. His average is down at .291, but if he can turn just a few of those strikeouts into hits, he's back at his career average.

If Trout stays healthy, he's going to put up some ridiculous numbers. I'd like to see him run a little more, but I think that's a product of who's hitting directly behind him-Albert Pujols. In his rookie year, Trout was leading off more. Now he's batting second. I'm certainly not going to tell the Angels what to do, because they've got the best record in baseball. What they're doing is working.

We're all lucky to see this incredible talent.

[brewing]

Without a shadow of a doubt, Mantle was better from the left side of the plate.

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Well, since this is a baseball card forum...

Bill, beautiful Trout. But if you examine his auto closely, it looks like it reads "New York"

[bwbc917]

I saw Mantle starting in 1959. Even as the knees got creaky he was still a smooth, graceful performer. Comparing Trout to Mantle in my mind is a reasonable match. Let's see what happens in the next few seasons. The Mick had his Triple Crown in his 6th season. I'll be curious what Trout does in his prime.

[frankbmd]

Some of us are old enough to remember "the next Mickey Mantle"

Both were Yankees.

Both were Okies.

Will the real next Mickey Mantle please stand up?

Bobby Murcer

[packs]

His SBs and average is down this year but his production numbers are up. He will set career highs in homers and RBIs this season. Depends on what you value, but either way he is incredible.

[bn2cardz]

Well Trout's Strikout average is higher in his first 4 years than Mantles... so he is better at doing that.

[packs]

I think it's just exciting for people who didn't get to see a player in their prime (like me who never saw Mantle) to see a comparable player. Of course the media has other motivations and loves sensationalism.

Within my generation, I'm looking forward to the days ahead when some 18 year old is being called the next Ken Griffey Jr. and I can tell all of the kids how no one was better than Griffey.

[RTK]

I barely recall Mantle only from televison after his prime, still, his aura was huge from what I recall. I've seen Trout play, he's a player for the ages. It's unreal how Mantle like he is. We should feel blessed as baseball fans to have his enthusiasm for the game, in the game. If you haven't seen him in person, you should.

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

I know, I know. Absurd. Here's the thing, I just would love to hear from the boards members who have gotten to witness both play. I have spoken with several individuals, involved with the game and outside it, IF Trout compared with Mantle (so far obviously) If yes, was he a better player. Internally heard about a 50/50 split on this.

I have seen Trout too many times in person, but unfortunately never got to see Mantle. All I have to rely on are film and stories. I have met Trout a good amount of times outside of the field as well and he is extremely nice and polite.

I honestly don't care who is better or not. What I care about is that I may actually be witnessing a legend in the making first hand from day one. And IF he finishes amongst the all-time greats, thennn have truly been blessed in the sense of the game that I got to witness a talent like this for 20 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was old enough to have seen Mantle play, but I didn't really take much interest in MLB action until the 1970 World Series when I was ten years old and instantly became an Oriole fan for life after watching the Human Vacuum Cleaner that Brooks Robinson was. Having said that, my opinion is that OPS is a very good indicator of how good a player is as a batter. Trout is good, but he is no Mickey Mantle. I am no fan of Mantle, but it's going to take some doing to reach his lifetime .977 OPS. And that OPS was posted after four years of serious decline toward the end of Mick's career. Advantage: Mickey Mantle

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Seems like your referencing Stairs or Brady Anderson . I pretty much disagree with everything you have said, literally everything.

Have you ever been to a professional practice? Have you ever seen these coaches teach these kids on the field? I have and you're way off. Saying they don't learn to bunt is absurd, and bunting is a huge part of the game still today. How do you think the smaller market teams have success, playing the right way with fundamentals and small ball strategy. My Twins have been doing it for over a decade.

Guys still know their rolls, it's not like you have a Willie Mays Hays lead off hitter swinging out if his britches. Look at the reinvention of Dee Gordon, that has been fun to watch. This was his make or break season. Kid literally can't hit, but because of proper COACHING and the teaching of FUNDAMENTALS he is running mad, and getting on base. I believe he has over 50 infield hits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Runscott]

Brent, everything you say is of course true;however, the smaller market teams also have MUCH lower payrolls, meaning a lot of guys who know basic small-ball skills that don't translate to HR's and thus high salaries. The big-market teams like the Yankmees have the more popular HR-hitters that cost a lot of money. They can afford them and they can afford to lose to your small-ball Twins (or similar), because they are big market and bring in the associated bucks. If bunting and other small-ball skills (and actual team play) were rewarded with $$$, then the Yankees would be going that route, but unlike the Twins, they don't have to. Funny how all that money doesn't translate directly to championships anymore. That should tell us something.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Brent, everything you say is of course true;however, the smaller market teams also have MUCH lower payrolls, meaning a lot of guys who know basic small-ball skills that don't translate to HR's and thus high salaries. The big-market teams like the Yankmees have the more popular HR-hitters that cost a lot of money. They can afford them and they can afford to lose to your small-ball Twins (or similar), because they are big market and bring in the associated bucks. If bunting and other small-ball skills (and actual team play) were rewarded with $$$, then the Yankees would be going that route, but unlike the Twins, they don't have to. Funny how all that money doesn't translate directly to championships anymore. That should tell us something.

I think it's that players are playing for individual accomplishments rather than focusing on winning. That's just what I've taken from it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lgarza99]

I remember Miguel Tejada a few years back when he was with the SF Giants and he was asked to bunt. You could see on his face the displeasure and insult he felt being asked to bunt. Like it was below a former MVP. I think he failed on purpose to swing away. He was released by the Giants soon after.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

I have a few close friends in MLB and the NFL, and how the card signings goes are that they literally give them stacks of whatever that set is, all of the cards. Then, the company gives them a deadline for them ALL to be signed by. So they can do this at their own leisure. That is why you see late additions in sets, also if cards "run out" from a company that you had a redemption for, it is because that player did not sign the quantities needed.

Then, off the to next cards or stickers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk