**The Perennial MIKE TROUT Thread**

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by daveyc1

I frequently hear people opine that it is a shame trout never played on contenders. The problem is that he is not concerned with winning. He has had multiple opportunities to remove himself from this mess of a team over the years through free agency and trades. He is simply not interested. He doesnt have that desire and i wonder if that lack of drive doesnt show itself in his lack of ability to get back on the field?

I never considered Trout soft like Rendon, but as far as desire? You play to win the game and the more wins equal post season opportunities. Athletes have a short window of opportunities. He has only been on competitive teams a few times. Trout seems to lacks that drive and as the “man” on the team. I is f the Angels had a Kirk Gibson like teammate, maybe somebody to inspire him, because Mike looks so unmotivated but he doesn’t want to leave?

Third best player as of now in Y2K era , but his durability may put that into question.

[ScooterD]

What could have been, but for injuries - Trout, Griffey, Eric Davis, Pete Reiser, etc..

Is being a centerfielder in the MLB more dangerous than other positions?

[rms13]

Originally Posted by ScooterD

What could have been, but for injuries - Trout, Griffey, Eric Davis, Pete Reiser, etc..

Is being a centerfielder in the MLB more dangerous than other positions?

It's the only position where you actually have to run on a regular basis. Opens you up to a lot of pulled hammies

[daveyc1]

Originally Posted by ScooterD

What could have been, but for injuries - Trout, Griffey, Eric Davis, Pete Reiser, etc..

Is being a centerfielder in the MLB more dangerous than other positions?

Catcher is the most physically taxing, "dangerous" position. by far. All outfielders have to run a lot. or at least they should. they should all be backing each other up on fly balls. that doesnt always happen.

the problem with trout playing outfield is that he is 6'2" and 240. he is carrying WAY too much weight for his frame. It is too much stress on his joints and ligaments.

[daveyc1]

Originally Posted by ScooterD

What could have been, but for injuries - Trout, Griffey, Eric Davis, Pete Reiser, etc..

Is being a centerfielder in the MLB more dangerous than other positions?

Catcher is the most physically taxing, "dangerous" position. by far. All outfielders have to run a lot. or at least they should. they should all be backing each other up on fly balls. that doesnt always happen.

the problem with trout playing outfield is that he is 6'2" and 240. he is carrying WAY too much weight for his frame. It is too much stress on his joints and ligaments.

[rfgilles]

Originally Posted by Stifle

I never considered Trout soft like Rendon, but as far as desire? You play to win the game and the more wins equal post season opportunities. Athletes have a short window of opportunities. He has only been on competitive teams a few times. Trout seems to lacks that drive and as the “man” on the team. I is f the Angels had a Kirk Gibson like teammate, maybe somebody to inspire him, because Mike looks so unmotivated but he doesn’t want to leave?

Third best player as of now in Y2K era , but his durability may put that into question.

You can see motivation? The guy broke down in tears after his last injury. You aren't the best player in the majors for a decade without being motivated, without all the character nonsense people make up.

[towerymt]

Originally Posted by daveyc1

the problem with trout playing outfield is that he is 6'2" and 240. he is carrying WAY too much weight for his frame. It is too much stress on his joints and ligaments.

Is he a pickup truck?

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by rfgilles

You can see motivation? The cry broke down in tears after his last injury. You aren't the best player in the majors for a decade without being motitvated, without all the character nonsense people make up.

He was the most skilled player. Being the “Best” and being the most “Productive” should translate into performance. In the past decade 2015-2024 I would choose other players. 2012-2021 I agree.

[daveyc1]

Originally Posted by towerymt

Is he a pickup truck?

are you dense? How about this, 240 is too much for his body to handle in order for him to stay healthy.

how many outfielders who weigh 240 pounds play in the major leagues for 2 decades? Trout couldnt even get 1 decade in before he broke down. there is a reason for that: 240 is too much for his "frame"

[daveyc1]

Originally Posted by Stifle

He was the most skilled player. Being the “Best” and being the most “Productive” should translate into performance. In the past decade 2015-2024 I would choose other players. 2012-2021 I agree.

I could agree that Trout was the most skilled player during his first 10 years. He was not the most productive though.

He had tremendous rate stats, but those rate stats did not turn into on field performance for the most part. check out his black ink. He never led the league in a power number, ie. 2b, 3b, hr. he led the league 4 times in runs.

he was unable to accrue enough at bats for those excellent rates to translate into on field performance.

[seanrs1]

Very sad that Trout is unlikely to play again this year. I bought a few low end RC cards recently for my PC (my first and only RC cards). Would love to hear from the long time Trout collectors/investors where they think his card prices are going short term and long term.

