Mike Trout's injury is starting to seem serious

[G1911]

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/m...ble-uncertain/

Thought this was interesting, described as "a rare condition" that will probably need to be monitored "for the rest of his career", and taking cortisone shots. Echoes of another legendary CF'er.

Hopefully he comes back fine, Trout seems the only player of his generation to rival the performance of the game's very greatest of history.

[clydepepper]

That's a shame.

[mrreality68]

That is the story of his career and health the last several years.
Hopefully he overcomes it

[clydepepper]

So...Is he IN...if he never plays again?

I say definitely! For a decade, he was the best.


Compare him to Puckett, etc.



.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

So...Is he IN...if he never plays again?

I say definitely! For a decade, he was the best.


Compare him to Puckett, etc.



.

Absolutely, imo. Agreed - the best hitter in the game for a decade (or close to it).

[G1911]

Even with only 8 real seasons, if he never plays a game again I think he would be elected in his first year of eligibility and deservingly so.

[packs]

What could possibly keep him out? He won three MVPs and was the single best player in the entire league for his entire career.

He is already ranked the 5th best centerfielder of all time. The names ahead of him:

Willie Mays
Ty Cobb
Tris Speaker
Mickey Mantle

The names immediately below him:

Ken Griffey Jr.
Joe DiMaggio

[Peter_Spaeth]

Never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever take anything for granted in baseball. Cautionary tail to prospectors and to all the people on Blowout deifying guys after two seasons or even less.. Acuna indeed.

Is he in, yes of course, but still looks likely to end up a what might have been.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by packs

What could possibly keep him out? He won three MVPs and was the single best player in the entire league for his entire career.

He is already ranked the 5th best centerfielder of all time. The names ahead of him:

Willie Mays
Ty Cobb
Tris Speaker
Mickey Mantle

The names immediately below him:

Ken Griffey Jr.
Joe DiMaggio

What idiot ranks him ahead of Jr.

Not a chance.

630 HRs to 334 HRs

10 consecutive Gold Gloves to Trout's NONE

Not to mention Trout's whopping 1 playoff Series - batting .083

and he couldn't hit the best pitchers of his era (Kershaw, Scherzer & Verlander).

PLEASE

I wouldn't even put him ahead of DiMaggio, but he'll scrap up enough stats with whatever he has left to possible approach Joe D.

[packs]

That’s from baseball reference. It’s their ranking.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

That’s from baseball reference. It’s their ranking.

I think a couple of things work against Griffey in the metrics, his huge seasons were ones where quite a few guys also had huge seasons, thus only one MVP. Also after his first year in the NL his numbers were markedly lower than they had been.

[G1911]

I think he’s using JAWS here.

Griffey is slightly ahead of Trout in total WAR still, though WAR really is designed around the current game.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think he’s using JAWS here.

Griffey is slightly ahead of Trout in total WAR still, though WAR really is designed around the current game.

I think it was designed around Trout. Seriously. Or at the very least his game was suited to maximize his WAR.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think it was designed around Trout. Seriously. Or at the very least his game was suited to maximize his WAR.

They play to WAR now, and WAR was built for the very modern way of play. I don’t think it’s all that great at cross era comparison or the old guys as a result. Trout and a lot of others are rated higher by WAR than is probably warranted. Trout’s WAR rate makes him, as I recall, #2 behind only Ruth, which seems a little more than his figures warrant.

[packs]

The ranking is based on JAWS and is a position by position ranking system.

Ruth is ranked number 1 in WAR all time. Number two is Walter Johnson and number three is Cy Young.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

The ranking is based on JAWS and is a position by position ranking system.

Ruth is ranked number 1 in WAR all time. Number two is Walter Johnson and number three is Cy Young.

I said WAR rate, not total WAR.

[mrreality68]

Regardless of Which metrics to use he is one of the top centerfielders in mlb.

That being said it is hard to rank him compared to others when he is still in the middle of his career and some like JR. have amazing numbers that Trout may or may not achieve.

Now with this new injury that is supposed to effect the rest of his career and may slow him down it make it more difficult for me to put him up higher and I might move him down a few slots.

[nat]

WAR is designed to allow cross-era comparisons. Note it doesn't tell you what a player would have done if he'd played in another era (that's probably impossible to know), it tells you what he did against the competition he actually faced, and then puts that in a common currency that you can use to compare how someone else did against the competition that they actually faced.

