Could Trout become the greatest baseball player ever?

[Amazing Larry]

Why? If anything, his all-time numbers are most effected by games missed due to WWII and the Korean War. He essentially lost five years out of his prime. Even a modest 40 extra WAR puts him past Babe Ruth.

 

Or is it because his frozen head was used as a ball?

 

Um... I'm quite sure he meant that in a positive way. Musial lost a year to service in the navy as well.

[Llewyn Davis]

Yes.

 

But he needs to stay healthy and maintain his peak years in his early-to-mid 30s.

 

He can be what Barry Bonds was supposed to be - before he cheated. The greatest all-around player of all time. And Trout is a natural center fielder, not a left fielder like Bonds. Advantage Trout in that regard.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Llewyn Davis

[YouthofToday]

What is Trout's tWtW?

[Docwaukee]

What is Trout's tWtW?

still?

[Tyler]

Yes

[Punk]

No, but he could become the greatest Angel ever.

Edited February 11, 2014 by CM Punk

[Angelsjunky]

The crazy thing about Trout is that he's going to become the best Angels player (by WAR) before he even reaches free agency. He only has to average 5.5 WAR a year for the next four years to surpass Fregosi.

 

Trout is going to be the best Angels player of all time, and then some.

 

I agree that Ruth is his own category. I'd also rather look at generation, era, and by position.

 

By generation - which is hard to make a clear cut-off, but if we're talking about players born in the '90s - he is clearly the best so far.

 

By era - let's say free agency and DH, so the 1970s to the present - he has a good chance. Bonds is by far the best player (164.1), but will always have that asterisk. After him on the list of 1970-present, you've got Alex Rodriguez (111), Mike Schmidt (106.5), and Rickey Henderson (106.2), then the next group - Ripken, Boggs, Pujols, Chipper Jones, etc - more than 20 WAR behind. So first Trout has to surpass the herd and get to 100 WAR to be considered the best of free agency era.

 

By position - as I wrote, you've got Mays and Cobb as the Big Two, then Speaker, Mantle, and DiMaggio. Hey, if Trout can join that group and be part of the sextet, I won't complain.

 

But again, all of this is premature. Let's see how he does over the next five years.

[sneaky_flute]

It's hard to say who the best players in history really are considering the context of each era is different. Trout is likely better than players like Ruth, Williams, and Mantle.

[fan_since79]

Beer and 79. Thank you for writing what I would have. (And Junky for stats)

Nobody beats babe. The guy's hitting numbers would have been even better had he not pitched. And he was a stud pitching.

Didn't he have a good scoreless streak or consecutive World Series shutouts in 17 or 18?

Trout will never be better than Ruth. The man changed the game of baseball.

 

29.2 consecutive scoreless innings in World Series play, 1916 and 1918. Babe's record was eventually broken by Whitey Ford in 1961.

[gotbeer]

It's hard to say who the best players in history really are considering the context of each era is different. Trout is likely better than players like Ruth, Williams, and Mantle.

 

You obviously don't know who Ruth, Williams, or Mantle are. 

 

Heck, Trout isn't even the best player of this era yet.  

[fan_since79]

You obviously don't know who Ruth, Williams, or Mantle are. 

 

Heck, Trout isn't even the best player of this era yet.  

 

Miguel Cabrera likes this post.

[gotbeer]

Miguel Cabrera likes this post.

 

I was thinking more of Albert Pujols.

[sneaky_flute]

You obviously don't know who Ruth, Williams, or Mantle are. 

 

Heck, Trout isn't even the best player of this era yet.  

They played under different circumstances, against inferior competition. During those periods, there was an abundance of elite hitters at any given moment. I have a hard time buying that all the best players in history were involved in the sport's infancy.

Edited February 11, 2014 by sneaky_flute

[fan_since79]

I was thinking more of Albert Pujols.

 

Oh yeah...great hitter, played for the Cardinals. 

Edited February 11, 2014 by fan_since79

[stormngt]

They played under different circumstances, against inferior competition. During those periods, there was an abundance of elite hitters at any given moment. I have a hard time buying that all the best players in history were involved in the sport's infancy.

The problem is that you can only speculate.  The only thing that is proven is the stats.  And the stats speak for themselves.  You can speculate who a player of a past generation may perform today or vice versa.  But there is no proof.  So let the stats speak.

