ADVERTISEMENT

OT: Mike Trout

PSUcup1

Well-Known Member
Nov 6, 2012
9,180
9,996
1
after his 3 for 4 game last night, Trout is currently at a 5.5 WAR according to Baseball Reference

the highest single season total in baseball history is Babe Ruths 1923 total of 14.1 WAR

Trout has currently played in all 61 Angels games. At his current pace, if he plays 155 games this year, he will sit at a total of 13.97 WAR (not sure if that gets rounded up or not)

If he plays in 162, at his pace he would achieve a WAR of 14.6

if you have the chance, make sure you watch this kid play... he may just be the best ever
 
after his 3 for 4 game last night, Trout is currently at a 5.5 WAR according to Baseball Reference

the highest single season total in baseball history is Babe Ruths 1923 total of 14.1 WAR

Trout has currently played in all 61 Angels games. At his current pace, if he plays 155 games this year, he will sit at a total of 13.97 WAR (not sure if that gets rounded up or not)

If he plays in 162, at his pace he would achieve a WAR of 14.6

if you have the chance, make sure you watch this kid play... he may just be the best ever
not really, Ruth was/is the best, everyone else is fighting for second place!
 
not really, Ruth was/is the best, everyone else is fighting for second place!
Ruth’s position is weakened, though, by his competition. The fact alone that Major League Baseball wouldn’t allow some of the all-time greats compete alongside Ruth means that Ruth never truly faced the cream of the crop of his era.
 
In 1923 Ruth batted .393 with 41 HR's, 141 RBI's, 205 hits, 170 walks and 155 runs scored. His OBP was .545.

I like Trout, but Ruth's numbers are off the chart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: royboy
Ruth’s position is weakened, though, by his competition. The fact alone that Major League Baseball wouldn’t allow some of the all-time greats compete alongside Ruth means that Ruth never truly faced the cream of the crop of his era.
and we know this how?
 
Those who think Pre WW2 baseball was great. Should also start bragging
about all of Pitt and Michigan's championships back then too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wbcincy
So, you're saying baseball in 1923 is better than it is right now?
Hard to take you seriously.
he wasnt taking now vs then, he was talking about Ruth's competition in that era. the claims that he wasnt playing against the best players, and I asked how he knew he wasnt playing against the best players.
Now all that said, I dont care the era, when someone hits 714 hr, hits .342, and has 90+ career wins as a pitcher, we can talk, okay. Everybody else is fighting for second.

Batting average: .342
Home runs: 714
Hits: 2,873
RBI: 2,213
Pitching W/L record: 94-46
ERA: 2.28
 
  • Like
Reactions: NedFromYork
after his 3 for 4 game last night, Trout is currently at a 5.5 WAR according to Baseball Reference

the highest single season total in baseball history is Babe Ruths 1923 total of 14.1 WAR

Trout has currently played in all 61 Angels games. At his current pace, if he plays 155 games this year, he will sit at a total of 13.97 WAR (not sure if that gets rounded up or not)

If he plays in 162, at his pace he would achieve a WAR of 14.6

if you have the chance, make sure you watch this kid play... he may just be the best ever
Here is the bottom line......Trout is a young Mickey Mantle, without the career altering injury in his first world series and the alcohol abuse. Mantle, recovered from that mishap enough to be the best player in baseball...speed and power for about 6 years. After that, additional injuries and alcohol reduced him to a top 10 player until about 1963.
 
Here is the bottom line......Trout is a young Mickey Mantle, without the career altering injury in his first world series and the alcohol abuse. Mantle, recovered from that mishap enough to be the best player in baseball...speed and power for about 6 years. After that, additional injuries and alcohol reduced him to a top 10 player until about 1963.

If you don't like watching Mike Trout play baseball. You just don't like baseball.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EPC FAN
Ruth’s position is weakened, though, by his competition. The fact alone that Major League Baseball wouldn’t allow some of the all-time greats compete alongside Ruth means that Ruth never truly faced the cream of the crop of his era.

There is some truth to this. Plus pitching is completely different now. The different pitches that weren't around then, the specialization of the bullpen and the five man rotation have made it much tougher on hitters.

But it's impossible to compare eras with any real objectivity. It's all subjective opinion stuff in my mind.
 
Josh Gibson, John Henry Lloyd, Satchel Paige, Cool Papa Bell, Oscar Charleston....shall I go on?

Juan Marichal, Roberto Clemente, Bob Gibson, Pedro Martinez, Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz, Mariano Rivera, Derek Jeter, Alex Rodgriguez
Miguel Cabrera, Manny Machado, Frank Robinson, Henry Aaron, Willie Mays. My fingers are getting sore.
 
you can go on all day, how do we know they were better?

I didn't say they were better. But Ruth never had to play against them.

