**The Perennial MIKE TROUT Thread**

[SupermanBrandon]

Does Acuna get credit for bringing the RC fully back in '18?

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by SupermanBrandon

Does Acuna get credit for bringing the RC fully back in '18?

lol no

[BAHoopla]

Originally Posted by SupermanBrandon

Does Acuna get credit for bringing the RC fully back in '18?

Nope…this thread loves War and the unfair bump walks give WAR so Soto gets the credit

[towerymt]

Originally Posted by towerymt

Those don't count towards the 500 HR milestone.

Trout playing out his contract would be his age 32-38 seasons, same number of seasons Mantle played after '61 (where he's played roughly the same number of games as Trout). Mantle's final season was his age 36.

Mantle averaged 121 games, 23 HR per season those last 7yr.

That's all we need for 500 Trout homers, boys!

[towerymt]

Originally Posted by SupermanBrandon

Does Acuna get credit for bringing the RC fully back in '18?

Depends which one counts as his rookie card. The variation? The Complete Set? The Update????

[BAHoopla]

Originally Posted by towerymt

Trout playing out his contract would be his age 32-38 seasons, same number of seasons Mantle played after '61 (where he's played roughly the same number of games as Trout). Mantle's final season was his age 36.

Mantle averaged 121 games, 23 HR per season those last 7yr.

That's all we need for 500 Trout homers, boys!

He will get there…limping the way if anyone remembers the way Gard Carter limped to 300

[finfangfan]

Originally Posted by towerymt

Trout playing out his contract would be his age 32-38 seasons, same number of seasons Mantle played after '61 (where he's played roughly the same number of games as Trout). Mantle's final season was his age 36.

Mantle averaged 121 games, 23 HR per season those last 7yr.

That's all we need for 500 Trout homers, boys!

I think his long contract could end up being a Chris Davis-like albatross if Trout only produces 23 HR a year. He still has 7 years left and is already performing in 2023 at the level you’d kind of expect in his final year or two.

I’m an Orioles fan and the post-big contract Chris Davis years were painful to watch. I don’t wish that on Angels fans.

[SupermanBrandon]

Originally Posted by BAHoopla

He will get there…limping the way if anyone remembers the way Gard Carter limped to 300

That creates excitement around an "inner circle" guy. A player that was great a decade ago limping into 500 homers in an age where homers are prevalent. There's the lore and legend stuff I was looking for.

[daveyc1]

Originally Posted by Chris P

I really don't understand that argument either..i mean Ohtani is amazing..should he be single handedly leading the angels to the playoffs too?

He could have chosen the option to go to a contending team through free agency instead of staying with LAA. He knew he was taking the safe/comfortable way out by staying with the angels. and that is fine, it also illustrates that winning is not at the top of his priority list.

[ThoseBackPages]

lol

have to love the hate

damned if you do, damned if you dont

[SupermanBrandon]

Originally Posted by daveyc1

He could have chosen the option to go to a contending team through free agency instead of staying with LAA. He knew he was taking the safe/comfortable way out by staying with the angels. and that is fine, it also illustrates that winning is not at the top of his priority list.

Winning isn't nor is fame & status. If his body keeps failing him, he will hang it up before that contract ends. He's too much of a family man.

[spuds1961]

Originally Posted by SupermanBrandon

...add in playoff stats & big moments too.
Baseball's soul is lore, nostalgia, icon. Where's Trout's 10-20-30 years from now?

What’s funny is in baseball some of its biggest moments are by the most unlikely people. Bucky Dent, Aaron Boone, Don Larsen, Bobby Thompson, recently Domingo German even pitched a perfect game. Sorry all my references are New York based but I grew up a Yankee fan. How many inner circle hall of famers actually had their glorifying moment in the playoffs or World Series. Reggie comes to mind, Jeter with the flip and the Mr. November home run Willie Mays with the catch in the 1954 World Series. Babe Ruth with the so called shot against Chicago in the 1932 World Series. For the most part though a lot of the inner circle guys never had that one great playoff moment it was more a matter of their whole accumulative career stats. I am curious to see other peoples moments of the so called inner circle guys coming through in the pressure of post season play. In a sport where relative unknowns can win World Series mvps it always struck me as weird that some of the bigger stars never had their biggest moments in that format.

[BAHoopla]

Originally Posted by SupermanBrandon

That creates excitement around an "inner circle" guy. A player that was great a decade ago limping into 500 homers in an age where homers are prevalent. There's the lore and legend stuff I was looking for.

That will be such a highlight reel…like Gibson limping to the plate against Eck and hitting that HR and grinding his way around the bases as the crowd goes wild…oh wait that was in the World….sorry

[Chris P]

Originally Posted by daveyc1

He could have chosen the option to go to a contending team through free agency instead of staying with LAA. He knew he was taking the safe/comfortable way out by staying with the angels. and that is fine, it also illustrates that winning is not at the top of his priority list.

