ESPN Top 100

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Tabe

With that caveat that I'm unsure how to judge the Negro League guys, you and I are on the same page on all of the other guys you listed.

As mentioned above, ARod being just 2 spots higher than Derek Jeter is laughable. You could split ARod's career into two pieces by position and both careers would be top 30 - and still higher than Jeter.

I guess I judge them based on received wisdom, a certain amount of statistical corroboration, and a baseline assumption of racial equality. Not as good as full stats I know.

[egri]

I don't like it when these sorts of lists are compiled with active players. The book on them is still being written, and all it takes is an injury or sudden drop-off to make the writer look foolish. If this was the early 1980s, the list would have Dale Murphy and Steve Garvey on there, and that would be a mistake.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Tabe

If he didn't get hurt in 2017, he absolutely would have won the MVP that year as well.

Absolutely? Really? Would his .306 BA caught MVP Altuve's .346? Was he going to get that hot? Must be nice being psychic. Was he also going to hit 20 HRs in 40 games to catch 2nd place finisher Judge?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by egri

I don't like it when these sorts of lists are compiled with active players. The book on them is still being written, and all it takes is an injury or sudden drop-off to make the writer look foolish. If this was the early 1980s, the list would have Dale Murphy and Steve Garvey on there, and that would be a mistake.

If a FB list had come out a month ago would you have objected to Tom Brady being on it?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Absolutely? Really? Would his .306 BA caught MVP Altuve's .346? Was he going to get that hot? Must be nice being psychic. Was he also going to hit 20 HRs in 40 games to catch 2nd place finisher Judge?

You do understand there are other metrics beside the counting numbers?

[egri]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If a FB list had come out a month ago would you have objected to Tom Brady being on it?

A month ago? No, because by then he was the GOAT. 10-11 years ago? Yes, because we didn't know how he was going to come back from his injury and how many more years he had left in the tank. I don't think anybody could have foreseen back then that he would play until 2022 at an MVP level. I certainly didn't; I thought if we were lucky there might be another Super Bowl run or two, but especially after the second Giants Super Bowl I wasn't optimistic.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by egri

A month ago? No, because by then he was the GOAT. 10-11 years ago? Yes, because we didn't know how he was going to come back from his injury and how many more years he had left in the tank. I don't think anybody could have foreseen back then that he would play until 2022 at an MVP level. I certainly didn't; I thought if we were lucky there might be another Super Bowl run or two, but especially after the second Giants Super Bowl I wasn't optimistic.

Then your objection isn't really to current players. So where are you going to draw the line then? Not at 10 years, by your objection to Trout? 12? 15? Are you OK with Scherzer being on the list? Verlander? Miggy?

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You do understand there are other metrics beside the counting numbers?

Hey Cliff Clavin, wasn't talking to you.

Do you realize you don't have to make 20-30 posts on here per day.

Talk about counting numbers. Take a day off.


EDITED TO ADD: Baseball is ALL about the numbers. When Aaron was sitting on 714, did you happen to see the crowd? Or Maris when he hit 61. Or Ricky when he broke the all time steals record. I don't think you are going to see anyone in the stands on the last day of the season watching the WAR numbers. I watch and see baseball with my eyes, not a calculator!

Not to mention most of Trout numbers are done in meaningless games. Arn't you the same guy who criticized Kershaw's post season numbers. At least he's been in more than 3 playoffs losses Mr Wonderful has been. Hopefully now that he is the 2nd best player on his team the Angels could have their 2nd meaningful September in the last 20 years, so we can see what he can do when the pressure is on. If he's not on DL, yet again.

[G1911]

A player should be ranked on what he has actually accomplished. Trout has performed at an exceptional level and is on pace for a very high all time ranking. He's also played 1,288 games. Would you take 1,288 games of Trout or 2,808 games of Frank Robinson? I think the answer is obvious. Trout could eventually be even higher than this list has him, but he doesn't deserve it at this point in time based on the reality of what has actually happened in the real world.

[egri]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Then your objection isn't really to current players. So where are you going to draw the line then? Not at 10 years, by your objection to Trout? 12? 15? Are you OK with Scherzer being on the list? Verlander? Miggy?

I think Brady is a special case; what he did for that long and at that age is unprecedented for a QB. Scherzer, Verlander, Miggy I would not put on his level. Let me put it this way: in 1959, I would not have objected to Ted Williams being on the list; in 1949 I would have said he had the peak but not duration (almost happened; he almost retired after 1950 when he busted his elbow in the All-Star game), and at some point between the two I would have become ok with it. Maybe after he came back from Korea and almost won a batting title?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Absolutely? Really? Would his .306 BA caught MVP Altuve's .346? Was he going to get that hot? Must be nice being psychic. Was he also going to hit 20 HRs in 40 games to catch 2nd place finisher Judge?

He was far and away the frontrunner for the award when he got hurt. He had a 7.2 WAR in barely 2/3 of a season. He led the league in OBP, SLG, OPS and OPS+. If he plays the full season, he likely ends up at 45 homers, maybe more, with a WAR of around 10.2 or so. Aaron Judge led the league that year with an 8.0.

So, yeah, absolutely he would have won it.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by G1911

A player should be ranked on what he has actually accomplished. Trout has performed at an exceptional level and is on pace for a very high all time ranking. He's also played 1,288 games. Would you take 1,288 games of Trout or 2,808 games of Frank Robinson? I think the answer is obvious. Trout could eventually be even higher than this list has him, but he doesn't deserve it at this point in time based on the reality of what has actually happened in the real world.