It was a reply to this:

Ruth’s position is weakened, though, by his competition. The fact alone that Major League Baseball wouldn’t allow some of the all-time greats compete alongside Ruth means that Ruth never truly faced the cream of the crop of his era.

They were all time greats, who Major League Baseball wouldn't allow to play alongside Ruth. Not sure you could dispute that.
 
I didn't say they were better. But Ruth never had to play against them.

It was a reply to this:



They were all time greats, who Major League Baseball wouldn't allow to play alongside Ruth. Not sure you could dispute that.
since they never played, how do we know they were all time greats?
 
he wasnt taking now vs then, he was talking about Ruth's competition in that era. the claims that he wasnt playing against the best players, and I asked how he knew he wasnt playing against the best players.
Now all that said, I dont care the era, when someone hits 714 hr, hits .342, and has 90+ career wins as a pitcher, we can talk, okay. Everybody else is fighting for second.

Batting average: .342
Home runs: 714
Hits: 2,873
RBI: 2,213
Pitching W/L record: 94-46
ERA: 2.28
Baseball in the 20s was like slow pitch softball. Ruth couldn't make it in AA today.
 
just look at his track record....
Batting average: .342
Home runs: 714
Hits: 2,873
RBI: 2,213
Pitching W/L record: 94-46
ERA: 2.28

He never faced Satchel Paige so how do we know for sure? You asked how we know Paige, Gibson, etc. were all time greats. That question works both ways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wbcincy
He never faced Satchel Paige so how do we know for sure? You asked how we know Paige, Gibson, etc. were all time greats. That question works both ways.

Exactly the point I was trying to make. Ruth was obviously a great player, but a huge swath of talent wasn't allowed to even set foot on an MLB field.
 
you can go on all day, how do we know they were better?

We don't.

That said --- Satchel Paige had positive WARs (and not just slightly above zero, but in the 1.5-3.5 range) in his MLB years from 1948-1953. He was 42-47 years old at the time! Joe DiMaggio himself said that Paige was the best pitcher he ever faced. They matched up in a PCL All-Star vs. Negro League All-Star exhibition in California in January 1936, when Paige was 29 years old and in his prime. Then they later faced off in MLB: DiMaggio was a career 0-for-8 with 3 Ks against Paige. That from a hitter who ended his career with 361 HRs and 369 Strikeouts! (one of the more remarkable stats ever: only 8 more career Ks than career HRs)

That's all circumstantial evidence, and it's only facts about one particular Negro League player. But I have pretty much no doubt that a number of Negro League players would have held their own (and then some) if they were allowed to play in MLB back in the era of Ruth, Gehrig and DiMaggio.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wbcincy
since they never played, how do we know they were all time greats?
We know they would have been all time greats using common sense. What if the same exclusions had been in place for the last 70 years. No players of color. Other posters have listed the great players who would never have played the game. Ruth was a great player. Common sense dictates that if Mike Trout (or Mantle, Schmidt, Judge, etc.) would have faced the all-white pitching Ruth faced, Trout might be hitting 80 home runs per year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GreggK
To examine this issue fully you must acknowledge there are far more players playing in the MLB today than there were in the 1920's and 30's. Talent is diluted and there are many players in the MLB who are not ready to play at that level. The pitching is particularly bad and one can argue that leads to more HRs and inflated stats.
 
Wondering how good Trout would be if he had the same training that the pre WWll players had.NO off season work outs,no personal trainers,no dietitians,no personal hitting instructors starting at age 10 etc.You can't compare different eras in baseball.
 
after his 3 for 4 game last night, Trout is currently at a 5.5 WAR according to Baseball Reference

the highest single season total in baseball history is Babe Ruths 1923 total of 14.1 WAR

Trout has currently played in all 61 Angels games. At his current pace, if he plays 155 games this year, he will sit at a total of 13.97 WAR (not sure if that gets rounded up or not)

If he plays in 162, at his pace he would achieve a WAR of 14.6

if you have the chance, make sure you watch this kid play... he may just be the best ever
Dude is just the real deal. Does it all and does it all pretty damn well.
 
To examine this issue fully you must acknowledge there are far more players playing in the MLB today than there were in the 1920's and 30's. Talent is diluted and there are many players in the MLB who are not ready to play at that level. The pitching is particularly bad and one can argue that leads to more HRs and inflated stats.

But you must also acknowledge that the population of the country has also increased by a larger percentage than the number of MLB players in the last 95 years. It has almost tripled. 112 million to 327 million.

In 1923 there were 16 teams. Now there are 30. So, even with the expanded rosters, the percentages are not equal. Then, you have to reduce the 1923 population to account for those who were not allowed to play. And you need to expand the 2018 population to other countries like the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Japan, etc. See what I'm getting at?

Then taking a stab at your pitching argument, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, teams roll out 5 man rotations, specialized bullpens and a much larger array of pitches. Nobody is facing a tired arm anymore. The homeruns are probably more the result of better baseballs and closer fences than bad pitching.
 