That doesn't answer my question at all..baseball seems to be the toughest sport for one guy to "lead" a team. Last I checked Trout doesn't pitch. He's also 1 of 9 batters. He could be all world but if the pitching sucks or the people around him aren't hitting..what more can he do.

[spuds1961]

Originally Posted by towerymt

Trout playing out his contract would be his age 32-38 seasons, same number of seasons Mantle played after '61 (where he's played roughly the same number of games as Trout). Mantle's final season was his age 36.

Mantle averaged 121 games, 23 HR per season those last 7yr.

That's all we need for 500 Trout homers, boys!

What sucks is I was 7 years old in 1968 Mantles last year and I could never understand why my uncle thought he was so great. I guess if you take the prime years of any hall of famer their last years are bound to pale in comparison.

[jhssketchcards]

Originally Posted by Chris P

That doesn't answer my question at all..baseball seems to be the toughest sport for one guy to "lead" a team. Last I checked Trout doesn't pitch. He's also 1 of 9 batters. He could be all world but if the pitching sucks or the people around him aren't hitting..what more can he do.

He could take lesser contract and tell the front office to go get pitching. It’s been done. They could make solid trades and bring guys in to help, but their front office has been awful. Hamilton, Pujols, Rendon etc all terrible deals for guys who didn’t work out or in Pujols case, past his prime. LAA hasn’t had a top flight pitcher in a long time and Ohtani can only pitch once a week. I agree with you he can’t do it all on the field but he could certainly use his leverage as the franchise guy to force ownerships hand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by tconte

While we did not agree on whether he would get 500 home runs, I think
this is spot on.

He might be considered the top player of 2010-2020 but he won't be an
all time great. Might be like a Killebrew, Kiner, or maybe even Frank Robinson.
Great but not all timer or inner circle guy.

I think you need to reevaluate your view of Frank Robinson. He's 18th all time in Fangraphs WAR -- he's only one of 20 position players in history with a 100 WAR. He led the league in OPS 4 times -- won two MVPs.

Edit: meant to write position players

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by SupermanBrandon

Trout will not be “inner circle” to anyone outside of some of the card community 10-20-30 years from now. So why would anyone pay inner circle GOAT prices?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm going to have to agree -- it's true.

He was only able to stay healthy for the first half decade of his career. You've got to stay healthy for at least a decade of your career to even be discussed as an inner circle type of player. He's only played a 140 games once since 2017. Mantle was able to play at least a 140 games 12 times during his career.

[theshowandme]

Mike Trout was the best player in baseball for almost a decade when the game was the most difficult it’s ever been. Every game he played there were 2-3 100 mph+ arms with wipe out movement. He’s definitely faced more pitchers than Cobb, Ruth, Mays, Aaron, Mantle, etc.

You are evaluated on how dominant you were compared to your peers. Trout was at the mountaintop for a while. He should be treated as such.

[spuds1961]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

Mike Trout was the best player in baseball for almost a decade when the game was the most difficult it’s ever been. Every game he played there were 2-3 100 mph+ arms with wipe out movement. He’s definitely faced more pitchers than Cobb, Ruth, Mays, Aaron, Mantle, etc.

You are evaluated on how dominant you were compared to your peers. Trout was at the mountaintop for a while. He should be treated as such.

I am fine with this assessment as long as you don’t say Ruth and Cobb played against carpenter’s and plumbers.

[theshowandme]

Originally Posted by spuds1961

I am fine with this assessment as long as you don’t say Ruth and Cobb played against carpenter’s and plumbers.

They dominated their peer group. What their peer group consisted of doesn’t matter. They were the cream of the crop which is good enough for me.

The game evolves and each generation or era gets a little bit better each time. What does matter is who is dominating the era at the time. That’s how GOATs are formed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[atk825]

Originally Posted by SupermanBrandon

That creates excitement around an "inner circle" guy. A player that was great a decade ago limping into 500 homers in an age where homers are prevalent. There's the lore and legend stuff I was looking for.

That a 135 OPS+ is considered limping is the stuff legends are made of.

[atk825]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

They dominated their peer group. What their peer group consisted of doesn’t matter. They were the cream of the crop which is good enough for me.

The game evolves and each generation or era gets a little bit better each time. What does matter is who is dominating the era at the time. That’s how GOATs are formed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yah, totally. Doesn't matter at all that their peer groups were artificially constrained.

[spuds1961]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

They dominated their peer group. What their peer group consisted of doesn’t matter. They were the cream of the crop which is good enough for me.

The game evolves and each generation or era gets a little bit better each time. What does matter is who is dominating the era at the time. That’s how GOATs are formed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes it is true you should be evaluated by the strength of your competition. I always had this argument about football with my brother in law. I said you could take a team like the winner of the college football championship of nowadays and due to size and athleticism they would beat Lombardi’s Packers but there is no way of knowing.

[spuds1961]

Originally Posted by atk825

Yah, totally. Doesn't matter at all that their peer groups were artificially constrained.

What’s to say they wouldn’t have watered down the competition so tired of this same lazy argument.