This is correct.

[molenick]

I will start this by saying that this is in no way a knock on Satchel Paige and I post this with all due respect and only to open up a discussion.

Paige is clearly the most famous player who played primarily in the Negro Leagues. But now that we have statistics from those leagues, his seem very good but not extraordinary. The stats of Josh Gibson, Oscar Charleston, Buck Leonard, Bullet Rogan, Turkey Stearnes, Mule Suttles, Cristobal Torriente, and Cool Papa Bell (among others) not only live up to their reputations but in many ways far exceed them, while Paige's stats are fine but don't jump off the page (no pun intended). By any statistical evidence that I see, he is not the best Negro League player ever [actually I see now that Gibson was rated higher...but Charleston should be as well, and maybe some others.]

Am I missing something in regard to his stats? Is it that we don't have complete data yet? That I am not interpreting his stats correctly? That a lot of his greatness came while pitching exhibition games? That the Negro Leagues were essentially hitter's leagues so the pitching stats are skewed? That shorter seasons are more conducive to impressive hitting stats than pitching stats?

Or is it possible that anecdotal evidence and his reputation (in many ways self-created) are greater than his actual ranking as a player. Kind of like King Kelly being the most famous (along with Anson) 19th century player but not being the best. And that we are so used to just assuming he is one of the best players that when people make these lists, they list him that high without really thinking about it.

Again, I say this in the spirit of discussion. I would like to stay on as many people's lawns as possible .

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Hey Cliff Clavin, wasn't talking to you.

Do you realize you don't have to make 20-30 posts on here per day.

Talk about counting numbers. Take a day off.


EDITED TO ADD: Baseball is ALL about the numbers. When Aaron was sitting on 714, did you happen to see the crowd? Or Maris when he hit 61. Or Ricky when he broke the all time steals record. I don't think you are going to see anyone in the stands on the last day of the season watching the WAR numbers. I watch and see baseball with my eyes, not a calculator!

Not to mention most of Trout numbers are done in meaningless games. Arn't you the same guy who criticized Kershaw's post season numbers. At least he's been in more than 3 playoffs losses Mr Wonderful has been. Hopefully now that he is the 2nd best player on his team the Angels could have their 2nd meaningful September in the last 20 years, so we can see what he can do when the pressure is on. If he's not on DL, yet again.

What is your beloved Ted Williams' post season record? .200 and 1 RBI in one series. Sounds a bit like Trout? My point on Kershaw is that he has a substantial enough post-season record that one can fairly judge his performance, at this point it's beyond small sample size, and there is no question there is a big drop-off from his regular season performance. It's no more Trout's fault that he's played for non-winning teams than it was Ted's.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by molenick

I will start this by saying that this is in no way a knock on Satchel Paige and I post this with all due respect and only to open up a discussion.

Paige is clearly the most famous player who played primarily in the Negro Leagues. But now that we have statistics from those leagues, his seem very good but not extraordinary. The stats of Josh Gibson, Oscar Charleston, Buck Leonard, Bullet Rogan, Turkey Stearnes, Mule Suttles, Cristobal Torriente, and Cool Papa Bell (among others) not only live up to their reputations but in many ways far exceed them, while Paige's stats are fine but don't jump off the page (no pun intended). By any statistical evidence that I see, he is not the best Negro League player ever [actually I see now that Gibson was rated higher...but Charleston should be as well, and maybe some others.]

Am I missing something in regard to his stats? Is it that we don't have complete data yet? That I am not interpreting his stats correctly? That a lot of his greatness came while pitching exhibition games? That the Negro Leagues were essentially hitter's leagues so the pitching stats are skewed? That shorter seasons are more conducive to impressive hitting stats than pitching stats?

Or is it possible that anecdotal evidence and his reputation (in many ways self-created) are greater than his actual ranking as a player. Kind of like King Kelly being the most famous (along with Anson) 19th century player but not being the best. And that we are so used to just assuming he is one of the best players that when people make these lists, they list him that high without really thinking about it.

Again, I say this in the spirit of discussion. I would like to stay on as many people's lawns as possible .

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/20...1/satchelpaige

[molenick]

Thanks, I will check this out. I was just going by my reaction when I went to the Baseball Reference pages of some Negro League greats. For the other guys, I was blown away with black ink, high averages, and other stats. I did not have the same reaction with Paige...but I may need to go a little deeper on him.

[Shoeless Moe]

So the Great White Dope comes in at #14 on ESPN's 2022 Fantasy Baseball rankings for his age 30 season, yet is #15 All Time.

https://www.espn.com/fantasy/basebal...s-leagues-2022

I highly doubt if there were Fantasy Baseball ranking going into any age 30 season on Ruth, Mays, Williams, Cobb, etc would ever have been below 1, 2 or 3....let alone 14!

Probably for ANY season they played, 'cept maybe their last 1 or 2 to end their careers.

Trout has 13 players ahead of him this year alone, again his age 30 season!!!!

Yet he's 15th all time?????? He's barely 15th this year!

Please.

Just asinine.


And to criticize Williams, who for 3 of his prime seasons went to WAR, and not the F--king stat, but to defend his country, gave up 3 of his best years, and later went back to fight in Korea.

Ignorant! Just that you think Trout has had a better career then Williams, good lord. I'm done. I can't stoop to your level of stupidity.

