Can Trout be the best player ever?

[Hrbowski]

What do you think Mike Trout's chances are of being the best (or one of the best) players ever?

[Mike Sixel]

He's certainly on the right track though - not many players in baseball history have done what he's done through his age 23 season.

Fangraphs ran a fun exercise trying to show how many WAR he could "realistically" get each year to pass Ruth. It's a good read. If you take it as something fun, and not science.

[USAFChief]

One of the best?  He's off to a good start, needs another decade or so of top performance to be in the discussion.

 

Best ever?

 

LOL.

 

Babe Ruth had a LIFETIME OPS of 1.164 (206 OPS+).  Lifetime.  He beat that nine (9!) times in his career.  Changed the way the game would be played.  

 

He also went 94-46 with a lifetime 2.26 ERA in over 1200 IP. 

 

Talk to me in 15 years.  Even if Trout manages to maintain his current pace, he'll be woefully short of Babe Ruth, without even considering Ruth as a pitcher.

 

 

[Hrbowski]

 

One of the best?  He's off to a good start, needs another decade or so of top performance to be in the discussion.

 

Best ever?

 

LOL.

 

Babe Ruth had a LIFETIME OPS of 1.164 (206 OPS+).  Lifetime.  He beat that nine (9!) times in his career.  Changed the way the game would be played.  

 

He also went 94-46 with a lifetime 2.26 ERA in over 1200 IP. 

 

Talk to me in 15 years.  Even if Trout manages to maintain his current pace, he'll be woefully short of Babe Ruth, without even considering Ruth as a pitcher.

Trout is only 23, he will hit for more and more power as he gets older, likely being a 60 home run candidate during his age 27-31 seasons, which would significantly raise his OPS.

 

Trout is all ready changing the way the game is played in his own way, making teams put more scouting and dollars into 5 tool players and the pitchers who can get them out.

 

By the way, Ruth may have been a good pitcher, but Trout is a way, way better fielder.

[Vanimal46]

I don't think there will ever be a way to truly define the best baseball player of all-time when the game has evolved over the course of time. I may be going above my intelligence level on this one, but here I go.

Chief's example of Babe Ruth played in the live ball era, where they shattered home run and batting average records previously set in the dead ball era. He was also playing in a different time where it was an exclusively-white league. His numbers are gaudy, and will most likely never be seen again, but was he playing against the best competition the world has to offer like Trout? No. 

I would say in this post steroids era, Mike Trout is the best the game has to offer. Time will tell if he will continue this trend and be an all-time great in this era of the game. 

[jimmer]

What do you think Mike Trout's chances are of being the best (or one of the best) players ever?

I'd say pretty good chance of being one of the best.

[ashbury]

 

Mod note: Let's not make it about other posters, especially when it's not even relevant.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Very low. While Trout's talent level is phenomenal and the kind we see one or twice a generation, it will require prolonged play at this level to reach that vaunted status.

 

Ken Griffey Jr was on a similar career arc to Trout and we all know how that turned out in his 30s.

 

Trout has the talent, now it's the luck of the draw and genetics. Can he stay healthy and beat the effects of aging?

[Willihammer]

Agree, he just needs to be lucky injury wise. Luckily for fans he seems to be focused and stays  in shape and out of trouble. In today's game you cannot drink and smoke your way to a 1.000 OPS as you could in Ruth's. Not to mention the 100 mph Cubans and euphus throwing Japanese he has to face. But he is as talented as any player I've seen, for sure.

[Kwak]

When considering the value of a player hitting stats are only one element.  Defense, base-running, leadership, and for Ruth--pitching are also hugely important.

[adorduan]

I doubt very much that he will end up being better than Willie Mays.  Mays had 1 season where he struck out more than 100 times, Trout already has 4.  Mays had 338 stolen bases. Trout has 113 but has basically stopped trying to steal.  Both were/are great defenders.  Mays had a CAREER OPS of .941.  Trout is at .956 in the prime of his career, that is bound to go down as he ages, IMO.  If he stays healthy, Trout could be a top 10 all- time player.

