Trout/Herschel Walker

[Lou E Ville]

The Rangers got a pretty nice haul for Mark Teixeira.

[austin724]

Will everyone please stop with why we should trade Mike Trout. The FO may be stupid but I don't think they are that stupid.

[Angelsjunky]

Excellent post, Doc, I agree that you nailed it. My only nit-pick has already been addressed - that Wayne Gretsky should be included in the Greatest of All Time category for his sport.

 

Actually, it is interesting how most major sports have a clear GOAT:

 

Baseball - Babe Ruth

Basketball - Michael Jordan

Tennis (Men's) - Roger Federer

Hockey - Wayne Gretzky

Soccer - Pele

Golf - Jack Nicklaus

 

Interestingly enough, only football doesn't have a clear GOAT. Part of that is because the positions are more different from each other than in most other sports. But even then, who is the greatest QB ever? Is it Peyton Manning with his best statistics but only one Super Bowl? Tom Brady who doesn't have Manning's statistics but does have four Super Bowls? Joe Montana? What about running backs - is it Jim Brown? Reggie Sanders? etc. Women's tennis also, with Magaret Court, Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf, and Serena Williams all having cases to make.

 

I think you can argue for a few of the list above - that Tiger Woods was, at his peak at least, greater than Nicklaus, or that Lionel Messi is surpassing Pele, or that Mario Lemieux - if he had been healthy - would have similar. But each of the above represents a clear archetype for their respective sport.

 

As for Trout, at this point something catastrophic would have to happen for him not to be a Hall of Famer. I suppose the little nitpick of worry would be that he'd go the route of someone like Cesar Cedeno, who was at his best very early on and had a good career, but was never as good past his early 20s. But Trout is a much better hitter than Cedeno, so I'm not really worried. The real question, I think, is how great will he be, and this boils down to two questions:

1. Will he get better? I think its clear that he can sustain this level, at least for some years, but can he actually improve?
2. How will his decline look? One of the defining qualities of the inner circle greats is that they sustained a very high level deep into their 30s. Perhaps the lone exception is Mickey Mantle, whose body fell apart and he had his last great season at age 32 and retired at 36. Mantle's peak was so good that he's still considered an all-time great and I think you can make an argument that during his very best years (age 24-25) he was as good a ballplayer as has ever been. Through his age 32 year, he is 4th all-time with 99.9 fWAR - behind only Hornsby, Cobb, and Ruth (Hornsby is another example of a player that could have been the GOAT if he had aged a bit better; he was #1 in fWAR through his age 33 season, his last great year).

Look at Ken Griffey Jr. He is a first-ballot Hall of Famer who was one of the five or so best players of the 1990s and finished with 77.4 fWAR (or 78.5, depending upon where you look on the website - must be a glitch), good for around 40th on the all-time list. But consider that through age 30 he was 14th all time with 75 fWAR, right there in the mix with Musial, Aaron, Bonds, Gehrig, and Speaker. Griffey hobbled through 10 more seasons and was barely above replacement level during that time, with some good seasons mixed with bad; actually, from 2004-08 (age 34-38) Griffey's defense was so bad that he contributed about -100 fielding runs - which is a negative impact of 10 fWAR! If he has simply played ok defense and/or DHed during that time, his final fWAR would have been closer to 90.

 

So you have the "ghosts" of Cesar Cedeno, Mickey Mantle, and Ken Griffey looking over Trout's shoulder. I think we don't have to worry too much about Cedeno - Trout is better than Cedeno ever was. Mantle's decline was largely due to alcoholism, which also seems an unlikely course for Trout. And Griffey? Well, if I remember correctly his body just broken down, perhaps due to throwing it against walls and playing all out. While Trout gives the game his all, he seems a bit less reckless than, say, Bryce Harper.

 

So we'll just have to see. The crazy thing is that those Mickey Mantle comparisons of a couple years ago - remember that? - aren't looking so crazy right now. Trout is a very similar player to Mantle, and actually better through his age 21 season (but then again, Trout's better than everybody through age 21). Like Mantle, I would guess that Trout has his very best years around age 24-25, when he still has his speed and his bat has matured a bit more. I would also guess that age 26 to about age 32 will be equal in terms of hitting to that earlier peak, but we'll see losses in terms of baserunning and fielding. How he does from about age 32 on will determine whether he's one of the 30-40 greatest players of all time, or one of the top 20 or even 10.

 

I just hope we get to see him do all of this in an Angels uniform.

[Ohtaniland]

I like everything that Doc said. The one thing that is clear is that Mike Trout is an MLB superstar and has enough clout to do whatever he wants to do and play wherever he wants to play. The Angels need to make better personnel decisions and stop wasting the time left for Weaver. They need to start winning on the field or Mike Trout might lose interest in staying here. Look at 21 year old Manny Machado who will most likely be playing in his first playoffs while Mike Trout misses out again. Its not a great situation for Trout to play around so many underachievers. The $130M roster needs a complete overhaul while teams like Tampa and Oakland continue to compete at a high level. It must be frustrating for Mike Trout who gives 110% every night while watching some of our highest paid players continue to fail. Losing sucks and I believe it will become a huge factor in Trouts decision making.

[Tank]

Why are so many of you so determined that Trout is as good as gone?

Four years until he hits free agency. So much can happen between now and then. So much.

It honestly looks like some of you cant be happy unless youre miserable.

[Mark68]

yeah.  true.  he's in a category by himself.  Ruth and Jordan are in that category as well.  Trout isn't quite at that level. 

One could argue for Ruth. One could also argue for many players in the Negro Leagues. It's too bad that they couldn't play on the same field with the same competition at the same time, because we might have a better idea whether Ruth, Josh Gibson, or Buck O'Neil might have been better, or at the same level in the sport as a Jordan or Gretzky.

[Lifetime]

the difficulty of comparing athletes across generations is immense. One of the biggest factors that needs to be considered is the relative skills and abilities of the league in general at a given athlete's career. For example, the era when Ruth played had fewer teams, fewer great athletes (lower over all skill on average) and less overall level of play. He was dominant for his era, but how would that translate into today's era? It's a tough comparison to make the further apart the playing generations get from each other. I personally think it is much harder for any athlete today to be a dominant player of his generation than it was back in Ruth's era.

[Count Orlok]

Didn't the Sox basically offer their entire farm system for Felix Hernandez a few years ago?

[Lou E Ville]

One year I believe Ruth hit more homers than most of the other teams in the league.