My take is short term his prices should be coming down significantly. Long term will depend on if he can get to some milestone numbers like 500 HR etc. I don't get the feeling there is a ton of hobby love for him right now, and most collectors/investors are disappointed, but I could be wrong.

Trout has like double the career WAR of Judge...will be interesting to see how much Judge can close the gap on Trout in terms of stats and MVP's. If I were investing in cards (which I don't, I collect) I would be putting my money in Ohtani and Judge over Trout.

[JRX]

Originally Posted by daveyc1

are you dense? How about this, 240 is too much for his body to handle in order for him to stay healthy.

how many outfielders who weigh 240 pounds play in the major leagues for 2 decades? Trout couldnt even get 1 decade in before he broke down. there is a reason for that: 240 is too much for his "frame"

So you're saying he's a light pickup truck?

[daveyc1]

Originally Posted by seanrs1

Very sad that Trout is unlikely to play again this year. I bought a few low end RC cards recently for my PC (my first and only RC cards). Would love to hear from the long time Trout collectors/investors where they think his card prices are going short term and long term.

My take is short term his prices should be coming down significantly. Long term will depend on if he can get to some milestone numbers like 500 HR etc. I don't get the feeling there is a ton of hobby love for him right now, and most collectors/investors are disappointed, but I could be wrong.

Trout has like double the career WAR of Judge...will be interesting to see how much Judge can close the gap on Trout in terms of stats and MVP's. If I were investing in cards (which I don't, I collect) I would be putting my money in Ohtani and Judge over Trout.

If current trajectories continue, both Judge and Ohtani will end up with more impressive careers than Trout. Ohtani is a unicorn and very well could win his 3rd MVP this season with pitching coming again next season. Judge will end up with much more memorable home run seasons, possibly more career and probably a 2nd MVP this season with maybe more to come.

[ThoseBackPages]

no reason not to have Trouts in your collection

dont think small

[seanrs1]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

no reason not to have Trouts in your collection

dont think small

I agree, but at what price? I don't own any Pujols RC cards and his cards seem like a much better deal than Trout at this time. Is Harper a better buy at this time? Like I said I just bought a few low end Trout RC cards, but I am thinking his cards could plunge this off season.

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by seanrs1

I agree, but at what price? I don't own any Pujols RC cards and his cards seem like a much better deal than Trout at this time. Is Harper a better buy at this time? Like I said I just bought a few low end Trout RC cards, but I am thinking his cards could plunge this off season.

at what price? like anything else you collect, a price you are comfortable paying.

dont worry about "what they cost tomorrow". Collect now, for tomorrow we may be dead

ETA: Yes, buy Pujols now as well, same for Ichiro

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by daveyc1

I could agree that Trout was the most skilled player during his first 10 years. He was not the most productive though.

He had tremendous rate stats, but those rate stats did not turn into on field performance for the most part. check out his black ink. He never led the league in a power number, ie. 2b, 3b, hr. he led the league 4 times in runs.

he was unable to accrue enough at bats for those excellent rates to translate into on field performance.

I never said he was the most productive player in the Y2K era for a decade, those honors go to Pujols and Cabrera. Trout did have a monster productive season in 16 with a .271% of teams production. He has always had the skill set but the durability crushed him.
Trout’s productivity : 12 .237%, 13 .244%, 14 .246%, 15 .231%, 16. .271% !, 17 .185%, 18 .196%, 19 .220%, 20 .238%, 21 x x ugly. You look at the team, and use his production according to his team and he was extremely solid. You can take Griffey’s best seasons but because everybody else on the team was contributing Juniors percentages looked similar to Trout’s. Not being durable crushed Trout and what could have been competitive 13 year production percentages with the likes of Albert & Miggy.

[daveyc1]

Originally Posted by Stifle

I never said he was the most productive player in the Y2K era for a decade, those honors go to Pujols and Cabrera. Trout did have a monster productive season in 16 with a .271% of teams production. He has always had the skill set but the durability crushed him.
Trout’s productivity : 12 .237%, 13 .244%, 14 .246%, 15 .231%, 16. .271% !, 17 .185%, 18 .196%, 19 .220%, 20 .238%, 21 x x ugly. You look at the team, and use his production according to his team and he was extremely solid. You can take Griffey’s best seasons but because everybody else on the team was contributing Juniors percentages looked similar to Trout’s. Not being durable crushed Trout and what could have been competitive 13 year production percentages with the likes of Albert & Miggy.

