New Trout Pr0n

[nate]

Fun-fact faceoff: Why 2018 could be monumental for Mike Trout

[JustATroutFan]

I had to stop reading where the article explained that some idiots thinks that Trout shouldn't be compared to the all time greats since he didn't perform in he postseason. First of all, Trout's only played in one postseason and even though he had bad postseason, it is a small sample size. Even a sorry scrub like Jeff Mathis can put up a big slash line based on a small sample size of games. And second of all, for those idiots who thinks that Trout shouldn't be compared to the all time greats in baseball history just because he hasn't hit in the postseason, that means that guys like Ted Williams and Ty Cobb aren't all-time greats, either. 

[Taylor]

*SI Cover
*The article about him not striking out in ST
*This article

RIP, Mike Trout.

[Taylor]

In all seriousness, the butthurt comments under that article are a fun read. I lost several IQ points by reading this one:

[JustATroutFan]

Good job on calling that idiot out, @Taylor. That idiot's profile picture fits his "idiot" discription. 

[Angels#1Fan]

I love Trout as much as the next guy but the entire article is about WAR.

These guys act like WAR is the only measuring stick in the game that defines greatness. lol They completely ignore any other stat when comparing Trout to other players. Makes for a weak argument imo.

Ted Williams first seven years he hit:

.327, .344, .406, .356, (he missed the next three seasons in WWII came back and hit) .342, .343, .369 and he hit 222 HR in the same time frame leading the league 3 times in the process!

That's right Williams averaged .355 his first seven years!!!

For Trout's first six seasons he's averaging .309.

I won't bother listing Williams OBP, walks or RBI because these stats are pooh poohed as meaningless today. lol

Williams played 19 years and K'd only 709 times..his worst season he struck out 64 times (his rookie year). 

Trout has already K'd 874 times. (I know K's don't mean shit in todays game) 

Trout is off to a great career, but to mention him in the same breath as players like Williams, Ruth and Mays based solely on WAR is nonsense.

Perhaps by the time Trout retires he will surpass some of the greats of the game but until then lets try and refrain from anointing him the greatest of all time based solely on WAR.

Again, I love Trout as much as anyone and I'm more than happy he's an Angel and hope that he plays his entire career here.

 

Edited to add: my post is more about WAR and how it has become "the stat" to end all arguments than it is about Mike Trout's greatness.

 

[Chuck]

2 minutes ago, Angels#1Fan said:

I love Trout as much as the next guy but the entire article is about WAR.

These guys act like WAR is the only measuring stick in the game that defines greatness. lol

Ted Williams first seven years he hit:

.327, .344, .406, .356, (he missed the next three seasons in WWII came back and hit) .342, .343, .369 and he hit 222 HR in the same time frame leading the league 3 times in the process!

That's right Williams averaged .355 his first seven years!!!

For Trout's first six seasons he's averaging .309.

I won't bother listing Williams OBP, walks or RBI because these stats are pooh poohed as meaningless today. lol

Williams played 19 years and K'd only 709 times..his worst season he struck out 64 times (his rookie year). 

Trout has already K'd 874 times. (I know K's don't mean shit in todays game) 

Trout is off to a great career, but to mention him in the same breath as players like Williams, Ruth and Mays based solely on WAR is nonsense.

Perhaps by the time Trout retires he will surpass some of the greats of the game but until then lets try and refrain from anointing him the greatest of all time based solely on WAR.

Again, I love Trout as much as anyone and I'm more than happy he's an Angel and hope that he plays his entire career here.

 

@Angels#1Fan here's where I disagree with you.

I'd like to see some stats to back my thoughts here, but I've been of the knowledge that back in those days these pitchers were not throwing splitters, cutters in on you, nasty curveballs, 90 MPH sliders and sinkers. Not to mention, there was not a lot of major league starting pitchers that were hitting mid to upper 90's heat way back then. Essentially, if you could hit a good fastball (which is essentially makes up a good % of those that wears a big league uniform), you could put up big numbers back in the day. 

Now, that doesn't mean there weren't good pitchers back when Ted Williams played, there was a bunch, but I'm guessing a fringe average major league starting pitcher nowadays that can mix in 4 average offerings puts up CY Young numbers way back when Ted Williams played ball. 

I would like to see how Mantle would adjust against good secondary pitches and if the Babe and Ted could crush mid 90's heaters, knowing there's also a hook or changeup in the pitcher's mix.

[Angels#1Fan]

@Chuckster70 sorry Chuck but I don't by the notion that players of Williams era faced inferior talent, in fact, there are twice as many players in MLB today than there were in Williams time and imho the talent is diluted down some. Think about it Chuck..half of the players today would be in the minors if they played when there were only 8 teams in each league!

As far as the opinion of pitchers throwing harder now than in Williams time goes, that argument will never be put to rest because there were no radar guns then. Besides I think it's hard to believe that the human species has evolved that much in the last 60 to 80 years or so. In fact didn't Nolan Ryan throw over 100 mph when he came up as a Met in 1968..50 years ago??? 