But you must also acknowledge that the population of the country has also increased by a larger percentage than the number of MLB players in the last 95 years. It has almost tripled. 112 million to 327 million.

In 1923 there were 16 teams. Now there are 30. So, even with the expanded rosters, the percentages are not equal. Then, you have to reduce the 1923 population to account for those who were not allowed to play. And you need to expand the 2018 population to other countries like the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Japan, etc. See what I'm getting at?

Then taking a stab at your pitching argument, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, teams roll out 5 man rotations, specialized bullpens and a much larger array of pitches. Nobody is facing a tired arm anymore. The homeruns are probably more the result of better baseballs and closer fences than bad pitching.

the specialized bullpens of today is a huge factor IMO
 
not really, Ruth was/is the best, everyone else is fighting for second place!
I heard that when Ruth played balls that hooked foul after passing inside the foul pole were counted as foul balls. He would have had a lot more HRs.
 
But you must also acknowledge that the population of the country has also increased by a larger percentage than the number of MLB players in the last 95 years. It has almost tripled. 112 million to 327 million.

In 1923 there were 16 teams. Now there are 30. So, even with the expanded rosters, the percentages are not equal. Then, you have to reduce the 1923 population to account for those who were not allowed to play. And you need to expand the 2018 population to other countries like the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Japan, etc. See what I'm getting at?

Then taking a stab at your pitching argument, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, teams roll out 5 man rotations, specialized bullpens and a much larger array of pitches. Nobody is facing a tired arm anymore. The homeruns are probably more the result of better baseballs and closer fences than bad pitching.
Don't disagree with anything you say and these are all very good points.
I am a baseball fan of all generations so I am not advocating that one era is best. And I believe a great player would be a great player in any era. I strongly disagree with any inference that Babe Ruth was perhaps really not that great and is overrated because he did not play against African-Americans. Maybe that's true and maybe not but I know he was one of the all-time greats regardless of who he competed against.
With respect to bullpens, I would throw this out for discussion. Agreed that nobody wants to face Mariano Rivera in the 9th inning. But that said, do we accept it as fact that facing Cristy Matthewson or Cy Young or Bob Gibson or Tom Seaver in the 8th or 9th inning is preferable to facing Jonathon Papplebon of Adam Warren? I would not assume that.
I also think we can't overlook the almost embarrassing strike out numbers today. Yesterday Aaron Judge struck out 8 times in a DH. In 1941 DiMaggio struck out 13 times all year!
So again, this is not intended to say old-time baseball was better. But I think it is a mistake to think everything modern is better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nittany Ziggy
But you must also acknowledge that the population of the country has also increased by a larger percentage than the number of MLB players in the last 95 years. It has almost tripled. 112 million to 327 million.

In 1923 there were 16 teams. Now there are 30. So, even with the expanded rosters, the percentages are not equal. Then, you have to reduce the 1923 population to account for those who were not allowed to play. And you need to expand the 2018 population to other countries like the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Japan, etc. See what I'm getting at?

Then taking a stab at your pitching argument, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, teams roll out 5 man rotations, specialized bullpens and a much larger array of pitches. Nobody is facing a tired arm anymore. The homeruns are probably more the result of better baseballs and closer fences than bad pitching.

On top of that, you have to add in the international talent pool they are now drawing from.
That said, Ruth’s number are impossible to deny.
 
I heard that when Ruth played balls that hooked foul after passing inside the foul pole were counted as foul balls. He would have had a lot more HRs.
But he also got the benefit of balls bouncing over the fence being a home run prior to the rule change in 1929 (ground rule double). Estimates are that six of his home runs bounced over the fence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bison13
Baseball in the 20s was like slow pitch softball. Ruth couldn't make it in AA today.

While I disagree that Ruth is the GOAT, I think he would have been a star even today. Hitting ability in baseball is much more a skill than it is a function of athletic prowess. Yeah, hitting for power requires some physical strength, but the hand-eye coordination and reflexes needed for making instantaneous decisions on which pitches to swing at, and for making consistent contact with the baseball, are more an innate skill that comes in all body sizes and shapes.

If we were comparing football or basketball players from the 1920's with today's football or basketball players, I think your argument would carry more force. IMHO, the pure physicality in football and basketball distinguishes much more significantly the 1920's player from the modern player.
 
To examine this issue fully you must acknowledge there are far more players playing in the MLB today than there were in the 1920's and 30's. Talent is diluted and there are many players in the MLB who are not ready to play at that level. The pitching is particularly bad and one can argue that leads to more HRs and inflated stats.
How is talent diluted? In the 20s the talent pool consisted of less than 25% of white America. There was very little organized baseball. Most High Schools didn't have teams. The majority of kids never owned a bat, ball or glove.
The talent pool today has to be 30-35 times what it was in the 20s.
 
ADVERTISEMENT