I've tried, I can't get there, you win.

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Ignorant! Just that you think Trout has had a better career then Williams, good lord. I'm done. I can't stoop to your level of stupidity.

Maybe I missed it, but who said that “Trout has had a better career then [sic] Williams…”?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

Maybe I missed it, but who said that “Trout has had a better career then [sic] Williams…”?

Sure wasn't me lol. Total straw man. My only point was that pure counting numbers don't necessarily fully do justice to Trout. I brought up Ted again only to contextualize the point about Trout's post season numbers. I can't imagine how anyone could read that as criticizing him?

[Shoeless Moe]

OK you didn't "criticize", you compared or knocked his WS #'s. Don't do that. Do not compare him to Williams. Pick Josh Gibson or Bryce Harper. If you want to compare him to someone.

First, if Williams plays for the Red Sox those 3 years, he ABSOLUTELY wins the World Series at least 2 of those years. I think the Red Sox w/Williams (and in his prime) would take down those powerhouse St L Browns fairly easily.

2nd, back to Trout.

He's NEVER led the league in:

Hits
Home Runs
Triples
Doubles
Batting Average
RBIs (he led once in 11 years)
SBs (he led once in 11 years)

He's never been in a World Series
He's never won a Playoff game (0 for 3)

He's batted .083 in Post Season play.

I'm sorry those numbers don't crack the Top 30 players of All Time.

Trout does everything very good, but nothing Great. And to be Great you need to do something Great, lead in HR's, lead in Stolen Bases, lead in RBI's, lead in Batting Average, lead in something, take you team to the Playoffs consistently. He's done none of that. He's a mere poster boy for auction house hype, and looks the part, but unfortunately just doesn't have the numbers. The REAL numbers. And I don't care about WAR and who he's replacing.

The Angels need to worry more about who's replacing him, not who he is replacing, he's hurt so often lately they need to find a better replacement player. WAR-MT.

He played at a time where for the most part there were not a lot of great players until recently. Now there is an influx of young talent that has pushed Trout back to #14 on 2022 rankings, and are just as talented as he was. We just need a few years to let that young talent play out.

So all that lack of achieving doesn't get in the Top 30 All Time.

Williams was a true beast and probably the GREATEST pure hitter of all time, please don't compare the 2, even if it's just post season numbers because there too, Ted at least made it to a WS.......let's see if Trout can get out of the "Wild Card" round. Then we'll talk.

Or get back to me in 10 years................................and Williams will still win that battle.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I would rank Williams in the top 5. I don't disagree with you at all about him. Our only disagreement is on Trout and my point there is that, in the first decade of his career, pretty much from the start (and yes, he was injured most of last year), he's been easily the best player in baseball and you'll be hard pressed to find many who would disagree. 3 MVPs and 4 2nds attest to that. Not many guys can make that claim about a decade.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I would rank Williams in the top 5. I don't disagree with you at all about him. Our only disagreement is on Trout and my point there is that, in the first decade of his career, pretty much from the start (and yes, he was injured most of last year), he's been easily the best player in baseball and you'll be hard pressed to find many who would disagree. 3 MVPs and 4 2nds attest to that. Not many guys can make that claim about a decade.

...and to that point....and as I stated....there was a definite lull in talent from 2010 to 2019. How many hitters from that time frame are in the Top 100?

I know Harper.

Pujols and Cabrera were already on their downswings by then. Trout is a very good player, but way over-hyped, and benefited from lack of other Top players when he was playing. I mean he's beating Cano, Brantley, Donaldson, Nelson Cruz out for the MVP, c'mon.

And if you say Betts & Altuve.....I'll say ok, I'd probably take both over Trout......I like their jewelry too.

Trout ain't Top 30 all time, sorry. And looking again at the list not probably not Top 40.

So answer the question. Is he too high (or low) ranked at 15? Where would you put him?

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

First, if Williams plays for the Red Sox those 3 years, he ABSOLUTELY wins the World Series at least 2 of those years. I think the Red Sox w/Williams (and in his prime) would take down those powerhouse St L Browns fairly easily.

Really? I am a huge Williams fan and have him in my Top 5, but ABSOLUTELY win the World Series twice? Remember, the Yankees were without DiMaggio also. What a wild statement to make.

What two years?

1943 when they trailed the Yankees by 29 games?

1944 when they trailed the Browns (who lost to the Cardinals in the WS 4-2) by 12 games?

1945 when they trailed the Tigers by 17.5 games.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

...and to that point....and as I stated....there was a definite lull in talent from 2010 to 2019. How many hitters from that time frame are in the Top 100?

I know Harper.

Pujols and Cabrera were already on their downswings by then. Trout is a very good player, but way over-hyped, and benefited from lack of other Top players when he was playing. I mean he's beating Cano, Brantley, Donaldson, Nelson Cruz out for the MVP, c'mon.

And if you say Betts & Altuve.....I'll say ok, I'd probably take both over Trout......I like their jewelry too.

Trout ain't Top 30 all time, sorry. And looking again at the list not probably not Top 40.

So answer the question. Is he too high (or low) ranked at 15? Where would you put him?

First point, Trout was playing great in 2021 when he went down. He was hitting .333 and I think his other stats were quite good too. So it's not at all correct to say he was pushed down by an influx of talent. You are confusing a mostly-missed year due to an injury with a fall off in performance. I don't think we can call a decline yet.