You're going to have a hard time convincing me that players like Koufax or Gibson and many others didn't throw over 95 consistently.  

Again, to make my point very clear, it is not about todays players versus yesterdays. My point is about basing an entire argument of a players greatness on WAR alone..it's bs imo. The fact that so many people do it (including the authors in the article above) makes their argument a very weak one imo.

[Chuck]

8 minutes ago, Angels#1Fan said:

@Chuckster70 sorry Chuck but I don't by the notion that players of Williams era faced inferior talent, in fact, there are twice as many players in MLB today than there were in Williams time and imho the talent is diluted down some. Think about it Chuck..half of the players today would be in the minors if they played when there were only 8 teams in each league!

As far as the opinion of pitchers throwing harder now than in Williams time goes, that argument will never be put to rest because there were no radar guns then. Besides I think it's hard to believe that the human species has evolved that much in the last 60 to 80 years or so. In fact didn't Nolan Ryan throw over 100 mph when he came up as a Met in 1968..50 years ago??? 

You're going to have a hard time convincing me that players like Koufax or Gibson and many others didn't throw over 95 consistently.  

Again, to make my point very clear, it is not about todays players versus yesterdays. My point is about basing an entire argument of a players greatness on WAR alone..it's bs imo. The fact that so many people do it (including the authors in the article above) makes their argument a very weak one imo.

I would just like to see a study made on this topic because it's fascinating to me.

I do believe though that if Trout was facing the type of arms that were on the mound during Ted Williams' era he'd have even a higher WAR, better stat lines across the board. 

[Make Angels Great Again]

If you were going to pick one stat to compare two players and try to say who was better, WAR is the best stat for the job like it or not. That's objectively indisputable.

 

And the article went beyond WAR, they think Trout is going to be the all time leader in runs scored.

[Docwaukee]

WAR isn't perfect, but it's the only thing that comes close to stacking up players from different generations.  

There was WAY WAY less talent in the game 70 years ago.  To think otherwise is a complete non-starter.  The game has become totally different.  

When Williams played, there were 8 teams in the AL and  they only played against each other.  In 1942, Williams faced 75 pitchers all year.  Last season, Trout faced 175.  

In that same season, Williams had 108 plate appearances vs. a starting pitcher that he'd already seen 3 times.  Do you know how many times Trout saw a pitcher for the 4th time in one game last year?  8.  Trout face a reliever 164 times last year.  Williams 94 times.  And in 1942, reliever era was half a point worse than that of starters.  Why?  because they typically sucked.  

This is just the tip of the iceberg.  There's a whole slew of other reasons why the game used to be much easier.  

Do you know how good Mike Trout is to do the things he does in today's game?  that's WAR.  

Think of WAR this way.  Instead of calling it WAR, let's call it 'stat that shows how much better or worse you are relative to everyone else in the league for that year'.  

in other words, Trout is on par with the all time greats in terms of how he stacks up vs. his current peer group.  

[Dick B Back]

1 hour ago, Chuckster70 said:

I would just like to see a study made on this topic because it's fascinating to me.

I do believe though that if Trout was facing the type of arms that were on the mound during Ted Williams' era he'd have even a higher WAR, better stat lines across the board. 

I understand where you are coming from, but as an old guy let me say this, Trout would be hitting against pitchers:

1. Throwing from an elevated mound.

2. Throwing stuff we don’t see now like screwballs and spitters.

3. When facing primo pitchers of the day, facing them 4 times in a game, i.e. the Koufax, Gibson, Feller types, not some BP scrubs.

Also, travel by train/bus, lack of decent medical staff and weightroom facilities, no high tech meals.

its all apples and oranges.

[ten ocho recon scout]

2 hours ago, Angels#1Fan said:

@Chuckster70 sorry Chuck but I don't by the notion that players of Williams era faced inferior talent, in fact, there are twice as many players in MLB today than there were in Williams time and imho the talent is diluted down some. 

Theres also a far bigger pool to pick from today, because the world is a lot bigger.

And blacks can play now. (Satchel paige dominated when he finally got a chsnce, and he was like 90 years old).

The guys who make it today spent their masterbation years playing travel ball. They had parents who drove them to different states each weekend to face the top percent of teen players. In mantles days. Teds days. Babes days, etc, they played the neighborhood kids. (No blacks, though).

While guys like mays, williams etc likely had enough natural skill to put in a time machine and play today, the overall wasnt near as good as now. No way around it.

Guys who played in the nba in the 50s and 60s were good...in the 50s and 60s. The game is completely different now.

Go back and look at early UFC fights...when guys who said they knew "karate" were fighting and winning...compare it to now. No tae kwon do black belt is winning a UFC fight today.

[HaloCory22]

With the amount of training, technology and practice today's players go through there's no doubt, absolutely no doubt they'd destroy the Williams era players. Humans evolve. Records are broken every year in sports. They've had the benefit of having technology available and education on how to be better and train better for their specific sports. 

