Is Mike Trout the Best Player Ever?

Was (Not Wasdin) · Jun 4, 2018

I don't know how B-Ref figures Similarity Scores, but I think Hank Aaron is a good comp for Trout.

Aaron through his age 26 season was at .318/.369/.560/.929 with an OPS + of 152
Trout through this season is at .306/.412/.572/.984 with an OPS + of 177

Aaron was at 46.6 WAR compared to Trout's 59.0. Trout gets on base more, steals more bases (although Aaron started stealing bases a lot more after his age 26 season) and is a far better fielder. But the power numbers are pretty similar:

Through Age 26 Aaron had 225 Doubles, 57 triples, and 219 home runs.
Through Age 26 Trout is at 215/43/220

Aaron averaged 32 HR a year through his age 26 season, trout is at 28/yr, but by the end of this season that number should be around 30/yr.

As B-Jones notes above, a lot of guys hit their prime as they hit 27. Aaron certainly did, averaging 38 HR a year in the 11 seasons between his age 27 and age 37 seasons. If Trout has a similar power spike, he should probably be around 600 HR by the time he hits his age 37 season, with a power-speed number that will likely be in the neighborhood with A-Rod and Willie Mays behind only Barry Bonds and Rickey Henderson. Can't even imagine what his WAR would be. Adding in his fielding, that is certainly GOAT-worthy.

ledsox · Jun 4, 2018

A couple quick thoughts...
Jaffe (JAWS numbers) already has him as an average HoF CF, right now. Amazing.
Mays missed most of 2 of his early years so like Ted, his WAR numbers because of war, take a big hit. He is so in line with Mantle's early years it's scary. As long as Trout remains healthy and stays off the sauce I think he will be right there with Mays as the greatest ever.

Cesar Crespo · Jun 4, 2018

It largely depends on how he finishes, but Trout's definitely on pace to be one of, if not the best player ever. He also has an outside chance of passing Rickey Henderson in power speed number, but Bonds is most likely out of reach.

He should be around 215-220 at the end of the season, and if he plays for another 14 seasons, he would only need to average 20 a year to pass Rickey.

bluefenderstrat · Jun 4, 2018

Nah, he's overrated. The Mookie thread told me so.

Seriously, though--he's peak Mickey Mantle in 2018, playing in an era that's harder to dominate. He likely will be in the discussion as the greatest ever at the end of his career.

Kliq · Jun 4, 2018

I've been thinking about this for a while; who exactly is the greatest baseball player of all-time? The obvious go-to answer is Ruth; and the idea that Ruth is the GOAT has been drilled into young baseball fans for nearly a century. He was the biggest star in the game's history and has the stats to back up any claim; not to mention his dominance first as a pitcher and then as a hitter. However, about a month ago the Port Cellar was having their routine "Who is the GOAT" conversation and I was thinking that the main reason Bill Russell isn't considered the GOAT is because he played so long ago; when the players were smaller and there were fewer black players and no European players and no 3 point line and the games were officiated differently, etc.

Yet, at least in the public's mind; none of those issues ever seem to come up when considering Ruth as the baseball GOAT. Ruth played 100 years ago, in a league without black players and basically no latin players, against pitchers who were throwing 300 innings a season, It's basically impossible to really compare his stats from the 1920s to the stats Trout is putting up.

If you don't believe Ruth is the GOAT; maybe you think it is Willie Mays, but Mays faces a lot of the same problems (tired pitchers, fewer Latin players, less sophisticated strategy and scouting) that Ruth does. If Russell can be dismissed as a GOAT candidate because of the era he played in, than so can Mays, or Mantle, or Ted Williams, or anyone that played 50+ years ago.

If Trout can put up comparable career numbers to Mays, or Aaron, or even Ruth, in the era of global baseball, metric-driven defensive shifts, advanced scouting reports, and 100 mph relief pitchers, than he pretty much HAS to be the GOAT.

SirPsychoSquints · Jun 4, 2018

Kliq said:
I've been thinking about this for a while; who exactly is the greatest baseball player of all-time? The obvious go-to answer is Ruth; and the idea that Ruth is the GOAT has been drilled into young baseball fans for nearly a century. He was the biggest star in the game's history and has the stats to back up any claim; not to mention his dominance first as a pitcher and then as a hitter. However, about a month ago the Port Cellar was having their routine "Who is the GOAT" conversation and I was thinking that the main reason Bill Russell isn't considered the GOAT is because he played so long ago; when the players were smaller and there were fewer black players and no European players and no 3 point line and the games were officiated differently, etc.

Yet, at least in the public's mind; none of those issues ever seem to come up when considering Ruth as the baseball GOAT. Ruth played 100 years ago, in a league without black players and basically no latin players, against pitchers who were throwing 300 innings a season, It's basically impossible to really compare his stats from the 1920s to the stats Trout is putting up.