[Hrbowski]

 

I doubt very much that he will end up being better than Willie Mays.  Mays had 1 season where he struck out more than 100 times, Trout already has 4.  Mays had 338 stolen bases. Trout has 113 but has basically stopped trying to steal.  Both were/are great defenders.  Mays had a CAREER OPS of .941.  Trout is at .956 in the prime of his career, that is bound to go down as he ages, IMO.  If he stays healthy, Trout could be a top 10 all- time player.

Pitching is better now days.

[jimmer]

 

Very low. While Trout's talent level is phenomenal and the kind we see one or twice a generation, it will require prolonged play at this level to reach that vaunted status.

 

Ken Griffey Jr was on a similar career arc to Trout and we all know how that turned out in his 30s.

 

Trout has the talent, now it's the luck of the draw and genetics. Can he stay healthy and beat the effects of aging?

Griffey Jr IS one of the greatest players of all time.  He's a shoo-in first ballot HOFer.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Griffey Jr IS one of the greatest players of all time. He's a shoo-in first ballot HOFer.

This thread is titled "the best", not "one of the best". Griffey was an amazing player but he wasn't in the class of Mays, Williams, Ruth, etc. He's just a tick below those guys.

 

But when he was 28 years old, he had a shot to be THE best. Maybe an outside shot but he had a shot.

[jimmer]

 

This thread is titled "the best", not "one of the best". Griffey was an amazing player but he wasn't in the class of Mays, Williams, Ruth, etc. He's just a tick below those guys.

But when he was 28 years old, he had a shot to be THE best. Maybe an outside shot but he had a shot.

Yes, it is titled that way, but the author of this thread in his OP  'What do you think Mike Trout's chances are of being the best (or one of the best) players ever? So I answered yes he does.  I think he has a good chance.

Edited December 13, 2015 by jimmer

[Oldgoat_MN]

 

Pitching is better now days.

 

Probably true, though we can't know for sure.

 

What we DO for sure know is that video of the pitchers and picking apart their 'tells' and weaknesses is better, absolutely.

 

[Willihammer]

Its asymptotically unlikely that pitching hasn't gotten better. The growth in the talent pool has way outpaced MLB expansion. To break onto a 25 man roster today requires such a freakish level of talent, higher and higher along the bell curve, more and more standard deviations from the mean than ever.

 

Consider, in 1930, 100% of MLB talent was farmed domestically (or very close to 100%). The pop. was 123 mil. Cut out blacks ( 12 mil) Jews (4.5) and the remaining white women (54m) and you're down to a 53 million-size population. I don't know how many of those played baseball, probably well under half, but assume its 100% of white Christian males for sake of argument. There were 16 MLB teams in 1930.

 

Today the US is still the primary base of talent, and its added 100m males to the population. Add males from the Dominican (5), Venezuela (15), Cuba (5.5), Japan (63), and many other places. This is just back of the napkin math but the trend is clear: the population of talent has grown exponentially since 1930 while MLB has not even doubled in size. Therefore unless you can state a case against the population then or now being normally distributed, then MLB competition has gotten better also. In fact, there is a decent chance that the best player next year, the MVPs, will be the best of all time. And new ones the following year, etc.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Willihammer

[jimmer]

 

Probably true, though we can't know for sure.

 

What we DO for sure know is that video of the pitchers and picking apart their 'tells' and weaknesses is better, absolutely.

Same can be said of hitters.

[Mike Sixel]

Given what we see on the basketball and football arenas.....it should be pretty clear that today's athletes are superior to those from even 40 years ago....let alone 60-80.

[jimmer]

 

Griffey Jr IS one of the greatest players of all time.  He's a shoo-in first ballot HOFer.

First ballot. Highest percentage ever.  Only three non-votes for him.  

Edited January 7, 2016 by jimmer