[ten ocho recon scout]

1 minute ago, HaloCory22 said:

With the amount of training, technology and practice today's players go through there's no doubt, absolutely no doubt they'd destroy the Williams era players. Humans evolve. Records are broken every year in sports. They've had the benefit of having technology available and education on how to be better and train better for their specific sports. 

The question with this, is how would those old timers do with todays "cheats"? Scouting, diet, supplements, etc.

[Angel Oracle]

2 hours ago, Taylor said:

In all seriousness, the butthurt comments under that article are a fun read. I lost several IQ points by reading this one:

Hey Johnny Skank!   Your heroes (mainly LHH's) benefitted from old Skankee Canaveral AND new Skankee Canaveral from straightaway RF to the RF foul line.

[Tank]

9 minutes ago, Dick B Back said:

I understand where you are coming from, but as an old guy let me say this, Trout would be hitting against pitchers:

1. Throwing from an elevated mound.

2. Throwing stuff we don’t see now like screwballs and spitters.

3. When facing primo pitchers of the day, facing them 4 times in a game, i.e. the Koufax, Gibson, Feller types, not some BP scrubs.

Also, travel by train/bus, lack of decent medical staff and weightroom facilities, no high tech meals.

its all apples and oranges.

the stats used today are an effort to compare one generation to another. it's a somewhat even playing field statistically because it doesn't take into consideration talent played against, travel, park factors, conditioning, etc.

it's taken me awhile to be more accepting of modern stats - i'm not a fan of something that requires intense calculations to figure out. i like simple things that i can observe, like hits, runs, stolen bases, rbi's, homers, etc., but i see the value of the modern stats and am okay using several of them (except BAPIP, which can go screw itself).

[Tank]

6 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

The question with this, is how would those old timers do with todays "cheats"? Scouting, diet, supplements, etc.

a. they'd either do very well still (talent is talent) or

b. they'd fall and break a hip because most of them would over 90. also, their GIDP would be astronomical.

[Angelsjunky]

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but another problem with comparing Trout and Williams in terms of BA, is that most statistics aren't adjusted for context. WAR--and other sophisticated metrics--are. Remember that one year in the late 60s when Yaz won the batting title by hitting .301 (I think)? There have been years in which the league average was over .300!

This is also why OPS+ is better than OPS. OPS is a static number, while OPS+ is adjusted relative to the league (and park) context. 

[Angelsjunky]

This article rates highly in TPIO* and also, unfortunately, TPIOwaw**

*Troutporn-induced orgasm

**Troutporn-induced orgasm while at work

[GrittyVeterans]

4 hours ago, Chuckster70 said:

I would just like to see a study made on this topic because it's fascinating to me.

I do believe though that if Trout was facing the type of arms that were on the mound during Ted Williams' era he'd have even a higher WAR, better stat lines across the board. 

If you put this version of Trout in that era, then yes he'd be more dominant than Ted Williams was

 

But if Trout were born in that era, and had the same poorer nutrition, lack of training as everyone had those days, hard to say he'd be better than Ted

[Dick B Back]

3 hours ago, Tank said:

the stats used today are an effort to compare one generation to another. it's a somewhat even playing field statistically because it doesn't take into consideration talent played against, travel, park factors, conditioning, etc.

it's taken me awhile to be more accepting of modern stats - i'm not a fan of something that requires intense calculations to figure out. i like simple things that i can observe, like hits, runs, stolen bases, rbi's, homers, etc., but i see the value of the modern stats and am okay using several of them (except BAPIP, which can go screw itself).

All I know is that I’d like to see Ted Williams hit with a lowered mound, the 2017 juiced ball, and against dandy pitchers like Nolasco.

[Blarg]

6 minutes ago, hangin n wangin said:

Lol come on there Bobby.

Williams could hit in any era. He had hand eye coordination coupled with athleticism, strength, intelligence greater than his peers. With the kind of nutrition and weight training going on today he would be the same hitter, possibly even better.

[Dick B Back]

3 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

 Remember that one year in the late 60s when Yaz won the batting title by hitting .301 (I think)? There have been years in which the league average was over .300!

One of the reasons the piching mounds were lowered along with Gibson’s 1.12 ERA, to supposedly take the unfair advantage away from the pitchers.

[Tank]

9 minutes ago, Dick B Back said:

All I know is that I’d like to see Ted Williams hit with a lowered mound, the 2017 juiced ball, and against dandy pitchers like Nolasco.

or dimaggio or gehrig or ruth etc.

yeah, that'd be a blast to watch now. i'm pretty sure we'd still some impressive greatness out of them.

even more, i'd like to see some of studs over my lifetime play in the first half of the 1900s. i imagine we would have seen a .400 season or two from carew, brett, or gwynn. would like to what macgwire or sosa or canseco would have done cleanly in the 30s and 40s. would like to have seen walter johnson and christy mathewson and cy young pitch in 70s and 80s. etc etc etc.