Second, as to where I would rank him, I acknowledged he's getting a bit of a boost for projected future performance. If his career ended today, would I rank him 15? No. But based on his dominance over the 2010s, MVPs, advanced metrics, probably 25 or so.

Betts or Altuve over Trout? No way lol.

[BobC]

The nice thing about this Trout debate is that we will actually get an answer as his career unfolds. He's already set the base, but can he get completely healthy and return to many more stellar years, or do nagging injuries and ever increasing age start to take their toll on him now. Time will tell.

Personally, I don't think you put someone on an all-time list until they're actually done putting all their time on the playing field in. Just like you don't put someone in the HOF till their career is actually over. It is already truly impossible to accurately compare and rate players from different times and eras against each other. But to then include comparisons of players for whom we don't yet have a complete picture of how their entire careers will actually turn out, that is just absurd.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

The nice thing about this Trout debate is that we will actually get an answer as his career unfolds. He's already set the base, but can he get completely healthy and return to many more stellar years, or do nagging injuries and ever increasing age start to take their toll on him now. Time will tell.

Personally, I don't think you put someone on an all-time list until they're actually done putting all their time on the playing field in. Just like you don't put someone in the HOF till their career is actually over. It is already truly impossible to accurately compare and rate players from different times and eras against each other. But to then include comparisons of players for whom we don't yet have a complete picture of how their entire careers will actually turn out, that is just absurd.

So to repeat my example, it would have been absurd to put Brady on a list of all time greats a month ago?

[MarcosCards]

Originally Posted by G1911

Clemente 27th
Kaline 71st

WAR gives Clemente 94.8, Kaline 92.8. Their merits can be debated, but same position at the exact same time and very close statistically overall, with each a bit better in certain areas.

There are a number of players on this list rated on their popularity.

You make an excellent observation regarding the ranking differential between these two Hall of Fame right fielders. I also agree with your conclusion regarding the apparent ‘popularity’ factor in the ranking - at least between these two players.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So to repeat my example, it would have been absurd to put Brady on a list of all time greats a month ago?

Technically, yes!

Brady is in a completely unique situation though, unlike Trout, Harper, and anyone else still playing in the midst of their careers. He has already achieved seasonal and all-time records and accomplishments that put him at or near the top. (I would argue there is another QB that could/should be in the conversation that virtually no one has ever given full and proper credit to as the GOAT, but should - Otto Graham!)

Anyway, as others had already pointed out, despite his overall great numbers, Trout hasn't really ever led the majors in anything, except maybe MVP voting. And as was also pointed out by others, that is likely due to their not being a lot of really great talent in the majors over this past decade. Putting Trout on any all-time list without knowing how he'll finally end up is foolish. Wait till a player's career is done so when you compare them with others, you can properly compare their entire careers, not just one player's career against parts of another's.

And if Brady is so unquestionably the GOAT, why didn't they just put him in Canton right after winning his 7th Super Bowl last year?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Technically, yes!

Brady is in a completely unique situation though, unlike Trout, Harper, and anyone else still playing in the midst of their careers. He has already achieved seasonal and all-time records and accomplishments that put him at or near the top. (I would argue there is another QB that could/should be in the conversation that virtually no one has ever given full and proper credit to as the GOAT, but should - Otto Graham!)

Anyway, as others had already pointed out, despite his overall great numbers, Trout hasn't really ever led the majors in anything, except maybe MVP voting. And as was also pointed out by others, that is likely due to their not being a lot of really great talent in the majors over this past decade. Putting Trout on any all-time list without knowing how he'll finally end up is foolish. Wait till a player's career is done so when you compare them with others, you can properly compare their entire careers, not just one player's career against parts of another's.

And if Brady is so unquestionably the GOAT, why didn't they just put him in Canton right after winning his 7th Super Bowl last year?

Pujols is still active. Are you suggesting we can't assess him yet?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Pujols is still active. Are you suggesting we can't assess him yet?

Everybody else can do what they want. I just feel you need to wait till they are finally done so you can compare complete careers to complete careers - apples to apples. Obviously the closer to the end of their career a player is, the more you know of what they've done and how those accomplishments compare to others in history. But Trout is barely halfway through his career, assuming he comes back 100% healthy and continues playing for many more years, but there is no guarantee that is going to happen. So for now, Trout appears to be getting a lot of credit for how people think he's going to be doing in the future, which isn't fair to those who completed their careers and for whom their final accomplishments are known. And while a player is still playing, you really don't know how much longer they'll continue to play. So how do you decide when they're close enough to the end of their careers to start properly comparing their careers with others, especially when you don't normally know much in advance when they will end their careers. And rather than trying to pick some arbitrary date to be able to start comparing an active player's career to those of retired players, like one year, or maybe two years, before they finally retire, I'm for not guessing at all, and just waiting till they actually retire. Just makes sense to me.

[Tabe]

Not sure where this idea that Trout hasn't led the majors in anything is coming from. He's led the majors in runs 3 times, walks 1 time, OBP 3 times, slugging 2 times, and OPS 2 times. And he's led the AL in multiple categories multiple other times.

No, he's not leading the league in homers. But he's hitting 40+ when he's healthy. No, he's not leading in RBI (which is a dumb stat to worry about in the first place) but batting 1st or 2nd in the lineup for 3/4 of his career PROBABLY has something to do with that.

Again, 1st or 2nd in MVP EVERY time he plays 120 games. Nobody else can say that.