The only reason that Trout's WAR scores are so good is that he's really good at baseball.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

Regardless of Which metrics to use he is one of the top centerfielders in mlb.

That being said it is hard to rank him compared to others when he is still in the middle of his career and some like JR. have amazing numbers that Trout may or may not achieve.

Now with this new injury that is supposed to effect the rest of his career and may slow him down it make it more difficult for me to put him up higher and I might move him down a few slots.

So here is an interesting question. If in fact this latest health issue will greatly negatively impact Trout's ability to play at a high level going forward, would he be better off just retiring now to better preserve his legacy and retain his status in the minds of most baseball fans as an elite player, or should he continue honoring the remaining years he has on the 12-year contract he is currently playing under, even if he can only be an average player at best going forward? He's signed through 2030, so he has over 8 years left to go. Tacking 8+ years of average, injury riddled play onto his career could cause his esteem to diminish greatly in the eyes of many people, especially younger fans who may not have seen been around or as aware of his play during the earlier part of his career.

And before anyone starts chirping about this being a stupid question because of course he signed a contract for huge money, and therefore he should continue to play to keep collecting all that money, I am well aware of that fact and fully realize any sane person would likely continue playing to collect all that money. The question and potential discussion though is to consider the possible impact such a decision can have on Trout's legacy and career perception to baseball fans, not on his pocketbook.

It is sort of like the Sandy Koufax paradox. When Koufax called it quits, though still fairly young, he was at the top of his game and remembered as such to fans at the time. Just contemplate how different the perception of Koufax might have been had he decided to continue playing for several more years with his health and issues possibly causing him to not be anywhere near as effective as he was during the height of his career.

[G1911]

Nobody thinks Trout is not great at baseball.

WAR has explicit era factors, the biggest to punish the 19th century pitchers because without it, it turns out a pitcher who throws 500 innings and leads the league in ERA produces more value to their team than a pitcher that grows 220 innings and leads the league in ERA, which is not what people wanted to see. It also has a minor component that upscales modern players for playing against what it assumes to be tougher competition, which may or may not be fair but is also an explicit favoring of players of modernity.

The calculation is based on numerous statistics with weighted values, every one of which is arbitrary and values the things valued today, not the things valued long ago. There is also the softer component, that players like Trout shape their game around these metrics, whereas Mantle and Speaker could not possibly.

Guys with a high WAR tend to be great players. To conclude that Trout is half a season away from producing more career value than Griffey and has already surpassed DiMaggio means we must take almost all of WAR’s many underlying value assumptions to be true. One can argue reasonably that they are all correct, one may argue reasonably that they are not. That a player in 2022 has a marked advantage over a player from 1922 or even 1992 seems obvious.

[KCRfan1]

Bob, that's a great question.

Trout's health going forward and retirement.

I may be in the minority, however I say retire now.

It could be the difference of him being able to walk in 10 years or confined to a wheelchair. Not mention the possibility of being on pain killers the rest of your life.

Better put health first. Those of us who have dealt with serious health issues know that's truth.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

Bob, that's a great question.

Trout's health going forward and retirement.

I may be in the minority, however I say retire now.

It could be the difference of him being able to walk in 10 years or confined to a wheelchair. Not mention the possibility of being on pain killers the rest of your life.

Better put health first. Those of us who have dealt with serious health issues know that's truth.

I'm wondering the same thing as well. As many have opined so far, his career up to now they feel is already HOF worthy. But how quickly can that perception possibly change in some people's minds if he continues playing multiple years at a much reduced production level?

One would think that health would be a primary concern, as you mentioned, and possibly eclipse monetary concerns. But you can never tell for certain how a person's ego and self-esteem may fit in. Trout always appeared to me as someone of great confidence in himself and very well centered, and not worried about impressing others and having to have them look up to and adore him. One would also think/hope that he's made enough in his career so far that he wouldn't need to continue playing just to draw a paycheck, and should be set for life by now. But who knows for sure what may drive Trout going forward if he is suddenly faced with career threatening/ending decisions at such a still relatively early age.

Depending on what his doctors can determine, and their prognosis for his future playing ability as well as his personal health situation, I can easily see, and even agree with your thinking, that retirement might be a smart option for him. Depends a lot on what his prognosis is and what the doctors say.

