Mike Trout versus Mookie Betts -- who would you rather?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Trout 3 MVPs 4 second place finishes. Jeter? The silence is deafening.

[packs]

Trout pre-injuries was in the most elite circle of all time players in my opinion.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Trout pre-injuries was in the most elite circle of all time players in my opinion.

Agreed. Generational player.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Trout 3 MVPs 4 second place finishes. Jeter? The silence is deafening.

Caption of the Yankees, a long healthy career, and will have better counting stats than Trout in every category but homeruns. Seriously this list could go on with many many more examples.

Trout is amazing WHEN he plays but sadly that is FAR from day to day. He is the most expensive bench warmer by a mile.

Now if we could magically make Mike Trout healthy his entire career he might have been as good as Albert Pujols. So at a magical peak I would choose Trout but with a real world career I take Jeter every time.

[packs]

Pujols is an interesting choice. Over his final 10 seasons Albert compiled a 9.9 total WAR. Even while hurt the last five seasons Trout has been good for 14 WAR in half the time.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by packs

Pujols is an interesting choice. Over his final 10 seasons Albert compiled a 9.9 total WAR. Even while hurt the last five seasons Trout has been good for 14 WAR in half the time.

I picked Albert because of all the hate people put on him while saying Mike was going to be the GOAT. Albert is one of the greatest to ever play the game. Mike won't end up with numbers as good as Fred McGriff.

[packs]

They were right to say that. Pujols was not good on the Angels. Trout was ten times better while they played together.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by packs

They were right to say that. Pujols was not good on the Angels. Trout was ten times better while they played together.

Pujols is the modern day Hank Aaron. Trout isn't even in Pujols's blast radius, and I'm a fan of Trout.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Pujols had 10 otherworldly years and 3 of his first 4 years with the Angels were just below all-star level and then 8 years where a call up from triple A would've likely been better. I know that bothers people because he was still racking up the home runs but until the last magical season back with the Cardinals the second half of his career was actually BAD.

As for the post season, I simply don't worry about "clutch" I would just take the best player. Oddly nobody has mentioned Ruth's 15 HR's in 41 games and 3 - 0 as a pitcher, but I'll take him simply because he was the best, not because he was "clutch"

If you insist that "clutch" is a real thing then it's pretty hard to argue against taking Steve Garvey whose career postseason numbers were significantly better than his regular season numbers.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bk400

Pujols is the modern day Hank Aaron. Trout isn't even in Pujols's blast radius, and I'm a fan of Trout.

Really? Again, 3 MVPs, 4 seconds, and he easily could have won some of those years.

Even with the injury seasons, Trout OPS .990, Pujols .918.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

They were right to say that. Pujols was not good on the Angels. Trout was ten times better while they played together.

Yep. And the only reason Pujols had good RBI totals was Trout's astonishing on base percentages most years.

[packs]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I picked Albert because of all the hate people put on him while saying Mike was going to be the GOAT. Albert is one of the greatest to ever play the game. Mike won't end up with numbers as good as Fred McGriff.

This is why I'm talking about them as contemporaries. You brought it up.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by packs

This is why I'm talking about them as contemporaries. You brought it up.

I only brought them up as players, not teammates. I do get the teammate angle though as Mike was much better while they played together. I like to cherry pick things also that is why I want to compare careers.

[packs]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I only brought them up as players, not teammates. I do get the teammate angle though as Mike was much better while they played together. I like to cherry pick things also that is why I want to compare careers.

My mistake. It sounded like you were miffed that when Trout came along all the talk turned to him even though Albert was supposed to be the major acquisition.

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Mike won't end up with numbers as good as Fred McGriff.

Here is how they currently compare:

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

Here is how they currently compare:

I just recently noticed that option/link to stathead. I doubt Mike will catch him in the big 3 counting stats. Besides stolen bases and WAR the ones Mike leads in always take a nose dive at the end of players careers.

Would have been awesome to live close by and gone to see him play during his prime. For those 8 years Mike was about as good as it gets.

I didn't quit going to games until the mid/late 00s so I was lucky enough to go see Albert play a few times in St Louis.

To get Fred into the conversation I believe my first MLB game was seeing Fred play the Twins at The Dome in 1987.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Caption of the Yankees, a long healthy career, and will have better counting stats than Trout in every category but homeruns. Seriously this list could go on with many many more examples.

Trout is amazing WHEN he plays but sadly that is FAR from day to day. He is the most expensive bench warmer by a mile.

Now if we could magically make Mike Trout healthy his entire career he might have been as good as Albert Pujols. So at a magical peak I would choose Trout but with a real world career I take Jeter every time.

In terms of OPS they might as well be from different planets. Trout at age 33 has significantly higher WAR and that's missing half the last 5 or so years. I love Jeter, but he was not a generational player like Trout. He wasn't even the best player on his team for much of his career.

[G1911]

Jeter - 2,747 games
Trout - 1,533 games

If I could have eithers career on a team, as that career has actually happened and actually existed in the observable real world and not a hypothetical that does not exist in reality, I would probably take Jeter right now. I can fill SS with a star for 2 decades, or have Trout missing half the games but providing much more value in the games he does play.

If we mean the player at their absolute best, it is Trout and not even close.

If it means comparing Jeter to a guess of what Trout's full career will end up being, who knows.



As Trout has played more games than Betts and has been better than Betts, I would take Trout, assuming considering their actual careers as they have happened in reality to date.

Going forward, I'd probably take Betts if both were free agents and I could sign one.

Gazing into a crystal ball and attempting to divine the future to arrive at total career values, I would guess Betts will end up higher than Trout, due to the injuries. At their very best, it is unlikely Betts manages to surpass Trout's peak as Betts is 32 and going strong, but very unlikely to improve.