[Shoeless Moe]

and....

Gold Glove awards:

Betts - 4
Altuve - 1 (...and why I mention Altuve, the guy is like 5 feet tall, no one his size in the world can play like he does, plays tough as nails, if he was 6'2" Trout would be his bitch, and pretty much already is in that division....Astros own the Angels)
Trout - 0


For every 1 leaping catch Trout makes he takes about 5 bad routes to balls and comes up empty.


Don't managers & coaches vote for GG's. I believe they do. Too bad it wasn't Auction Houses and owners of his rookie card that voted, right Pete?

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

Really? I am a huge Williams fan and have him in my Top 5, but ABSOLUTELY win the World Series twice? Remember, the Yankees were without DiMaggio also. What a wild statement to make.

What two years?

1943 when they trailed the Yankees by 29 games?

1944 when they trailed the Browns (who lost to the Cardinals in the WS 4-2) by 12 games?

1945 when they trailed the Tigers by 17.5 games.

.....and you just proved my point. See how bad they were without Williams. Dude made his TEAM better, Altuve makes his TEAM better. Harper & Trout.....please. Harper leaves and his former team wins the World Series the very next year. Prima-donnas. You can have them.


This is real WAR...and you said it:

29
12
17.5

His last year before he left they were 93-59 and the year he came back 104-50 and in the WS.

Thanks for the assist Bob!!!!!

1942-93-59 (w/Williams)
1943-68-84 (w/o Williams)
1944-77-77 (w/o Williams)
1945-71-83 (w/o Williams)
1946-104-50 (w/Williams)


and actually I'm not too good with math, but I'd say his WARII is about 30 each of those years....Wins w/Williams!!!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Not sure where this idea that Trout hasn't led the majors in anything is coming from. He's led the majors in runs 3 times, walks 1 time, OBP 3 times, slugging 2 times, and OPS 2 times. And he's led the AL in multiple categories multiple other times.

No, he's not leading the league in homers. But he's hitting 40+ when he's healthy. No, he's not leading in RBI (which is a dumb stat to worry about in the first place) but batting 1st or 2nd in the lineup for 3/4 of his career PROBABLY has something to do with that.

Again, 1st or 2nd in MVP EVERY time he plays 120 games. Nobody else can say that.

I was working off things stated in post #120 mostly. If they were not factual, my bad for not doing additional research and trusting what others posted without doing my own independent verification. And do not dispute or disagree with your comments regarding the MVP voting, but do tend to agree with statements by others that his competition during his tenure is possibly not as strong as others have faced in earlier periods.

I have no real problem if others want to go ahead and already give him their rankings on the all-time greatest list, but realize his career is far from over and that what happens in the coming years can likely have a major impact on how he will be viewed and rated in the future. Especially given the injury question and how well he can come back and perform going forward. In his so far 11 year career, Trout has really only had what I'd call 8 regular, full seasons of play. In my personal thinking, I tend to discount, or completely ignore statistics and performances in such severely truncated seasons, regardless of the reason(s) why, because they do not represent a typical player's normal, full season of play and are therefore likely to misrepresent how they would typically perform. He technically has met the 10 year requirement for induction into Cooperstown, so if he were to never play another game, he will almost certainly get into the HOF, especially given his clean-cut, wholesome, all-American likeability, overall favor with the fans and the media, and complete lack of virtually any scandalous or illegal activities, or even rumors thereof. (This is the kind of guy Fathers want their sons to grow up to be, and Mothers want their daughters to grow up and marry.)

But do those 8 really good years all by themselves truly propel him into the ranks of the greatest players of all-time, or are we getting into another one of those "peak performance" type of arguments, because that's what this is beginning to look and feel like. And that's when the arguments start to revolve around things like is 8 years enough compared and comparable to those who performed at a somewhat equally high level for say 10, 15, or even more years. And everyone has their own idea of what to them is enough time or years to qualify for such acceptance of a player's record to qualify them for consideration as an all-time great. And they are all completely arbitrary with absolutely no consensus on what is or isn't an appropriate peak period of time sufficient to afford such consideration for a player. I mean come on, if you're just going to look at peak performances then why aren't Maris, Vander Meer, and Larsen near the top of this list? Oh wait, what's that, they didn't perform at that high a level long enough to qualify. Okay, so what is long enough, one year, five years, ten, or maybe even more years? And why is what you think may be the proper length of time for such consideration make you believe it might be any better, accurate, or more appropriate than what anyone else may think? The simple answer is, it isn't! It's simply each person's own damn opinion.

So to me, rather than just being arbitrary, I've always felt it best to simply wait till a player's career is actually over so you have all the information and statistics in front of you to better weigh and compare against similar career information for others. But that's just me using using logical, common sense.

Here's another way to look at it that I think the attorneys in the audience will appreciate. People are called to form juries so as to weigh facts and evidence to then make an unbiased decision, based on ALL the evidence and information made available and presented to them. They are questioned beforehand so as to determine that they in fact do NOT have any pre-formed or biased opinions prior to being selected for a jury that would impair their ability to be fair and impartial in rendering such a decision, and are normally immediately excused from that jury if it is found to not be the case. So how in Trout's case, where all the facts and evidence of his career performance are not yet known and available, could you possibly ever consider letting someone who already has a pre-formed opinion of him, based on only partial information and evidence from his career and statistics so far, be part of a jury now deciding if he's one of the all-time greats of baseball, and about where he should rank on that list? I'm not sure you can arguably find a more logical and higher standard than what I'm presenting for determining who maybe should or shouldn't be deciding Trout's place in baseball history, and for waiting till ALL the facts, evidence, and information about his career are available. But if others want to put down what is simply my opinion on this because I have higher standards and thinking, well..............that's on them!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

.....and you just proved my point. See how bad they were without Williams. Dude made his TEAM better, Altuve makes his TEAM better. Harper & Trout.....please. Harper leaves and his former team wins the World Series the very next year. Prima-donnas. You can have them.