[frankbmd]

I'll tell Mike to check out this thread for our expert's advice and opinions before making any decisions.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

I'll tell Mike to check out this thread for our expert's advice and opinions before making any decisions.

So Frank, given your background and experience, what do you think?

[mrreality68]

I think the way they are talking with load management he will play a lot less games than if healthy (but has not been fully healthy regularly in 3 years) but he at least for first few years will probably (just guess) play at a high level and as a result his Stats will be fine but to me
1. How will it impact his team and season if he keeps playing 60 to 70% of games?
2. How will that effect his team run(or lack of run to the playoffs).
3. The impact on his team getting and retaining great players (if his team is perceived as not a real contender year in and year out while spending a lot of money)
4. Obviously how it effects his status as a legend of the game and where he ranks
5. Or worse he starts a slow steady define in his play and he greatness takes a hit if he is not playing up to his standard year in and year out and his average drops, his production drops, etc

[Touch'EmAll]

Kinda surprised I haven't heard rumors of Trout going strictly DH. If he could get 120+ games/year at DH it could enable him to play a lot more years while still possibly accumulating some historic milestone numbers. I wonder if his back injury is more a limiting factor hitting vs. regular outfield play ?

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

I'll tell Mike to check out this thread for our expert's advice and opinions before making any decisions.

Originally Posted by BobC

So Frank, given your background and experience, what do you think?

Hey Bob, you deserve a response. I would be wary of taking advice from a retired surgeon whose specialty was oncologic surgery for a patient he has never seen and whose records and images he has not reviewed or nor has access to.

There may be forum members better qualified than I, but there are quite a few who are not. Not casting stones, just sayin'.

As an aside I did train with an orthopedic surgeon, Lewis Yocum, who became the Angels team physician for a number of years and was instrumental in developing Tommy John surgery with Dr. Jobe, who gets more credit.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/s...ies-at-65.html.

[nat]

"the biggest to punish the 19th century pitchers because without it, it turns out a pitcher who throws 500 innings and leads the league in ERA produces more value to their team than a pitcher that grows 220 innings and leads the league in ERA, which is not what people wanted to see"


The highest WAR seasons are almost all 19th century pitchers. Here's the list (bWAR, not Fangraph's stat):

1883 Tim Keefe
1884 Old Hoss Radbourn
1884 Pud Galvin
1876 Jim Devlin
1884 Guy Hecker
1913 Walter Johnson
1884 Charlie Buffington
1889 John Clarkson
1888 Silver King
1887 John Clarkson

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Hey Bob, you deserve a response. I would be wary of taking advice from a retired surgeon whose specialty was oncologic surgery for a patient he has never seen and whose records and images he has not reviewed or nor has access to.

There may be forum members better qualified than I, but there are quite a few who are not. Not casting stones, just sayin'.

As an aside I did train with an orthopedic surgeon, Lewis Yocum, who became the Angels team physician for a number of years and was instrumental in developing Tommy John surgery with Dr. Jobe, who gets more credit.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/s...ies-at-65.html.

Come on man, lack of knowledge never stopped anyone here before from pontificating on a subject. See numerous discussions of legal issues for example.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Come on man, lack of knowledge never stopped anyone here before from pontificating on a subject. See numerous discussions of legal issues for example.

Licenses to Post Authoritatively on Net54

MD
LLD
CPA
PGA
PBA
MLB
PTA
AOC
NBA
NFL
NHL
WNBA
UAE
AFL/CIO
CCP
USAF
IBM
AFT
ATF
ATM
PHD
ENT
CRT
MBA
LGBTQ+

How to cross the Rio Grande - ROWvWADE

but Freedom of Speech -

Forget about it

Supplement the list if I haven't offended you.

[KCRfan1]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Hey Bob, you deserve a response. I would be wary of taking advice from a retired surgeon whose specialty was oncologic surgery for a patient he has never seen and whose records and images he has not reviewed or nor has access to.

There may be forum members better qualified than I, but there are quite a few who are not. Not casting stones, just sayin'.

As an aside I did train with an orthopedic surgeon, Lewis Yocum, who became the Angels team physician for a number of years and was instrumental in developing Tommy John surgery with Dr. Jobe, who gets more credit.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/s...ies-at-65.html.

