**The Perennial MIKE TROUT Thread**

[BoSoxFan1999]

Originally Posted by eephuspitch

It is the most misunderstood team sport in America...and it's not even close.

Yeah, Trout could go 5-5 every single game and hit 100 HR and still no guarantee the Angels make the playoffs or even sniff them. Baseball is not like basketball or football where a player/QB can stand on their head and single-handedly win the game.
Ohtani is perhaps the only player in the game currently that CAN single-handedly win a game by himself (pitch a shutout while hitting a HR). Of course that being said, even he could only do that once every 5-6 days.

[2010GBPackers]

Originally Posted by zworykin

If you don't see the complete logical disconnect between the piece of your quote that I bolded and literally everything that comes after it, I don't know what to tell you. You can't admit that it's "impossible" for Trout to carry the team in one breath, and then talk about how his team's failures reflect poorly on him in the next.

No one is expecting Trout to "carry" the Angels, however, it's reasonable to expect him to reach the postseason more than once (with one hit) in 13 years. Just getting to the postseason isn't "carrying the team." It's not like they have a roster full of of bums over there.

[zworykin]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

No one is expecting Trout to "carry" the Angels, however, it's reasonable to expect him to reach the postseason more than once (with one hit) in 13 years. Just getting to the postseason isn't "carrying the team." It's not like they have a roster full of of bums over there.

So then you're saying it's his fault they haven't made the postseason. Individual sport, not a team sport. Got it.

[2010GBPackers]

Originally Posted by zworykin

So then you're saying it's his fault they haven't made the postseason. Individual sport, not a team sport. Got it.

Again, it's not his fault entirely, because no one player can "carry" a team and he's often been injured. However, let's compare him to Ernie Banks. Banks gets trashed because he "never won" (aka never made the playoffs) but consider this - if you apply the current standard for playoff teams to Banks' Cubs, he makes the playoffs ~4-6 times. Considering Trout's all-time WAR number (if you care about that type of stat), he should have led the Angels to more than one postseason appearance, considering the easy nature of getting in in the modern era and the fact that outside of one team (the Astros), the rest of their division is trash (Rangers, Mariners, A's).

[zworykin]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

Again, it's not his fault entirely, because no one player can "carry" a team and he's often been injured. However, let's compare him to Ernie Banks. Banks gets trashed because he "never won" (aka never made the playoffs) but consider this - if you apply the current standard for playoff teams to Banks' Cubs, he makes the playoffs ~4-6 times. Considering Trout's all-time WAR number (if you care about that type of stat), he should have led the Angels to more than one postseason appearance, considering the easy nature of getting in in the modern era and the fact that outside of one team (the Astros), the rest of their division is trash (Rangers, Mariners, A's).

Again, I'll bold the parts of your comment that are inconsistent with one another. This is my last attempt to help. No one can say I didn't try.

[2010GBPackers]

Originally Posted by zworykin

Again, I'll bold the parts of your comment that are inconsistent with one another. This is my last attempt to help. No one can say I didn't try.

They're not inconsistent. Kershaw fans had to defend him for years for not "carrying his team" to a WS ring, but year after year he was leading them to be in a position to contend. You just can't admit that over a 13-year span, Trout and the Angels have come up short. Not in "their window" or "for a majority of his career"; literally every single year. At this point, he's the second-best player on his team who missed out on postseason success in his prime and on the downside of his career. That's the reality.

[zworykin]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

They're not inconsistent. Kershaw fans had to defend him for years for not "carrying his team" to a WS ring, but year after year he was leading them to be in a position to contend. You just can't admit that over a 13-year span, Trout and the Angels have come up short. Not in "their window" or "for a majority of his career"; literally every single year. At this point, he's the second-best player on his team who missed out on postseason success in his prime and on the downside of his career. That's the reality.

I lied. I'll give it one last shot.

Newsflash - the people attacking Kershaw were, like you today, wrong.

Who isn't admitting that the Angels (and thus Trout, along with every other player on the Angels roster) have come up short? Is there someone here claiming they've done well? They've won rings? I'd like you to point that person out to me.

The argument here is you're saying that reflects poorly on Trout, because he "should have led them" to better results, despite your own admission that one player can't carry a baseball team. And despite (unless I'm misreading your posts) suggesting that the basically equivalent attacks against Kershaw were misguided.

If you still can't understand the illogic in your stance, that's on you. I'm done for real this time.

[2010GBPackers]

Originally Posted by zworykin

I lied. I'll give it one last shot.

Newsflash - the people attacking Kershaw were, like you today, wrong.