This is real WAR...and you said it:

29
12
17.5

His last year before he left they were 93-59 and the year he came back 104-50 and in the WS.

Thanks for the assist Bob!!!!!

1942-93-59 (w/Williams)
1943-68-84 (w/o Williams)
1944-77-77 (w/o Williams)
1945-71-83 (w/o Williams)
1946-104-50 (w/Williams)


and actually I'm not too good with math, but I'd say his WARII is about 30 each of those years....Wins w/Williams!!!

Williams’ absence is certainly a factor in their poorer showing during the war years. But I’m sorry, it is not the only factor. Many other players were gone too because a massive war was on. Pesky missed those years, and he was a .330 hitter in that period. DiMaggio was gone. Dower missed 1945. Many of their other players and pitchers were too. Williams was great, but this is not a reasonable position to hold that he is the difference between 1946 and 1945.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Everybody else can do what they want. I just feel you need to wait till they are finally done so you can compare complete careers to complete careers - apples to apples. Obviously the closer to the end of their career a player is, the more you know of what they've done and how those accomplishments compare to others in history. But Trout is barely halfway through his career, assuming he comes back 100% healthy and continues playing for many more years, but there is no guarantee that is going to happen. So for now, Trout appears to be getting a lot of credit for how people think he's going to be doing in the future, which isn't fair to those who completed their careers and for whom their final accomplishments are known. And while a player is still playing, you really don't know how much longer they'll continue to play. So how do you decide when they're close enough to the end of their careers to start properly comparing their careers with others, especially when you don't normally know much in advance when they will end their careers. And rather than trying to pick some arbitrary date to be able to start comparing an active player's career to those of retired players, like one year, or maybe two years, before they finally retire, I'm for not guessing at all, and just waiting till they actually retire. Just makes sense to me.

It's a consistent position, but I guess my thought is you need to be flexible and when you have someone where it's pretty clear your assessment won't change much, it's fine to rank them. Pujols, Miggy, Verlander I would certainly put in that category. And I really have no issue ranking ANYONE based on performance to date, worst case you reassess later.

[insidethewrapper]

2021 Angels record with and without Trout playing :

With Trout 17-19 .472
Without Trout 60-66 .476

[nat]

There's an obvious way to rank active players without wishcasting on their future: rank them based on what they've done already.

Given what's he's done already, it's obvious that Trout isn't a top-20 player. I don't think I've seen anyone here disagree with that. ESPN's ranking is too high. (But then their list is terrible for lots of other reasons as well.)

FWIW, he's 75th all-time in WAR. Sandwiched between Bobby Wallace and Paul Molitor. Subjectively, that feels about right. If he were to retire tomorrow, he'd be a deserving but not top-tier hall of famer.

Now, that's probably not where he's going to end up. I'm still pretty confident that Trout will end up being a top-20 player. He's not there yet, and so shouldn't be ranked there yet. But from the fact that we don't know where he'll end up at the end of his career, it doesn't follow that we can't rank him now, given what he's already accomplished. (With the acknowledgement that the list will need to be revised in the future.)

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's a consistent position, but I guess my thought is you need to be flexible and when you have someone where it's pretty clear your assessment won't change much, it's fine to rank them. Pujols, Miggy, Verlander I would certainly put in that category. And I really have no issue ranking ANYONE based on performance to date, worst case you reassess later.

Of course, but the thing is, do you really want to have an all-time list where you have current players you have to reassess and move around every year based on how their last season was? It is bad enough when you have to move people around when someone finally retires and comes onto the list for the first time ever.

And besides, with this crazy world we have today, you never know what's going to happen. So can you really just go and make your judgements of someone as it appears they're nearing the end of their career, sure, if you want to. As in the case of Pujols, I doubt anything detrimental to him or his career will come out at this point, and till he retires. But what if it suddenly was discovered that he'd been using corked bats throughout his career, or maybe he gets caught failing a drug test for PEDs. Or how about an informant comes forward with the evidence and revelation that during his time with the Cardinals, that team was involved in a cheating scheme/scandal on a par with what Altuve and the Astros had been doing, and Pujols was directly involved and taking full advantage of it for years. I honestly don't believe any of that would ever happen, but you never know 100% for sure. I figure if a player is getting that close to finally retiring, why be chomping at the bit to hurry up and judge/grade him? If he's that close, let him finish his career, and then do the assessment and ranking. Just makes the most sense to me.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Betts or Altuve over Trout? No way lol.

No way?

Both have played exactly 11 years so let's compare

Altuve career BA - .308
Trout career BA - .305

Altuve SBs - 261
Trout SBs - 203

Altuve Hits - 1777
Trout Hits - 1419

Altuve HRs - 164
Trout HRs - 310 - but lets not forget Jose is 5' 5" a buck 60 Trout 6' 2" 235

Altuve Walks - 443
Trout Walks - 865 (I like to call this, swing the fucking bat Mike!)