If you don't believe Ruth is the GOAT; maybe you think it is Willie Mays, but Mays faces a lot of the same problems (tired pitchers, fewer Latin players, less sophisticated strategy and scouting) that Ruth does. If Russell can be dismissed as a GOAT candidate because of the era he played in, than so can Mays, or Mantle, or Ted Williams, or anyone that played 50+ years ago.

If Trout can put up comparable career numbers to Mays, or Aaron, or even Ruth, in the era of global baseball, metric-driven defensive shifts, advanced scouting reports, and 100 mph relief pitchers, than he pretty much HAS to be the GOAT.

If you want to go by JAWS, then the bar of people who, let's say, played into the 80s, looks like this:

Bonds 117.8
ARod 91.0
Rickey 84.4
Schmidt 82.8
Pujols 80.5
Morgan 79.9

Trout is already at 59.2, but Bonds, man. Ruth is at 123.4, for the record. Only Ruth, Bonds, Hornsby, Aaron, Mays & Cobb have cleared 100 JAWS. Oh, and Walter Johnson (127.4), Cy Young (123.6), and Roger Clemens (102.8).

21st Century Sox · Jun 4, 2018

Kliq said:
I've been thinking about this for a while; who exactly is the greatest baseball player of all-time? The obvious go-to answer is Ruth; and the idea that Ruth is the GOAT has been drilled into young baseball fans for nearly a century. He was the biggest star in the game's history and has the stats to back up any claim; not to mention his dominance first as a pitcher and then as a hitter. However, about a month ago the Port Cellar was having their routine "Who is the GOAT" conversation and I was thinking that the main reason Bill Russell isn't considered the GOAT is because he played so long ago; when the players were smaller and there were fewer black players and no European players and no 3 point line and the games were officiated differently, etc.

Yet, at least in the public's mind; none of those issues ever seem to come up when considering Ruth as the baseball GOAT. Ruth played 100 years ago, in a league without black players and basically no latin players, against pitchers who were throwing 300 innings a season, It's basically impossible to really compare his stats from the 1920s to the stats Trout is putting up.

If you don't believe Ruth is the GOAT; maybe you think it is Willie Mays, but Mays faces a lot of the same problems (tired pitchers, fewer Latin players, less sophisticated strategy and scouting) that Ruth does. If Russell can be dismissed as a GOAT candidate because of the era he played in, than so can Mays, or Mantle, or Ted Williams, or anyone that played 50+ years ago.

If Trout can put up comparable career numbers to Mays, or Aaron, or even Ruth, in the era of global baseball, metric-driven defensive shifts, advanced scouting reports, and 100 mph relief pitchers, than he pretty much HAS to be the GOAT.

I struggle with the comparison to the old days as well, but still would leave the crown with Ruth. First, due to his pitching as well as his hitting. You cannot be more all around than that. Also, yes, no minorities, but also half the franchises, for the day, the competition was good. Ruth was also just so staggering. 1n 1920, his 54 home runs were more than any other teams totals, less Philly, who as a team had 64. in '27, he hit 60 HR's, no other team had that many except his own. To compare to today, it would be like Mike Trout hitting 150 HR's. It is staggering enough for me to just call Ruth the best, and then who....And ya, when said and done, it will likely be Trout. I hate how little I get to watch him play....

JimBoSox9 · Jun 4, 2018

To be in the conversation for baseball's Mt Rushmore, you need one of two things

(1) a 7-10 year peak that stacks up to Babe Ruth, both in raw numbers and relative to the league

(2) living up to the old saw about Teddy Ballgame: have two Hall of Fame careers, one before you turn 30 and one after

For all his WAR, as a pure plate presence I think Trout falls just outside the Ruth-Bonds zone. He's absolutely 100% put up his first HOF career, but history tells us that the second part can't be assumed just because of an unusually strong & early peak. Griffey, A-Rod, and Pujols all ended up as seat-warmers in the GOAT roundtable after a decade of looking like they had a legitimate shot at the crown of crowns. Trout will have 1200 games under his belt when he's turning 30, and all those innings can catch up to even a superathlete compared to someone who hasn't been grinding full MLB seasons since they were 20.

Trout's on track to be a consensus top-5 player of all time, but he isn't "is" until he actually has, and the back nine has a different set of hazards than the front did. I'm rooting for him, but if i were laying odds I'd have to bet on the Mantle comparison being on the nose all the way, and either Trout's back or knees will give him just enough trouble in his age 30-37 seasons that he'll have to settle for being a first-ballot Hall of Famer instead of surpassing Mays, Williams, or Ruth. If I were the Angels, I'd do whatever it takes to convince him to move out of CF into a corner spot, as soon as humanly possible.