[Docwaukee]

it's impossible to compare players from different eras.  

 

Babe Ruth faced 7 teams in his career.  Most pitchers he faced were starters who pitched a whole game.  So he faced very few pitchers in general relative to guys now.  I wonder how many lefty specialists he faced.  Then you have to consider player inequality. What about park factors?  The polo grounds field was 483ft to CF, 449 to RCF, and 258 to RF.  

 

Then you look at the ball which has changed over the years.  The height of the mound.  Field conditions.  PEDs which include not only anabolic steroids but stimulants.  

 

Athletes are now better trained with improved facilities and techniques.  There is better advanced scouting and data.  

 

on and on.  At the end of the day, it's really only fair to compare Trout to his peers while he played.  

[ScottT]

Yeah, comparing Babe Ruth and Mike Trout by looking at WAR... or OPS+... or anything... is pretty flawed.  Babe Ruth was the most dominant player of all time, but the best?   I think players, in general, are much better than they were 100 years ago.   

[Count Orlok]

He could be the best of the era or century but it's almost impossible to put up numbers like they used to. Back in the old days the top players put up some ridiculous numbers that you just don't see out of people anymore. Miguel Cabrera or Pujols in his prime came close but nobody hits .360 with 45 HR anymore. Look at the top seasons by WAR on baseball reference and only 4 guys on the top 50 made it in in the last 30 years. 

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/WAR_bat_season.shtml

 

Trout, A-Rod's 2000 season, and some of Bond's ridiculous years, and Sammy Sosa in 2001. That's it. It's a lot more of a level playing field than it used to be which seems odd since there's a lot more players now so the talent gap between the best and the worst should be bigger but they didn't have specialists back then either.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Count Orlok

[Brent Maguire]

Good debate going on in this thread.

Clearly, we'll never be able to compare players from different ERAs. I would really like to know how some of the players today fared 100 years ago.

Nutrition and training was way weaker 100 years ago but the level of competition was very weak. How would Babe Ruth dare against some of the Latin and African American players today?

Or how would a terrible player like Brandon Wood dare if he played 100 years ago?

All interesting points that will unfortunately never be answered.

[QuinlansMinion]

Yeah, comparing Babe Ruth and Mike Trout by looking at WAR... or OPS+... or anything... is pretty flawed.  Babe Ruth was the most dominant player of all time, but the best?   I think players, in general, are much better than they were 100 years ago.   

 

Babe Ruth would barely crack .200 batting average if he played today.

[Llewyn Davis]

Babe Ruth would barely crack .200 batting average if he played today.

 

No way of knowing how he would do. I suspect he would be a lot better than you think, though.

[gotbeer]

Good debate going on in this thread.

Clearly, we'll never be able to compare players from different ERAs. I would really like to know how some of the players today fared 100 years ago.

Nutrition and training was way weaker 100 years ago but the level of competition was very weak. How would Babe Ruth dare against some of the Latin and African American players today?

Or how would a terrible player like Brandon Wood dare if he played 100 years ago?

All interesting points that will unfortunately never be answered.

 

Other things to consider.  I think back then, strike zone was from the chest to just below the knees.  And spitballs and doctored balls were pretty common.  Not sure how often they changed balls back then either.  Just the quality of the balls back then would make a big difference.  Heck, it made a big difference that one season when balls were wound so tight, that they were flying out of stadiums.

[tdawg87]

All I know is this: Mike Trout makes my penis the big penis.

[Jay]

This is all you need to know:

 

http://voices.yahoo.com/baseball-players-hit-most-home-runs-in-6847392.html?cat=37

[Halos of Anaheim]

it's impossible to compare players from different eras.  

 

Babe Ruth faced 7 teams in his career.  Most pitchers he faced were starters who pitched a whole game.  So he faced very few pitchers in general relative to guys now.  I wonder how many lefty specialists he faced.  Then you have to consider player inequality. What about park factors?  The polo grounds field was 483ft to CF, 449 to RCF, and 258 to RF.  

 

Then you look at the ball which has changed over the years.  The height of the mound.  Field conditions.  PEDs which include not only anabolic steroids but stimulants.  

 

Athletes are now better trained with improved facilities and techniques.  There is better advanced scouting and data.  

 

on and on.  At the end of the day, it's really only fair to compare Trout to his peers while he played.  

This.