Altuve K's - 753
Trout K's - 1215 (whoops, maybe take the walk Mike)


So again, "no way?" Way. It's a lot closer than you think. And if you bring in the postseason, then I agree with you, "No way", No way I'd take Trout.

Playoff Games
Altuve - 79
Trout - 3

World Series
Altuve - 3
Trout - 0

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

No way?

Both have played exactly 11 years so let's compare

Altuve career BA - .308
Trout career BA - .305

Altuve SBs - 261
Trout SBs - 203

Altuve Hits - 1777
Trout Hits - 1419

Altuve HRs - 164
Trout HRs - 310 - but lets not forget Jose is 5' 5" a buck 60 Trout 6' 2" 235

Altuve Walks - 443
Trout Walks - 865 (I like to call this, swing the fucking bat Mike!)

Altuve K's - 753
Trout K's - 1215 (whoops, maybe take the walk Mike)


So again, "no way?" Way. It's a lot closer than you think. And if you bring in the postseason, then I agree with you, "No way", No way I'd take Trout.

Playoff Games
Altuve - 79
Trout - 3

World Series
Altuve - 3
Trout - 0

So even in your cherry picked stats we are to dismiss home runs and criticize Trout for walking? Let's be reasonable.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by G1911

So even in your cherry picked stats we are to dismiss home runs and criticize Trout for walking? Let's be reasonable.

Cherry picked? These are very common stats HRs BBs K's BA.......sorry I'm not into calculator & formula stats I like the good old fashioned raw numbers.

And I'm not dismissing HR's and Walks, I listed them. Trout has more, just like Altuve has the better BA, more steals, more hits, and less K's. Cherry picking would be to leave them off and just pick every stat that Altuve is better then him at.

And my original comment was I said "I might even take Altuve and Betts over Trout." Go back and read it Poster who's afraid to list their own name.

Like Bob C and others have said these careers need to play out. I'm not the one anointing him the next Jesus Christ.

Maybe if I saw more of him in the playoffs when I watch every pitch I might drool over him like you guys, but he's never there.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

No way?

Both have played exactly 11 years so let's compare

Altuve career BA - .308
Trout career BA - .305

Altuve SBs - 261
Trout SBs - 203

Altuve Hits - 1777
Trout Hits - 1419

Altuve HRs - 164
Trout HRs - 310 - but lets not forget Jose is 5' 5" a buck 60 Trout 6' 2" 235

Altuve Walks - 443
Trout Walks - 865 (I like to call this, swing the fucking bat Mike!)

Altuve K's - 753
Trout K's - 1215 (whoops, maybe take the walk Mike)


So again, "no way?" Way. It's a lot closer than you think. And if you bring in the postseason, then I agree with you, "No way", No way I'd take Trout.

Playoff Games
Altuve - 79
Trout - 3

World Series
Altuve - 3
Trout - 0

Comparing numbers of playoff games and World Series is dumb. Sorry, there's no other way to put it. Trout hasn't had Justin Verlander, Gerritt Cole, and a lineup of MVP candidates around him.

He also hasn't, you know, HAD AN ELECTRONIC CHEATING SYSTEM IN PLACE to boost his playoff performances.

Ignoring that, let's look at other stats:

Runs:
Altuve - 883
Trout - 967

Triples:
Altuve - 29
Trout - 49

OBP:
Altuve - .360
Trout - .419

SLG:
Altuve - .462
Trout - .583

OPS:
Altuve - .821
Trout - 1.002

OPS+:
Altuve - 125
Trout - 176

And one that surprised me a bit:

GiDP (ground into double plays):
Altuve - 158
Trout - 58



I'll take the guy that gets on base A LOT more often with A LOT more power all day, every day. Altuve's small lead in batting average is more than offset by the 100(!) extra outs he created through double plays.

Jose is a great player, albeit one tarnished significantly by the cheating. He's a HOFer, without a doubt. But...he's not close to Trout.

[Peter_Spaeth]

WAR. One is 76 and one is 41. Guess?

One has a 181 point lead in OPS. That's right 181. Guess?

One has an MVP. One has 3 plus 4 second places. Guess?

Paul, you're really on a limb of your own making here. I like Altuve, I think he is obviously on track for the Hall, but he's not in the same discussion as Trout.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

WAR. One is 76 and one is 41. Guess?

One has a 181 point lead in OPS. That's right 181. Guess?

One has an MVP. One has 3 plus 4 second places. Guess?

Paul, you're really on a limb of your own making here. I like Altuve, I think he is obviously on track for the Hall, but he's not in the same discussion as Trout.

Coming from a guy who says Brady is not an all time great......that means
..... not a whole lot......thanks though I'm done with this.

Check your own posts in this thread. I'll give ya 3 hours to do that.

Early on you listed all the overrated guys in your view (post #98), yet didn't list Trout, then after I spoke my peace, you moved him down 10 spots to 25 (post #25).

I have him more around 40, but I'm just glad you admit he's overrated.

My work is done here.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by BobC

I was working off things stated in post #120 mostly. If they were not factual, my bad for not doing additional research and trusting what others posted without doing my own independent verification. And do not dispute or disagree with your comments regarding the MVP voting, but do tend to agree with statements by others that his competition during his tenure is possibly not as strong as others have faced in earlier periods.