NYCSox · Jun 4, 2018

Always fun to note that he was selected with the pick surrendered by the MFYs for signing Teixeira.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?year_ID=2009&draft_round=1&draft_type=junreg&query_type=year_round

jon abbey · Jun 4, 2018

NYCSox said:
Always fun to note that he was selected with the pick surrendered by the MFYs for signing Teixeira.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?year_ID=2009&draft_round=1&draft_type=junreg&query_type=year_round

Misleading though because LAA also had the 24th pick and had Trout rated 2nd overall (as did NYY), behind only Strasburg. Not sure why they took Grichuk at 24 (I have read the reason before, but I don't remember), but if NY still had the #25 pick, LAA would have taken him at #24.

https://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/how-los-angeles-angels-hooked-rookie-phenom-mike-trout-in-mlb-draft-051212

NYCSox · Jun 4, 2018

Haha it's like the Bat Signal goes off whenever anyone says anything mildly critical of the Yankees.

jon abbey · Jun 4, 2018

Nah, I say plenty of critical stuff about them, I am just an obsessive boarder.

NYCSox · Jun 4, 2018

jon abbey said:
Misleading though because LAA also had the 24th pick and had Trout rated 2nd overall (as did NYY), behind only Strasburg. Not sure why they took Grichuk at 24 (I have read the reason before, but I don't remember), but if NY still had the #25 pick, LAA would have taken him at #24.

https://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/how-los-angeles-angels-hooked-rookie-phenom-mike-trout-in-mlb-draft-051212

FWIW, I have asked my brother (a diehard Halos fan) in the past if they would have taken Trout over Grichuk and he says yes but that could be ex post facto thinking.

Savin Hillbilly · Jun 5, 2018

BaseballJones said:
Off the charts defense, superior base-running, terrific athleticism.

This is a mild case of Jeterism. Trout's a good center fielder, but nothing special. If he were not one of the greatest offensive players in the history of the game, no one would be talking about his defense. He's never been a top-5 CF by either DRS or UZR, and among all CFs with at least 3000 innings since 2012, he ranks 14th out of 29 in UZR/150.

jon abbey · Jun 5, 2018

He is supposedly a lot better on D this year after making it a focus to improve:

"Trout's Outs Above Average

2016: minus-2
2017: minus-3
2018: plus-3

Last year, Trout's minus-3 was 86th of 124 outfielders who had 100 chances. This year, he's tied for 16th of 103 with 50 chances. The range components of other advanced stats largely agree. (By Defensive Runs Saved, he's up from minus-9 to plus-6. Ultimate Zone Rating says he's up from minus-4 to plus-3.)"

https://www.mlb.com/news/mike-trout-has-improved-his-defense-in-center/c-278810936

jon abbey · Jun 5, 2018

From that same article:

"As baseball's greatest player having his own greatest season, can Trout put up the greatest season in baseball history?

That mark, according to FanGraphs, is currently held by Babe Ruth in 1923, when he hit .393/.545/.764 with enough defensive value to put up a 15-WAR season. (There have been only four seasons in history where a player has reached 13 WAR, and all were Ruth, between 1920-27.)

Trout, through the first 54 games of the Angels' season, is on pace for 13.1 WAR. It would at least allow him to get into the conversation as having had "the best non-Ruth season ever," which is just an absurd thing to say."

Average Reds · Jun 6, 2018

jon abbey said:
Nah, I say plenty of critical stuff about them, I am just an obsessive boarder.

Don’t ever apologize for this.

Average Reds · Jun 6, 2018

21st Century Sox said:
I struggle with the comparison to the old days as well, but still would leave the crown with Ruth. First, due to his pitching as well as his hitting. You cannot be more all around than that. Also, yes, no minorities, but also half the franchises, for the day, the competition was good. Ruth was also just so staggering. 1n 1920, his 54 home runs were more than any other teams totals, less Philly, who as a team had 64. in '27, he hit 60 HR's, no other team had that many except his own. To compare to today, it would be like Mike Trout hitting 150 HR's. It is staggering enough for me to just call Ruth the best, and then who....And ya, when said and done, it will likely be Trout. I hate how little I get to watch him play....

To me, Ruth is a special case because his performance literally changed the paradigm for how baseball was played. And in that sense, it's fair to elevate his achievements above all others, even if he wouldn't be considered the GOAT in terms of sheer athletic prowess and ability in today's game.

Ramon AC · Jun 7, 2018

I agree, but to play devil's advocate does that mean Wilt is the hoops GOAT, not Jordan or LeBron?

glasspusher · Jun 7, 2018

jon abbey said:
From that same article:

"As baseball's greatest player having his own greatest season, can Trout put up the greatest season in baseball history?