Just so i can be clear, what are you using to calculate trouts contribution to team productivity? Are you using runs plus rbi minus hr, or different metrics altogether?

[NYBBFAN]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

at what price? like anything else you collect, a price you are comfortable paying.

dont worry about "what they cost tomorrow". Collect now, for tomorrow we may be dead

ETA: Yes, buy Pujols now as well, same for Ichiro

Can’t emphasize that enough.

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by daveyc1

Just so i can be clear, what are you using to calculate trouts contribution to team productivity? Are you using runs plus rbi minus hr, or different metrics altogether?

You are correct. Take the total calculated and divide by the total runs the team scored. This gives you a better idea of when a great player is on a weak team for how much that player contributes. In the days of Seattle and Cleveland having players putting up huge stats, players like Griffey and Belle didn’t have the production percentages that many might believe.

The .271% in 16 was phenomenal. If Cabrera’s 12 season at .281% was the highest for a AL player since Ted Williams in 49. You have to realize that when a player is part of a quarter of the teams production, they are normally in the upper echelon of MVP voting. Outside of the yesteryear leadoff hitters who were like Rickey Henderson, Maury Wills, etc., there was one season in 74 where Schmidt was I believe .278% and the greatest catchers production in a season Bench 74 NL no DH with a .263%. The MVP went to Steve Garvey ?

In the Covid season, I believe CHW 1st baseman had like .280% but the season was so short there wasn’t the durability factor.

[daveyc1]

Originally Posted by Stifle

You are correct. Take the total calculated and divide by the total runs the team scored. This gives you a better idea of when a great player is on a weak team for how much that player contributes. In the days of Seattle and Cleveland having players putting up huge stats, players like Griffey and Belle didn’t have the production percentages that many might believe.

The .271% in 16 was phenomenal. If Cabrera’s 12 season at .281% was the highest for a AL player since Ted Williams in 49. You have to realize that when a player is part of a quarter of the teams production, they are normally in the upper echelon of MVP voting. Outside of the yesteryear leadoff hitters who were like Rickey Henderson, Maury Wills, etc., there was one season in 74 where Schmidt was I believe .278% and the greatest catchers production in a season Bench 74 NL no DH with a .263%. The MVP went to Steve Garvey ?

In the Covid season, I believe CHW 1st baseman had like .280% but the season was so short there wasn’t the durability factor.

ok, I see where you are coming from. I would posit that it would be easier for a great player to stick out on a terrible team than it would be on an all time team.

when I look at production, not rates, I like to look at black ink for actual on field production. Things the player can effect by himself. how many times did a player lead the league in singles, doubles, triples, home runs. stolen bases and walks also. runs and rbi are teammate dependant. The only black ink trout has in his career are one year leading in steals, and 4 years, i think, leading in BB.

his rates are great, but actual production are lacking as compared to his peers. too few ABs. as we know, as AB's go up, rates tend to go down. So had trout had more at bats to improve his production, his rates most likely have decreased.

[Jeter1020]

What’s crazy is a lot still have Trout in the top 25 all time. So he’s still really good


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ThoseBackPages]

im pretty sure the hobby doesnt hate Trout as much as this place does

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by daveyc1

ok, I see where you are coming from. I would posit that it would be easier for a great player to stick out on a terrible team than it would be on an all time team.

when I look at production, not rates, I like to look at black ink for actual on field production. Things the player can effect by himself. how many times did a player lead the league in singles, doubles, triples, home runs. stolen bases and walks also. runs and rbi are teammate dependant. The only black ink trout has in his career are one year leading in steals, and 4 years, i think, leading in BB.

his rates are great, but actual production are lacking as compared to his peers. too few ABs. as we know, as AB's go up, rates tend to go down. So had trout had more at bats to improve his production, his rates most likely have decreased.

Players are performers, the less you perform the lower the production. In 49 Ted Williams had a huge season and his production percentage was .286% for his team. Ted had 150 runs & 156 RBI’s with 46 HR’s. His teammates were also contributing therefore his numbers were massive but in % comparisons to the team output of let’s say Trout’s 16 season, the production vs production % gives a clearer outlook of a players importance, imo. .286% to .271%. A much closer stat in player value for comparing different era’s.

It’s the stat I use for the importance of durability. It’s great walking, stealing bases, etc, but in the end, the bottom line is scoring & driving in runs!

[BigL7370]

Regardless of what happens, he is going to be glazed by the advanced stats nerds as one of the greatest - but the reality is going to be a little harsher, where the narrative has gone from from all-around superstar to a what could have been fable.