Who isn't admitting that the Angels (and thus Trout, along with every other player on the Angels roster) have come up short? Is there someone here claiming they've done well? They've won rings? I'd like you to point that person out to me.

The argument here is you're saying that reflects poorly on Trout, because he "should have led them" to better results, despite your own admission that one player can't carry a baseball team. And despite (unless I'm misreading your posts) suggesting that the basically equivalent attacks against Kershaw were misguided.

If you still can't understand the illogic in your stance, that's on you. I'm done for real this time.

I'll give you an example to assist you:

Lebron "carried" the 2007 Cavs to the NBA Finals
Lebron "led" the 2016 Cavs to the NBA Championship

CC Sabathia "carried" the 2008 Brewers to the postseason
CC Sabathia "led" the 2009 Yankees to a World Series ring

"Carried" and "led" aren't synonyms.

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by jswest18

It's been said a ton of times but I guess worth rehashing considering what you seem to be saying. Baseball is so much different than the other major pro leagues. There is so much out of one player's control when it comes to overall team success and playoff appearances. I think Acuna and the Braves are a prime example of this. Acuna was the consensus MVP front runner for the NL in 2021 when he tore his ACL right before the all star break. The Braves were 44-44 at the time. They went on to win the World Series that year because they caught fire at the right time and they picked up several smaller pieces to replace RAJ who all played great after joining the team. There are negative 100 GMs, owners or coaches who would choose to have any of those players over RAJ.

There have been zero MLB players who have put a bad team on their shoulders and made them a legitimate playoff team. It's just not possible in baseball considering how little control one player has on the outcome of a game. Now can a great or transcendent player make an otherwise mediocre team a playoff contender or can they put them over the top as a WS contender? Maybe. But even that has its limitations.

I don't think it's a good argument to criticize any MLB player for their lack of WS rings or even their playoff appearances. Now if a player makes it to the playoffs and you want to judge their performance in the playoffs and have that be a part of the valuation of their career then ok. I think that's fair to a limited extent. But even that is flawed.

If you look at the post season each year then you almost always see guys who are platoon players or who are average MLB players get hot and carry the team during a series. See David Freese and the Cardinals or Eddie Rosario and the Braves. Obviously you can point to great players who have had tremendous post season success like Pujols or Reggie Jackson but Willie Mays slashed .248/.343/.325 with 1 HR and 3 SBs in 33 career post season games. He has a WS title to his name and that was his best post season but even that was not anything to brag about. I don't think anyone would look at Willie's career though, regular or postseason, and deny he's one of the 3-5 greatest players of all time if not the greatest.

I know that there is inherently some bump to a player's legacy if he has post season success and even more so if he has a WS ring. Baseball is just different though and so postseason performance, especially WS rings, has never held significant importance when evaluating a players career or greatness. I think that will remain the case with Trout no matter what the future holds for him in terms of the postseason.

A “Leader” can inspire and create change among the team. Look at what Kirk Gibson did for the Dodgers. That team was more about pulling pranks and having a good time until Kirk Gibson arrived. That ended and the “team” realized it had a leader focused on winning not just in the regular season but post season as well. Gibson will never be recognized as a Hall of Fame player but he became a Hall of Fame leader. It only takes one guy to create change.

It’s not about just winning a World Series but taking the team to a World Series. When a player constantly struggles in the playoffs or unlike Banks couldn’t move to a team to have a legitimate opportunity to arrive then yes, critiquing of Post Season performance is a part of the equation.

Why do people bring up Mantle more than Mays? Didn’t Mays lead his team to 3 World Series Series and won in 54? I don’t count 42 year old Mays who was toast. Therefore, you are attempting to compare Trout to Mays where Mays had a positive WPA in the 54 Series ? Mays didn’t disappear in that Series and it benefitted the team.

Barry Bonds and Alex Rodriguez were crushed for playing Lousy in the Post Season and not leading their team further. Both ended up leading their team to the World Series and both had great performances though Bonds team lost.

[SupermanBrandon]

Trout can be the best player to never win anything (literally nothing) outside of individual in season awards. Nothing wrong w/ that. Folklore & nostalgia won't be on his side like it is with Greats that also won rings & titles though.

[jswest18]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

Baseball is definitely the most difficult sport for one player to "carry" a team; in fact, it's pretty much impossible. However, it becomes difficult to keep defending Trout when year after year, the Angels miss the playoffs.