That mark, according to FanGraphs, is currently held by Babe Ruth in 1923, when he hit .393/.545/.764 with enough defensive value to put up a 15-WAR season. (There have been only four seasons in history where a player has reached 13 WAR, and all were Ruth, between 1920-27.)

Trout, through the first 54 games of the Angels' season, is on pace for 13.1 WAR. It would at least allow him to get into the conversation as having had "the best non-Ruth season ever," which is just an absurd thing to say."

Ruth's 1923 season was comical. Highest batting average by a Yankee. To me, Ruth's accomplishments are diminished by him doing them in the 1920s/1930s- no sliders, relief pitching was a joke, bunch of white boys, but in the same breath, he was a damn good pitcher, too. He is absolutely unique.

Cesar Crespo · Jun 7, 2018

If Bonds didn't have the * next to his name, he'd have to be in the discussion.

Was (Not Wasdin) · Jun 18, 2018

Bumping this thread for the ESPN piece on Trout at 1,000 games:
http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/23800260/how-mike-trout-stacks-mlb-greats-closes-1000-games

The most amazing thing from that article to me-he has never gone more than two consecutive games without getting on base.

jon abbey said:
"As baseball's greatest player having his own greatest season, can Trout put up the greatest season in baseball history?

That mark, according to FanGraphs, is currently held by Babe Ruth in 1923, when he hit .393/.545/.764 with enough defensive value to put up a 15-WAR season. (There have been only four seasons in history where a player has reached 13 WAR, and all were Ruth, between 1920-27.)

Trout, through the first 54 games of the Angels' season, is on pace for 13.1 WAR. It would at least allow him to get into the conversation as having had "the best non-Ruth season ever," which is just an absurd thing to say."

Anyone want to guess who right now has the best Non-Ruth season ever (by B-Ref WAR, position players only)?

Yaz in 67

Comfortably Lomb · Jun 18, 2018

bosox79 said:
If Bonds didn't have the * next to his name, he'd have to be in the discussion.

He’s still in the discussion. And he was the best player ever.

JoePoulson · Jun 18, 2018

That article has so many absurd numbers but I love this:

"Trout's career OPS+ of 175 is higher than Griffey's single-season high of 171."

LogansDad · Jun 18, 2018

I would say that Trout is the third best ever, and could be the best ever if he keeps it up.

Ruth's numbers are insane for the period he was in, obviously, and put all of his peers to shame. I also think he had more importance to the game, but that is likely unquantifiable for this discussion. I truly believe that purely based on baseball play, Trout will surpass Ruth when it comes to his on-field body of work. The big thing to me is that he is doing this in a day and age when teams and players are more prepared to take the field than they ever have been in history. It's almost overwhelming how much information these guys get about their opponents on a daily basis, and it is almost all driven by technology that was not available to Ruth. Yes, Trout benefits from this technology as well, but I think that what he has done against pitchers who go out there and know where his "holes" (yeah, right) are, and what his tendencies are, as opposed to when you only knew what Ruth was doing because of word of mouth and newspaper box scores, is wildly impressive. Trout will never stand head and shoulders above his peers the way that Ruth did, but Trout's peers are also on a different level than Ruth's peers were.

Then there's the elephant in the room. If Barry Bonds had never started doing steroids, I think he would have been in this discussion. I would love to see the StatCast and PitchFx data for him, because I swear he was the best I have ever seen at selecting which pitches to swing at. If you take him at his word that 1998 was when he first used (yes, I know that's a big IF), he still posted a Hall of Fame career: 359 doubles, 374 home runs, .288 average to go along with .408/.551/.959 slashies for an OPS+ of 162, along with 417 steals is pretty incredible over 11 seasons. Then he played ten more that, even fueled by steroids, were even more incredible. We talk about how much better Ruth was than his peers, but using WAR, the closest batter that is even close to a peer with Bonds is A-Rod, who is 45 points behind him. And keep in mind that Bonds was not the only player using steroids in that era.

I believe that steroids helped Bonds break the single season and career home run records, which is a really big deal and seriously detracts from his overall body of work. I don't believe they helped him be able to see and contact the ball as well as he did (his low strike out totals while hitting for so much power still awe me). People can say that steroids take Bonds out of this discussion, and that's fair, but what he did was absolutely incredible to me, steroids or not.

Trout is 26. Let's say he cools off and ends up at 10 WAR this year, and 8 next year. That would put him around 72 for his career, good for top 90 all time, at age 27. On the other hand, if he keeps playing like this (again, he is 26, and potentially just now hitting his prime) and puts up 12 this year and 12 next year he would be at around 78, and nearly top 60 all time. He is just so, so amazingly good..... I mean, we talk about him in discussions like this, and I still feel like he is one of the most underrated active players today. I just wish the Angels could put a good team around him, because it's kind of a travesty that a player as good as him only has 3 post season games under his belt at this point.