There's certainly a chance that Trout has faced lesser competition for his MVPs. I haven't bothered to dig into that. I know he lost at least one to Miguel Cabrera when Miggy was in his prime - a prime that pretty much any superstar would be proud to have.

As for Trout's ranking, yeah, I wouldn't put him top 20 right now either. It's clearly based on future projections and I'm not comfortable with that. If you did that and were making a list in 1965, Sandy Koufax would've been an easy top 10 pick. Instead, of course, he was retired a year later.

But I'm also not going to sit here and criticize the guy because he's been stuck with lousy teammates (seriously - the best pitcher he's played with is either Jered Weaver or a freaking DH). The year they made the playoffs, they had 2 guys hit 20 homers - Trout and the corpse of Albert Pujols. One year, they had 2 guys in the starting lineup who hit under .190. Another year (2019), they were 2-2/3 innings from becoming the first team in history to have no pitchers throw 100 innings in a season.

So, yeah, Trout went 1 for 12 in 3 games in the playoffs. It happens. Jose Altuve, the gold standard held up earlier in the thread, had a stretch of 3 games where he went 0 for 17. He had another of 0 for 10. He also had back-to-back 1 for 13 stretches for a total of 2 for 26. But, yeah, let's kill Trout because he had a very brief cold streak, one that is perfectly normal among every player who has ever held a bat.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Coming from a guy who says Brady is not an all time great......that means
..... not a whole lot......thanks though I'm done with this.

Check your own posts in this thread. I'll give ya 3 hours to do that.

Early on you listed all the overrated guys in your view (post #98), yet didn't list Trout, then after I spoke my peace, you moved him down 10 spots to 25 (post #25).

I have him more around 40, but I'm just glad you admit he's overrated.

My work is done here.

If you think I said Brady is not an all time great you have a reading comprehension problem I am afraid.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Tabe

There's certainly a chance that Trout has faced lesser competition for his MVPs. I haven't bothered to dig into that. I know he lost at least one to Miguel Cabrera when Miggy was in his prime - a prime that pretty much any superstar would be proud to have.

As for Trout's ranking, yeah, I wouldn't put him top 20 right now either. It's clearly based on future projections and I'm not comfortable with that. If you did that and were making a list in 1965, Sandy Koufax would've been an easy top 10 pick. Instead, of course, he was retired a year later.

But I'm also not going to sit here and criticize the guy because he's been stuck with lousy teammates (seriously - the best pitcher he's played with is either Jered Weaver or a freaking DH). The year they made the playoffs, they had 2 guys hit 20 homers - Trout and the corpse of Albert Pujols. One year, they had 2 guys in the starting lineup who hit under .190. Another year (2019), they were 2-2/3 innings from becoming the first team in history to have no pitchers throw 100 innings in a season.

So, yeah, Trout went 1 for 12 in 3 games in the playoffs. It happens. Jose Altuve, the gold standard held up earlier in the thread, had a stretch of 3 games where he went 0 for 17. He had another of 0 for 10. He also had back-to-back 1 for 13 stretches for a total of 2 for 26. But, yeah, let's kill Trout because he had a very brief cold streak, one that is perfectly normal among every player who has ever held a bat.

Chris,

For the record, I'm not dissing Trout, I'm just waiting till he finishes his career before even thinking about where he belongs on an all-time list. Everything you said I don't disagree with at all. It wasn't me saying anything about Trout's playoff history, or blaming him for who else they have onthe team. Just making sure you weren't directing some of your comebacks at me. LOL

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by BobC

For the record, I'm not dissing Trout, I'm just waiting till he finishes his career before even thinking about where he belongs on an all-time list. Everything you said I don't disagree with at all. It wasn't me saying anything about Trout's playoff history, or blaming him for who else they have onthe team. Just making sure you weren't directing some of your comebacks at me. LOL

I didn't think you were but my reply certainly might've made it look that way. It was more of a response to you and then a general response to everybody else.

I think you and I are on the same page with regard to Trout.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Cherry picked? These are very common stats HRs BBs K's BA.......sorry I'm not into calculator & formula stats I like the good old fashioned raw numbers.

And I'm not dismissing HR's and Walks, I listed them. Trout has more, just like Altuve has the better BA, more steals, more hits, and less K's. Cherry picking would be to leave them off and just pick every stat that Altuve is better then him at.

And my original comment was I said "I might even take Altuve and Betts over Trout." Go back and read it Poster who's afraid to list their own name.

Like Bob C and others have said these careers need to play out. I'm not the one anointing him the next Jesus Christ.

Maybe if I saw more of him in the playoffs when I watch every pitch I might drool over him like you guys, but he's never there.

1) Yes. Cherry picked. Let's use slugging, OBP, OPS. My stats are cherry picked too. That's how it works when we selectively choose the ones we like.

2) Yes, you are dismissing walks (the word I actually used in reference to walks was 'criticized'). You did indeed list them, which I did not dispute. You did so with the note of "(I like to call this, swing the fucking bat Mike!)"

3) Yes, I read your original comment. I do not agree with it.

4) I don't see anyone anointing him the next Jesus Christ. I also have said he is way overrated on this list.

5) I'll post yet again that my name has nothing whatsoever to do with claims of fact. An argument holds weight on the logical merit of the argument itself and not by virtue of the authority of the person stating it. An appeal to authority or person is a fallacy. If you'd like to bash my person instead, DM me and I'll give you my email with my name in it.