Dr. Frank,

Thank you to you and any other docs out there and on the forum.

In August of 2015 I dealt with a stage 4 lymphoma, Diffuse Large B Cell.

I should have died at least 3 or 4 times during those remaining months in 2015, yet here I am.

I had a great kid at the time take care of me at KU Med. He's early 30's now.

Kept me alive and he is the ONLY Oncology doc I see for follow up, even though he is in Hays KS now, instead of Kansas City. I will drive to see him. I used to fly from OC in CA, but recently moved back to Olathe.

Anyways, Thank you Frank for the help and hope you gave to patients who benefited from your care and expertise.

Lou

[BobC]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Hey Bob, you deserve a response. I would be wary of taking advice from a retired surgeon whose specialty was oncologic surgery for a patient he has never seen and whose records and images he has not reviewed or nor has access to.

There may be forum members better qualified than I, but there are quite a few who are not. Not casting stones, just sayin'.

As an aside I did train with an orthopedic surgeon, Lewis Yocum, who became the Angels team physician for a number of years and was instrumental in developing Tommy John surgery with Dr. Jobe, who gets more credit.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/s...ies-at-65.html.

LOL

I hear you Frank. But first off, nobody was saying they were any kind of expert, nor trying to tell Mike Trout what to do either, which is what you kind of alluded to when you said you'd pass this thread along to him. I know I would never tell someone like him what to do, just speculating on how what he does decide may be perceived by fans and how it could be viewed in regard to and ultimately affect his legacy as a player and his HOF status.

My original question to you was solely in regard to that question, the one I asked about his possibly continuing to play if his level of play is considerably diminished going forward. And I was asking you to respond in regard to your background and experience as a baseball fan and collector, which I would naturally believe most everyone posting on this forum is to some extent. I was not implying nor asking for any kind of medical opinion. If that is what you were thinking, you just went down the wrong rabbit hole.

[maniac_73]

People are actually saying Trout should retire now? Just when I thought I’d seen it all here


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

LOL

I hear you Frank. But first off, nobody was saying they were any kind of expert, nor trying to tell Mike Trout what to do either, which is what you kind of alluded to when you said you'd pass this thread along to him. I know I would never tell someone like him what to do, just speculating on how what he does decide may be perceived by fans and how it could be viewed in regard to and ultimately affect his legacy as a player and his HOF status.

My original question to you was solely in regard to that question, the one I asked about his possibly continuing to play if his level of play is considerably diminished going forward. And I was asking you to respond in regard to your background and experience as a baseball fan and collector, which I would naturally believe most everyone posting on this forum is to some extent. I was not implying nor asking for any kind of medical opinion. If that is what you were thinking, you just went down the wrong rabbit hole.

Anyone reading your question to Frank would have assumed you were asking about his "background and experience" as a doctor, not a fan and collector. As you are now spinning it, it makes no sense. Just my opinion. Carry on.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by maniac_73

People are actually saying Trout should retire now? Just when I thought I’d seen it all here


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't think anyone is consciously stating he should retire, unless continuing to play could potentially end up seriously affecting his health going forward. We don't really know anything about his health and back situation yet, and how that may affect his playing ability and future health status, should he continue playing. He and his doctors will have to look into that, and then it will be up to Trout to decide what is best for him.

The relevance though is that this seems very similar to the type of decision that Sandy Koufax ended up making when he decided to retire at the height of his career. No one was telling Koufax to retire either, but based on his health and condition, along with the opinions of his doctors, he made the somewhat startling and unexpected decision to call it a career when he did. In retrospect, I don't think anyone today disagrees with that decision Koufax made so many years ago. Speculating if Trout may be facing a similar type of decision is in no way saying he should retire. But clearly a precedent, and the possibility, does exist.

Personally, I would hope for Trout to recover completely, and have no continuing or potentially negative health effects coming from his current situation.

[Peter_Spaeth]

You wonder if today's presumably more advanced medical care would have done better by Koufax.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Absolutely, imo. Agreed - the best hitter in the game for a decade (or close to it).

what if he played only 6 years. but won all those mvps and all years an all star etc.. how many years is the cutoff?

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

what if he played only 6 years. but won all those mvps and all years an all star etc.. how many years is the cutoff?