Pedroia's Itchy Nose · Jun 18, 2018

Kliq said:
If Trout can put up comparable career numbers to Mays, or Aaron, or even Ruth, in the era of global baseball, metric-driven defensive shifts, advanced scouting reports, and 100 mph relief pitchers, than he pretty much HAS to be the GOAT.

One thing that I find a bit misleading about arguments like this is that they tend to assume that the level of refinement in the game today is a pure disadvantage to the individual player. It's true that these old-days greats didn't have global competition, face defensive shifts, advanced scouting, specialized relief etc. It's also true that they didn't benefit from advanced scouting on their opposition, benefit from the ability to use technology to refine their own mechanics, benefit from modern day nutrition and fitness science etc.

I have no doubt that the quality of preparation baseball players get these days (starting with the first time they pick up a glove as a kid and extending through their entire career) is FAR better than what players used to get.

To me, that suggests that we can never have a clear cut answer to these kinds of questions.

Kliq · Jun 18, 2018

Pedroia's Itchy Nose said:
One thing that I find a bit misleading about arguments like this is that they tend to assume that the level of refinement in the game today is a pure disadvantage to the individual player. It's true that these old-days greats didn't have global competition, face defensive shifts, advanced scouting, specialized relief etc. It's also true that they didn't benefit from advanced scouting on their opposition, benefit from the ability to use technology to refine their own mechanics, benefit from modern day nutrition and fitness science etc.

I have no doubt that the quality of preparation baseball players get these days (starting with the first time they pick up a glove as a kid and extending through their entire career) is FAR better than what players used to get.

To me, that suggests that we can never have a clear cut answer to these kinds of questions.

That is what makes it so much fun!

BuellMiller · Jun 19, 2018

Pedroia's Itchy Nose said:
One thing that I find a bit misleading about arguments like this is that they tend to assume that the level of refinement in the game today is a pure disadvantage to the individual player. It's true that these old-days greats didn't have global competition, face defensive shifts, advanced scouting, specialized relief etc. It's also true that they didn't benefit from advanced scouting on their opposition, benefit from the ability to use technology to refine their own mechanics, benefit from modern day nutrition and fitness science etc.

I have no doubt that the quality of preparation baseball players get these days (starting with the first time they pick up a glove as a kid and extending through their entire career) is FAR better than what players used to get.

To me, that suggests that we can never have a clear cut answer to these kinds of questions.

Hell, Ruth would have benefited just from having access to penicillin. Allegedly.

jon abbey · Jun 20, 2018

He has been on base a ridiculous 28 times in the last 8 games:

#Angels Mike Trout:

Last 162 games - .309/.455/.641
Last 65 games - .361/.498/.735
Last 55 games - .361/.502/.743
Last 30 games - .402/.527/.824
Last 8 games - .696/.778/1.261

LogansDad · Jun 20, 2018

28 times in 8 games. He found the MLB Contra cheat code. Criminy.

SirPsychoSquints · Jun 21, 2018

jon abbey said:
He has been on base a ridiculous 28 times in the last 8 games:

#Angels Mike Trout:

Last 162 games - .309/.455/.641
Last 65 games - .361/.498/.735
Last 55 games - .361/.502/.743
Last 30 games - .402/.527/.824
Last 8 games - .696/.778/1.261

92 full seasons have ever had a better OPS than his last 162 games:

Ruth with 13
Ted with 8
Gehrig with 7
Bonds with 6
Foxx with 6
Hornsby with 6
Pujols with 4
Greenberg with 3
Larry Walker with 3
Manny with 3
McGwire with 3
Giambi with 2
Helton with 2

26 others with 1 including Harper in 2015.

Trout & Mookie are both higher so far this year.

mauf · Jun 21, 2018

SirPsychoSquints said:
92 full seasons have ever had a better OPS than his last 162 games:

Ruth with 13

Ted with 8

Gehrig with 7

Bonds with 6

Foxx with 6

Hornsby with 6

Pujols with 4

Greenberg with 3

Larry Walker with 3

Manny with 3

McGwire with 3

Giambi with 2

Helton with 2

26 others with 1 including Harper in 2015.

Trout & Mookie are both higher so far this year.

Not sure whether you are arguing the affirmative or the negative re: Trout being the GOAT. I tend to be on the negative side (more because the discussion is premature than anything else), but this list strikes me as a point for the affirmative.

Of those 13 guys, 5 played mostly against segregated competition. Four are known steroid users. Two played half their games in pre-humidor Coors Field. And none played plus defense at a premium position (though I suppose we don’t really know about Rogers Hornsby).

