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

[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.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by 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.

Clutch is definitely a real thing, even if the stats can't prove it. Who would you rather have at the plate, bottom of the 9th, two outs, game 7 in the World Series, down by one, with a runner at second. A-Rod or Jeter?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by bk400

Clutch is definitely a real thing, even if the stats can't prove it. Who would you rather have at the plate, bottom of the 9th, two outs, game 7 in the World Series, down by one, with a runner at second. A-Rod or Jeter?

It depends on if they've made slapping the ball away from fielders legal

I'd probably take Jeter, who I respect even as a Red Sox fan over Arod who I mostly don't

[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.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

Give Mike a few more years and he will get it WAY lower as it is falling fast and will only get faster.

What is OPS?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Give Mike a few more years and he will get it WAY lower as it is falling fast and will only get faster.

What is OPS?

On base percentage plus slugging

[bk400]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

Pujols also has 3MVPs and 4 seconds. Unlike Trout, he also has 2 rings, and roughly twice as many hits and HRs. Longevity is underrated.

[tiger8mush]

People must be forgetting how dominant Trout was for 8 consecutive years. 5 of those years he led the league in WAR, 6 of those years he led in OPS+.

Trout
Total WAR - 86.2
Best 8 year span WAR - 71.7 (2012-2019)

Pujols
Total WAR - 101.2
Best 8 year span WAR - 69.2 (2003-2010)

Pujols played till 42 years old, Trout is 33, so he's got a chance to catch Pujols in total WAR.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

People must be forgetting how dominant Trout was for 8 consecutive years. 5 of those years he led the league in WAR, 6 of those years he led in OPS+.

Trout
Total WAR - 86.2
Best 8 year span WAR - 71.7 (2012-2019)

Pujols
Total WAR - 101.2
Best 8 year span WAR - 69.2 (2003-2010)

Pujols played till 42 years old, Trout is 33, so he's got a chance to catch Pujols in total WAR.

Interesting and helpful stats. I interpret them to mean that Pujols and Trout were equally good in their primes.

[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.