I don't have an answer on that.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

what if he played only 6 years. but won all those mvps and all years an all star etc.. how many years is the cutoff?

10 I think.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Right because if he played 8 years...how is 8 years make the cutoff?

I have not looked up sandy koufax but his career was cut short due the right type of injury and everyone agrees hes a HOF, also untimely deaths can play a role or perhaps descriminiation leading to less major league service

but unlike sandys injury if its just a bad knees or back pain etc...not sure how 8 years is enough unless the stats themselves almost look like 13 year stats or whatever amount....

[Peter_Spaeth]

Why are you asking about 8 years?

[1952boyntoncollector]

8 years is cited in this thread..

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by G1911

Even with only 8 real seasons, if he never plays a game again I think he would be elected in his first year of eligibility and deservingly so.

From this is where I used the 8 example..

thus I wanted to see what we thought the cutoff was in years or in counting stats... you not going to hit 500 homers in 8 years obviously or get 3000 hits... but there could be lesser HOF counting stats for careers cut short for the right injury or right reason...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

8 years is cited in this thread..

He is in his 12th season.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

He is in his 12th season.

so then he has 12 years then......still was interesting to see how many seasons would be considered enough whether it 8 or 12 etc.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

so then he has 12 years then......still was interesting to see how many seasons would be considered enough whether it 8 or 12 etc.

The rule is 10.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The rule is 10.

Ok now i know. GI Jose..

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Anyone reading your question to Frank would have assumed you were asking about his "background and experience" as a doctor, not a fan and collector. As you are now spinning it, it makes no sense. Just my opinion. Carry on.

Hmmmmmmmmmm???

I only know what I thought and meant, and sure as hell wasn't spinning anything. I've often been accused on here of writing too much, which I do so that what I'm saying is complete and as clear as possible. If I had wanted a medical opinion from someone, I would have stated I wanted a medical opinion. Quite honestly, I had forgotten about someone even being a doctor when I responded. But thank you for going ahead and making an assumption on your, and apparently everyone else's behalf, as to what I was thinking and meant!!!

I gave that one post the benefit of the doubt and figured it was made as a joke about letting Trout know what all the "experts" on here were telling him to do, because if you go back and read the actual posts, no one was telling Trout to do anything. And rather than commenting on it and pointing out the potential sarcasm and error in that one response, I just simply asked the person posting to respond to the actual serious question I had originally asked and was hoping to hear his, and other people's opinions and responses on. In other words, just looking to get the thread back on track. But guess what, because of other posters making more jokes and comments and continuing to ignore the question and instead making assumptions as to what they believe others are saying/thinking, no one has yet to really respond to the original, serious question about how Trout's ability and playing level going forward could affect how his legacy as a player may end up being perceived.

So thank you to those that have once again succeeded in hijacking and turning a thread from its original topic, talking about Trout and how his current injury situation could affect him now and going forward. If I had even remotely meant what you insinuated, I would have owned up and admitted to it. If I am wrong about something, I'm the first to admit it and apologize for it. I'm also open-minded enough to actually listen to things that others say, and can have my mind and thinking changed when presented with logical, sensical facts and civil arguments.

And in an attempt to try once more to get this thread back on point, why not actually post a response to the question about how Trout's future ability to play ball could affect his legacy if he were to continue playing at a much diminished level, or if he decides to retire early?

Carry on yourself!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by nat

"the biggest to punish the 19th century pitchers because without it, it turns out a pitcher who throws 500 innings and leads the league in ERA produces more value to their team than a pitcher that grows 220 innings and leads the league in ERA, which is not what people wanted to see"


The highest WAR seasons are almost all 19th century pitchers. Here's the list (bWAR, not Fangraph's stat):

1883 Tim Keefe
1884 Old Hoss Radbourn
1884 Pud Galvin
1876 Jim Devlin
1884 Guy Hecker
1913 Walter Johnson
1884 Charlie Buffington
1889 John Clarkson
1888 Silver King
1887 John Clarkson

Yes, even after punishment they end up at the top. Are you alleging the equation for WAR does not have a component subtracting for pitchers in the 19th century? This is not really an area of dispute…

[Peter_Spaeth]

Well, Pujols has been mediocre since 2011 and it hasn't seemed to hurt his legacy.