The Needler · Jun 21, 2018

maufman said:
Not sure whether you are arguing the affirmative or the negative re: Trout being the GOAT. I tend to be on the negative side (more because the discussion is premature than anything else), but this list strikes me as a point for the affirmative.

Of those 13 guys, 5 played mostly against segregated competition. Four are known steroid users. Two played half their games in pre-humidor Coors Field. And none played plus defense at a premium position (though I suppose we don’t really know about Rogers Hornsby).

Minimizing Larry Walker's best seasons, especially 1997, because of Coors field is not really fair. His away OPS that year was 1.176, better than at home, and better than any home or away split of Mike Trout's career. And he was also probably the best rightfielder in baseball.

SirPsychoSquints · Jun 22, 2018

maufman said:
Not sure whether you are arguing the affirmative or the negative re: Trout being the GOAT. I tend to be on the negative side (more because the discussion is premature than anything else), but this list strikes me as a point for the affirmative.

Of those 13 guys, 5 played mostly against segregated competition. Four are known steroid users. Two played half their games in pre-humidor Coors Field. And none played plus defense at a premium position (though I suppose we don’t really know about Rogers Hornsby).

More fun fact than anything else. Discounting Ruth (for the reasons people have stated many times), I think Trout has a reasonable chance to be the best ever. Performance after 30 is usually what distinguishes the best from the almost best, so we'll have to wait and see. By the end of this season, he's likely to have the highest WAR of any player ever through their age 26 season, as he needs only 3.5 WAR the rest of the way to pass Ruth (and Cobb and Mantle). The other players on the list with over 50 WAR by age 26 are Hornsby, ARod, Foxx, Ott and Griffey.

The career leaders in JAWS are:

Ruth 123.4
Bonds 117.8
Mays 115.0

Trout is currently at 60.6. He's on pace for 14.5 WAR (seriously???) this year. Let's call it 13. That puts his JAWS at 66.9. Assuming he never improves his peak score for JAWS, then he needs 96 more WAR to pass Mays, 101.6 more WAR to pass Bonds and 112.8 more WAR to pass Ruth.

The above paragraph underestimates Trout because it assumes he never achieves better individual season than his 6.7 WAR in 2017 or his 7.6 WAR in 2014. Either of those things occurring would increase his peak WAR score.

So let's go ahead. Let's assume 2019 and 2020 are 9.0 WAR seasons. After 2020, his total WAR would be 85.1. His peak WAR would be 70.4, leaving his JAWS at 77.8. Assuming he never achieves a better than 9.0 WAR season again, he would need to accumulate 74.5, 80.1 and 91.3 more WAR to pass Mays, Bonds and Ruth, respectively. This would be for his age 29+ seasons. Assuming he plays 12 such years, it'd be averaging 6.2, 6.7 and 7.6 WAR per season.

A standard rule of thumb aging of reducing by half a WAR per year would give him 69 WAR over those twelve years while still being a 3 WAR player at age 40. Running it out until he isn't a positive WAR player (half a war at age 45), he'd accumulate 76.5 WAR.

TLDR - Some back of the envelope calculations say Trout, if he never does better than 9 WAR after this year, would fall outside of the Ruth/Bonds/Mays level of JAWS, but not by much. In other words, if he throws up 2-3 more 10 WAR years, he has a pretty good chance of beating them out. I don't think we need to declare him best or not best ever at this time, it's pretty damn exciting to be watching a player in the conversation.

SirPsychoSquints · Jun 22, 2018

SirPsychoSquints said:
More fun fact than anything else. Discounting Ruth (for the reasons people have stated many times), I think Trout has a reasonable chance to be the best ever. Performance after 30 is usually what distinguishes the best from the almost best, so we'll have to wait and see. By the end of this season, he's likely to have the highest WAR of any player ever through their age 26 season, as he needs only 3.5 WAR the rest of the way to pass Ruth (and Cobb and Mantle). The other players on the list with over 50 WAR by age 26 are Hornsby, ARod, Foxx, Ott and Griffey.

The career leaders in JAWS are:

Ruth 123.4

Bonds 117.8

Mays 115.0

Trout is currently at 60.6. He's on pace for 14.5 WAR (seriously???) this year. Let's call it 13. That puts his JAWS at 66.9. Assuming he never improves his peak score for JAWS, then he needs 96 more WAR to pass Mays, 101.6 more WAR to pass Bonds and 112.8 more WAR to pass Ruth.

The above paragraph underestimates Trout because it assumes he never achieves better individual season than his 6.7 WAR in 2017 or his 7.6 WAR in 2014. Either of those things occurring would increase his peak WAR score.