#1) In the era he has played it has increasingly become easier to get in.
#2) It's not like he plays for some bottom-feeding team - the Angels spend money.
#3) For the past 2-3 seasons, the Angels have had him and Ohtani on the roster - perhaps the best two players in the league and still nothing.
#4) It's not like folks are criticizing Trout for not having a WS ring (Kershaw went through this for a stretch), he literally has one postseason appearance with one win and one hit. One postseason hit in an era where half the league makes the playoffs is really difficult to swallow considering the above points.

Also, bringing Mays into this discussion doesn't make much sense. Post-War players played in an era when winning the AL or NL pennant was the main objective, winning the World Series was just the cherry on top. Plus, there were no playoffs - it was the WS and that was it. So saying Mays had 33 playoff games...yada, yada, yada...is discounting the fact that if he were in the modern era he would have played well over 100+ playoff games.

I understand all of your points about Trout and the post season. I'd just ask you give me a list of things he could have done better or differently through the years to lead his team to the playoffs...

As to Mays...How does it not make sense? Just because it's inherently easier to get into the playoffs now than then doesn't change how a player performed in the playoff format of their day. In the 33 games which Mays played in he did not hit well. All I was pointing out is that baseball is unique and some of the greatest players to have played the game didn't perform well in the playoffs yet that doesn't drastically change how they are viewed by most people. It's also unique in that where even if perhaps the greatest player of all time has a rough or mediocre series a good team can still win or vice versa. I don't think the same could be said about the NBA or NFL. Not over the course of a series or playoffs.

If your point is that if we were somehow able to give Mays more playoff games in order to get to the WS like we have now then he'd have better stats then ok maybe. If you give a talent like Mays 100 games to produce versus 33 then things will could very well start to look more like his normal career lines. Maybe. Or maybe he just happens to slump during those series. Or maybe he struggled under the pressure. Maybe they win another WS. But maybe they don't win one at all if they have to go through 3 rounds of playoffs before the WS. There's no way to know. All we can know if how he performed in the games he played in.

[jswest18]

Originally Posted by Stifle

A “Leader” can inspire and create change among the team. Look at what Kirk Gibson did for the Dodgers. That team was more about pulling pranks and having a good time until Kirk Gibson arrived. That ended and the “team” realized it had a leader focused on winning not just in the regular season but post season as well. Gibson will never be recognized as a Hall of Fame player but he became a Hall of Fame leader. It only takes one guy to create change.

It’s not about just winning a World Series but taking the team to a World Series. When a player constantly struggles in the playoffs or unlike Banks couldn’t move to a team to have a legitimate opportunity to arrive then yes, critiquing of Post Season performance is a part of the equation.

Why do people bring up Mantle more than Mays? Didn’t Mays lead his team to 3 World Series Series and won in 54? I don’t count 42 year old Mays who was toast. Therefore, you are attempting to compare Trout to Mays where Mays had a positive WPA in the 54 Series ? Mays didn’t disappear in that Series and it benefitted the team.

Barry Bonds and Alex Rodriguez were crushed for playing Lousy in the Post Season and not leading their team further. Both ended up changing

1. Yes there are intangibles which can benefit a team and help in their overall success which have little to do with play on the field. There's no indication from anyone that Trout isn't a good teammate or that he is a poor leader or that he is bad for the clubhouse or that he doesn't care about winning.

2. Most of the great leaders in clubhouses are veteran guys who are not considered the best player on their team. Not always but that's more the norm. Maybe you can point to stories where one of the 25-50 greatest players of all time came in and changed the clubhouse because of his leadership and took them from a bad team to a playoff team or a WS team. Maybe Pete Rose or Johnny Bench? It's certainly not the norm in baseball though and not ever the story lines you hear as to why a Babe Ruth had so much post season success.

3. I wasn't comparing Trout to Mays. I was simply using Mays as an example of an all time great who doesn't have a good postseason personal resume and how baseball is unique in how much a great player can impact a series or a team's chances to win over the course of a playoff series. His team being able to go to 3 WS during his prime and winning one despite his mediocre to poor performances offensively just further my point. Yes he had a positive WPA in 54 but his career WPA in the WS is still negative and that includes his positive WPA as a 42 year old (which nearly equaled his WPA in 54).

[jswest18]

Originally Posted by SupermanBrandon

Trout can be the best player to never win anything (literally nothing) outside of individual in season awards. Nothing wrong w/ that. Folklore & nostalgia won't be on his side like it is with Greats that also won rings & titles though.

When the comparison comes down to Trout v. Mantle or Trout v. Ruth or another inner circle HoFer (or any other Yankee for that matter) then yeah I think he probably gets knocked without some postseason success.

