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

[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 steve B

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

The best part of that play was ARod trying to argue to the umpire that it was part of his natural running motion and not intentional.

[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.