So let's go ahead. Let's assume 2019 and 2020 are 9.0 WAR seasons. After 2020, his total WAR would be 85.1. His peak WAR would be 70.4, leaving his JAWS at 77.8. Assuming he never achieves a better than 9.0 WAR season again, he would need to accumulate 74.5, 80.1 and 91.3 more WAR to pass Mays, Bonds and Ruth, respectively. This would be for his age 29+ seasons. Assuming he plays 12 such years, it'd be averaging 6.2, 6.7 and 7.6 WAR per season.

A standard rule of thumb aging of reducing by half a WAR per year would give him 69 WAR over those twelve years while still being a 3 WAR player at age 40. Running it out until he isn't a positive WAR player (half a war at age 45), he'd accumulate 76.5 WAR.

TLDR - Some back of the envelope calculations say Trout, if he never does better than 9 WAR after this year, would fall outside of the Ruth/Bonds/Mays level of JAWS, but not by much. In other words, if he throws up 2-3 more 10 WAR years, he has a pretty good chance of beating them out. I don't think we need to declare him best or not best ever at this time, it's pretty damn exciting to be watching a player in the conversation.

Looking at it another way. Assumptions:

2018 ends in 13 WAR
Whatever he achieves in 2019, every future year will decline by 0.5 WAR per year
He ends after age 40, or when having no positive WAR

Then, the following 2019 WARs result in the following career JAWS:

13 -> 143.6
12 -> 134.4
11 -> 125.4 (better than Ruth)
10.5 -> 121.1 (better than Bonds)
10 -> 116.8 (better than Mays)
9.5 -> 112.6
9 -> 108.8 (falls behind Cobb)
8 -> 100.8 (falls behind Aaron)
7 -> 92.8 (falls behind Hornsby, Speaker, Wagner, Musial, Ted, Collins)
6 -> 86.5 (falls behind ARod, Gehrig, Mantle)
5 -> 80.7 (floodgates open of non-inner circle including Rickey, Lajoie, Schmidt, Pujols)
4 -> 76.0 (just ahead of Yaz)
3 -> 72.2 (falls behind Clemente)
2 -> 69.5 (just ahead of Griffey)
1 -> 67.7 (falls behind Cap Anson)
0 -> 67.0 (still better than DiMaggio)

If his career ended today, he'd still have a better JAWS than:

The average HOF at any position
Gary Carter
Ivan Rodriguez
Frank Thomas
Miguel Cabrera
Rafael Palmeiro
Ryne Sandberg
Paul Molitor
Edgar Martinez
Ernie Banks
Ozzie Smith
Derek Jeter
Tim Raines
Manny Ramirez
Duke Snider
Carlos Beltran
Andruw Jones
Larry Walker
Tony Gwynn
Ichiro

Edit: I've gotta say, scenario 5 above, where he has WARs of 10, 9.5, 9.0, etc and ends up between Mays and Bonds is pretty reasonable. He'd also still have a WAR of 3.5 at age 40, or about what Machado, Puig, Longoria, Frazier, Cano, Santana and Mauer produced in 2017 - so he could stick around and accumulate some more WAR after age 40, like Bonds, Mays, Cobb, Aaron, Hornsby, Wagner, Musial and Ted did. Again, a lot of "greatest" vs "great" comes down to after age 30, and even after age 40.

Merkle's Boner · Jun 22, 2018

I would bet people were having this discussion about Pujols when he was 26/27. Fair or not, if Trout's career ends like Pujols is ending, Trout will not be considered the best ever.

SirPsychoSquints · Jun 22, 2018

1

The Needler said:
Minimizing Larry Walker's best seasons, especially 1997, because of Coors field is not really fair. His away OPS that year was 1.176, better than at home, and better than any home or away split of Mike Trout's career. And he was also probably the best rightfielder in baseball.

To be fair, among those 94 seasons, Walker's rank 78th (1997), 90th (1999) and 93rd (2001) in OPS+. Trout's current season ranks 16th at 218. The only seasons with a higher OPS+ since 1901 are owned by Bonds, Ruth, Williams, Hornsby, Mantle, Gehrig. And Trout plays CF.

SirPsychoSquints · Jun 22, 2018

Merkle's Boner said:
I would bet people were having this discussion about Pujols when he was 26/27. Fair or not, if Trout's career ends like Pujols is ending, Trout will not be considered the best ever.

True, which is why I keep saying what happens after 30 is the deciding factor. Important distinction - Pujols only had 46.2 WAR after his age 26 season, which puts him around 2/3 of Trout. Also, we have reason to believe that wasn't actually Pujols's age 26 season.

Edit: Hell, Pujols's best WAR to that point was 8.7, which would be Trout's 6th best year (assuming he doesn't get hurt this year).