I still say in the grand scheme of things though Trout's lack of postseason experience will be more of a footnote about his career instead of a defining factor. If you polled all baseball fans who the greatest hitter of all time is then Williams wins despite his lack of post season success. Here's an example https://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-l...seball-history

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by jswest18

When the comparison comes down to Trout v. Mantle or Trout v. Ruth or another inner circle HoFer (or any other Yankee for that matter) then yeah I think he probably gets knocked without some postseason success.

I still say in the grand scheme of things though Trout's lack of postseason experience will be more of a footnote about his career instead of a defining factor. If you polled all baseball fans who the greatest hitter of all time is then Williams wins despite his lack of post season success. Here's an example https://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-l...seball-history

First off I have always placed Trout in the top 3 for what is nearly a quarter of the Y2K Century. If that is a knock against him then so be it.

Williams was the greatest hitter ever but he allowed his pride to diminish his skill by hitting into the shift and it occurred in the the Highest Leverage Situation he ever performed in. Some members believe that the playoffs are a extension of the regular season. It’s not, when it comes down to having nearly every opportunity be at the highest level, some players thrive while others disappear. Mays was a Super Great player that stumbled when it meant the most. He is not the only one but to ignore or downplay the importance of performance when it’s all on the line ?

As far as baseball being different than other sports, it’s the only sport where a player is positioned outside the field of play. It’s where the measuring of value is based more on making a play that reWARds the image of the player but downplays the most integral value. The ability for availability. A performers most valuable skill is to not be replaced by a lesser talent. That means if a skill is diminishing their availability but improves their WAR ? Look at Judge and the catch he made. He took away a possible double to lose most likely no less than 2 weeks and will he be back to full strength. At least his DWAR improved by covering the ground in the outfield. Now he is replaced and who knows how healthy he may be for the rest of the season. A lesser outfielder doesn’t make the play but is healthy and in the lineup. People will look at his dWAR and say he is a better than average outfielder. I would say his ability to make plays is hindering his skill of availability. When a player loses roughly 160-300+ plate appearances to a lesser skilled player, that should be equated more than a 0 WAR. You can’t replace a 40 million dollar player with a 50K substitute.

Don’t allow ability to be more valuable than availability ! WAR doesn’t seem to be able to equate leadership and availability.

[comicbooksgo]

Pulled a pretty cool card today from a pack of 2018 Topps mini..

[Cardsandcoffee]

Originally Posted by comicbooksgo

Pulled a pretty cool card today from a pack of 2018 Topps mini..

Nice! What a cool little card!

[Lonewolf]

Even SI is taking note of Trout's struggles with the heater now:

https://www.si.com/mlb/2023/06/14/mi...astball-angels

[Cardsandcoffee]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf

Even SI is taking note of Trout's struggles with the heater now:

https://www.si.com/mlb/2023/06/14/mi...astball-angels

Yup, definitely matches up with what I thought I was seeing. He's either getting beat or fouling off the good heat, stuff in the past he would've obliterated. Hoping he gets right soon as this current struggle is painful to watch.

[KhalDrogo]

Is there anywhere that tracks his bat speed?

[theshowandme]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

Is there anywhere that tracks his bat speed?

I've poked around for some time and cannot find it. It can be calculated but not easily. No major data provider (StatCast, Fangraphs, BBREF, etc.) provide this.

This talks about it a bit though: https://www.mlb.com/news/what-you-ne...t-bat-tracking

[larry25]

What do you all make of the PSA 10 Red Refractor Auto that sold in the Goldin100 last night for barely $500K. Wasn't the seller into it for $1 million? Are the rest of his cards down 50%?

[BBases31]

Originally Posted by larry25

What do you all make of the PSA 10 Red Refractor Auto that sold in the Goldin100 last night for barely $500K. Wasn't the seller into it for $1 million? Are the rest of his cards down 50%?

He's having by far the worst season of his career and was diagnosed with a degenerative back issue since the last time that card sold. You're surprised that card would be down 50%?

[larry25]

Originally Posted by BBases31

He's having by far the worst season of his career and was diagnosed with a degenerative back issue since the last time that card sold. You're surprised that card would be down 50%?

No, I think I was asking for your thoughts... Not your condescension.

[cnewby]

Originally Posted by larry25

No, I think I was asking for your thoughts... Not your condescension.

tensions are high 'round these parts.

[BBases31]

Originally Posted by larry25

No, I think I was asking for your thoughts... Not your condescension.

There was zero condescension in my comment

Originally Posted by cnewby

tensions are high 'round these parts.

lolololol