The future of Mike Trout

[packs]

I'm guessing the Bagwell comment had to do with his seasons after age 31?

Otherwise it's truly a mystery as to why his name would be brought up.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by packs

I'm guessing the Bagwell comment had to do with his seasons after age 31?

Otherwise it's truly a mystery as to why his name would be brought up.

That's what I'm assuming, In terms of how Trout might age?

Honestly we can speculate until we're blue in the face, we have no idea what might happen. I remember thinking David Ortiz was cooked after 2008, and he went on a pretty solid run afterwards. Similarly I thought Miguel Cabrera found his groove again, after his 2016 season, and he fell off a cliff. Time will tell, with Mike Trout.

[RCMcKenzie]

If someone's favorite movie is Smokey and the Bandit, I'm not going to be able to convince them that Five Easy Pieces is better, but it's still fun to debate.

Trout has a long way to go and a short time to get there, to catch Baggy.

Kiner is a comp if Trout decides to retire this offseason.

[Peter_Spaeth]

IMO Kiner is not the best comp, because counting numbers have to be considered in context. Also Trout has 20 points on him in batting average. That said, Kiner may be a better hitter than he usually gets credit for, being often mentioned as one of the least deserving HOFers. He isn't that bad.

[RCMcKenzie]

Kiner was a great player. Attendance is part of the grade. Like Kiner, the Angels can finish in last place with or without Trout.

It's why I brought up the movie analogy. It's like political opinion to say it's not a comp.

[packs]

At 31 years old Trout has nearly twice the career WAR of Kiner and a higher career WAR than Bagwell. His OPS+ is almost 30 points higher than both Bagwell and Kiner as well.

[RCMcKenzie]

Originally Posted by packs

At 31 years old Trout has nearly twice the career WAR of Kiner and a higher career WAR than Bagwell. His OPS+ is almost 30 points higher than both Bagwell and Kiner as well.

Going by WAR, Trout is ranked as the 52nd greatest player of all time, below Wade Boggs and Chipper Jones. I think he is a top 100 great, but not a top 50.

Also, I agree that Kiner was not as good, but other than average, many of the numbers are very close. Kiner retired at 32 due to a bad back.

[RCMcKenzie]

I don't understand, but I'll move on after this. I haven't put Bonds numbers on here because it's not fair to Trout. The numbers are vastly greater for Bonds.

Look at the numbers for Bagwell , runs, hits, 2b, HR, RBI etc


How has Trout surpassed Bagwell? That's why I said, "Charisma". Trout is better than Bagwell, not by a numbers-based argument, but, rather it's some sort of position that Trout has a je ne sais quoi, that Bagwell never had.

[Peter_Spaeth]

WAR is not perfect but probably the best tool we have for comparing players relative to their time. Trout's 162 game average is 9.3 Bagwell's was 6.0. That's a huge delta.

Trout has won 3 MVPs, finished 2nd 3 times, and 3rd once. He is absolutely the dominant player of his time, so far. Who is even close? Bagwell I believe won 1 MVP and might have finished 3rd a couple of times. He was not close to being the best player of his time. Off the top of my head, Bonds, Griffey, and ARod were better, at a minimum. And likely others. Manny Ramirez probably although I haven't studied his numbers. Maybe Frank Thomas.

[RCMcKenzie]

Points taken. Sounds good. Frank Thomas and Bagwell are comps I think.

Quan brought up Mike Scott, I'll start my own thread on that one day. That 1986 Cy Young year, whoa...Cheers

[G1911]

Look at those per 162. Look at that OPS+. Look at the era context. To claim that at his best, as has been repeatedly claimed, Trout's ceiling is to be roughly equal to Jeff Bagwell is utterly and completely devoid of a mathematical basis.

B.J. Surhoff has more hits than Jeff Bagwell. He's better than Bagwell. Tom Brown scored more runs than Jeff Bagwell, he's better. Adam Dunn ended up with more home runs than Bagwell, he's better. A reasonable person would see how ridiculous and illogical those arguments are and be cognizant that while playing time matters, it is not everything, and it is almost completely irrelevant when one is basing it not on career value but on their upside performance ceiling.

A reasonable argument could probably be had if we looked at if Trout's 85.2 WAR vs. Bagels 79.9 is a good standard, has Trout up to today actually produced more value in his much shorter career? But that take isn't hot enough, evidently.

Can't wait to see what the next ridiculous argument based on an absurd bias is. Maybe we can debate if Ted Simmons was better than Johnny Bench because he accumulated a bit more in raw traditionals over a longer time.