The Needler · Jun 22, 2018

SirPsychoSquints said:
1

To be fair, among those 94 seasons, Walker's rank 78th (1997), 90th (1999) and 93rd (2001) in OPS+. Trout's current season ranks 16th at 218. The only seasons with a higher OPS+ since 1901 are owned by Bonds, Ruth, Williams, Hornsby, Mantle, Gehrig. And Trout plays CF.

Sure, but we were talking about his last 162 games, not his current season. Traut might keep up his current pace, but he probably won't. Larry Walker had an OPS of 1.264 after this many games games in 1997.

SirPsychoSquints · Jun 22, 2018

The Needler said:
Sure, but we were talking about his last 162 games, not his current season. Traut might keep up his current pace, but he probably won't. Larry Walker had an OPS of 1.264 after this many games games in 1997.

Yeah I don't know how to do OPS+ for the last 162 games.

Edit: But I can take a guess. Since the beginning of 2017 it's approximately 199, and those OPS results pretty closely mirror the past 162 games posted above. That would be about the 50th best OPS+ season ever. Walker never had an OPS+ greater than 190. My point is not to denigrate Walker - I think he belongs in the Hall of Fame. The point is "HOLY SHIT HOW GREAT IS TROUT."

santadevil · Jun 22, 2018

SirPsychoSquints said:
Looking at it another way. Assumptions:

2018 ends in 13 WAR

Whatever he achieves in 2019, every future year will decline by 0.5 WAR per year

He ends after age 40, or when having no positive WAR

Then, the following 2019 WARs result in the following career JAWS:

13 -> 143.6

12 -> 134.4

11 -> 125.4 (better than Ruth)

10.5 -> 121.1 (better than Bonds)

10 -> 116.8 (better than Mays)

9.5 -> 112.6

9 -> 108.8 (falls behind Cobb)

8 -> 100.8 (falls behind Aaron)

7 -> 92.8 (falls behind Hornsby, Speaker, Wagner, Musial, Ted, Collins)

6 -> 86.5 (falls behind ARod, Gehrig, Mantle)

5 -> 80.7 (floodgates open of non-inner circle including Rickey, Lajoie, Schmidt, Pujols)

4 -> 76.0 (just ahead of Yaz)

3 -> 72.2 (falls behind Clemente)

2 -> 69.5 (just ahead of Griffey)

1 -> 67.7 (falls behind Cap Anson)

0 -> 67.0 (still better than DiMaggio)

If his career ended today, he'd still have a better JAWS than:

The average HOF at any position

Gary Carter

Ivan Rodriguez

Frank Thomas

Miguel Cabrera

Rafael Palmeiro

Ryne Sandberg

Paul Molitor

Edgar Martinez

Ernie Banks

Ozzie Smith

Derek Jeter

Tim Raines

Manny Ramirez

Duke Snider

Carlos Beltran

Andruw Jones

Larry Walker

Tony Gwynn

Ichiro

Edit: I've gotta say, scenario 5 above, where he has WARs of 10, 9.5, 9.0, etc and ends up between Mays and Bonds is pretty reasonable. He'd also still have a WAR of 3.5 at age 40, or about what Machado, Puig, Longoria, Frazier, Cano, Santana and Mauer produced in 2017 - so he could stick around and accumulate some more WAR after age 40, like Bonds, Mays, Cobb, Aaron, Hornsby, Wagner, Musial and Ted did. Again, a lot of "greatest" vs "great" comes down to after age 30, and even after age 40.

Just want to say that I love reading your posts

SirPsychoSquints · Jun 22, 2018

santadevil said:
Just want to say that I love reading your posts

Thanks! I mostly figure I'm wasting time for my own amusement. Glad someone else likes them.

The Needler · Jul 22, 2018

SirPsychoSquints said:
Trout is currently at 60.6. He's on pace for 14.5 WAR (seriously???) this year. Let's call it 13. That puts his JAWS at 66.9.

Trout has hit .220/.385/.317 in the 24 games since this post. He’s sitting at (a still obviously amazing) 6.9 bWAR through 99 games, so 13 WAR doesn’t seem very realistic anymore. Just a reminder that expecting even the greatest players to maintain unprecedented paces for a full season nearly always leads to disappointment.

Spelunker · Aug 7, 2018

Nice little video (with some nifty visualization) that 538 did for Trout's 27 birthday.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mike-trout-is-the-god-of-war/

Is Mike Trout the Best Player Ever?

ivanvamp

family crest has godzilla

Member

79

Member

Member

Member

Member

will you be my friend?

chris hansen of goats

Shanghai Warrior

chris hansen of goats

Shanghai Warrior

chris hansen of goats

loves the secret sauce

Shanghai Warrior

Shanghai Warrior

Member

Member

Member

Member

79

family crest has godzilla

Koko the Monkey

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Member

New Member

Shanghai Warrior

Member

Member

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers

New Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

New Member

Member

wears depends

Member

New Member

Member