| Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
| Mike Trout https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=92&t=119141 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Nas [ Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Mike Trout |
Can we please stop the talk about him being the greatest player ever? That will forever be Ruth* until robots are playing. Trout is an unbelievable player who plays for a perennial loser. Bonds is still the greatest player I've ever seen. |
|
| Author: | Jbi11s [ Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mike Trout |
|
|
|
| Author: | Caller Bob [ Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mike Trout |
This is a bad thought. |
|
| Author: | Nas [ Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mike Trout |
Caller Bob wrote: This is a bad thought. It's a perfect thought. |
|
| Author: | Nas [ Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mike Trout |
Jbi11s wrote: Shots fired at Len Kasper |
|
| Author: | Caller Bob [ Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mike Trout |
Nas wrote: Caller Bob wrote: This is a bad thought. It's a perfect thought. This isn't basketball. A single player can't lift a shit team into the playoffs, no matter how good he is. |
|
| Author: | Nas [ Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mike Trout |
Caller Bob wrote: Nas wrote: Caller Bob wrote: This is a bad thought. It's a perfect thought. This isn't basketball. A single player can't lift a shit team into the playoffs, no matter how good he is. Still nowhere near the player Ruth. Success in some form as a team matters. |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mike Trout |
Yeah Bonds is the best player I’ve ever seen and there’s not a close 2nd |
|
| Author: | Caller Bob [ Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mike Trout |
Nas wrote: Caller Bob wrote: Nas wrote: Caller Bob wrote: This is a bad thought. It's a perfect thought. This isn't basketball. A single player can't lift a shit team into the playoffs, no matter how good he is. Still nowhere near the player Ruth. Success in some form as a team matters. No, not in baseball. |
|
| Author: | KDdidit [ Sun Oct 13, 2019 4:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mike Trout |
Bonds is better even with Trout being on stronger stuff than BALCO could ever get him. |
|
| Author: | good dolphin [ Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mike Trout |
Ruth was otherworldly. He was so off the charts good compared to the rest of the league I have my doubts anyone will ever touch his work. Trout's name does deserve to be uttered with the greats. I wish stoneroses was here to lend his perspective especially compared to mickey mantle. |
|
| Author: | Frank Coztansa [ Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mike Trout |
good dolphin wrote: Ruth was otherworldly. He was so off the charts good compared to the rest of the league I have my doubts anyone will ever touch his work. Yup. MANY seem to forget that Ruth was on a HOF track as a pitcher. I still think he has the lowest World Series ERA, unless Bumgarner jumped him a few years back.good dolphin wrote: Trout's name does deserve to be uttered with the greats. Yes. He is not THE greatest, but he is in the team photo of "All Time Greats."
|
|
| Author: | pittmike [ Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mike Trout |
FavreFan wrote: Yeah Bonds is the best player I’ve ever seen and there’s not a close 2nd I would tend to agree. I give Griffey Jr. some love too. |
|
| Author: | tommy [ Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mike Trout |
Trout's as good as Bonds was at his age. Obviously, Bonds got to be a super-crazy-cartoonishly awesome player later on the Giants, but right now, they're similar. Mantle and Mays were better than both, from what I have read. Too bad Mickey got hurt. Jesus, apart from the Sox's continual second-placedness, I would have love to seen baseball in the 50s and 60s. Now, racially speaking (EDITED) |
|
| Author: | Nas [ Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mike Trout |
It was the talk about him being the greatest ever that bothered me. Arguing that he's in the team picture is one thing but suggesting that he's better than Ruth is insane. Many baseball people are doing this. Bonds is still the greatest player I've seen but if someone preferred Griffey or Trout I wouldn't complain. |
|
| Author: | tommy [ Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mike Trout |
Nas wrote: It was the talk about him being the greatest ever that bothered me. Arguing that he's in the team picture is one thing but suggesting that he's better than Ruth is insane. Many baseball people are doing this. Bonds is still the greatest player I've seen but if someone preferred Griffey or Trout I wouldn't complain. Yep to all of that. Little early to be crowning his ass. |
|
| Author: | Nardi [ Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mike Trout |
Nas wrote: It was the talk about him being the greatest ever that bothered me. Arguing that he's in the team picture is one thing but suggesting that he's better than Ruth is insane. Many baseball people are doing this. Bonds is still the greatest player I've seen but if someone preferred Griffey or Trout I wouldn't complain. It has the feel of a talking point put out by MLB. |
|
| Author: | Chet Coppock's Fur Coat [ Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mike Trout |
I think that Trout is a generational talent. But don't forget that today's metrics generally assign value compared to replacement. Albert Almora is a replacement CF these days. Who were the replacement RFs in Ruth's time, even with segregation? So Trout gets a bump from expansion, as well as a bump from science. |
|
| Author: | Regular Reader [ Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mike Trout |
I've been thinking about this for a minute. In my lifetime, I still may take Rickey over Bonds. Especially if winning late in the year was at stake. |
|
| Author: | Crick Ramp [ Tue Oct 15, 2019 7:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mike Trout |
During the 4 year stretch when Bonds won his first 3 MVPs and his head was the same size as his ASU days, he averaged roughly 35HR, 40SB, .310BA, .420OBP, and 110RBI...and won a legit gold glove every year. I can’t compare him to Ruth, Mays, Mantle etc simply because I never saw them play. I think Trout is a small degree behind that era of Barry but it’s also personal preference to an extent. Now, post 2000 Bonds was a cartoon, but man was that roided freak fun to watch. Dude got 2-3 pitches to hit per series and never missed. His 2004 slash line of .362/.609/1.422 defies logic. More incredibly is him virtually having the same amount of walks (232) as number of hits (135) plus number of RBI (101) |
|
| Author: | Frank Coztansa [ Wed Oct 16, 2019 9:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mike Trout |
Obivously CF is a lot different than 1B/DH, but are Trout's numbers as good as The Big Hurt? From 1991 thru 2000, here is what his average numbers were per season; 34 HRs 115 RBI 114 BB .321 AVG 1.025 OPS |
|
| Author: | Nardi [ Wed Oct 16, 2019 9:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mike Trout |
Frank Coztansa wrote: Obivously CF is a lot different than 1B/DH, but are Trout's numbers as good as The Big Hurt? From 1991 thru 2000, here is what his average numbers were per season; 34 HRs 115 RBI 114 BB .321 AVG 1.025 OPS Back before he was Fat Frank, Cantankerous Frank called his own balls and strikes and his numbers were a touch inflated. |
|
| Author: | Regular Reader [ Wed Oct 16, 2019 9:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mike Trout |
Frank Coztansa wrote: Obivously CF is a lot different than 1B/DH, but are Trout's numbers as good as The Big Hurt? From 1991 thru 2000, here is what his average numbers were per season; 34 HRs 115 RBI 114 BB .321 AVG 1.025 OPS And I still get pissed by the mention of anything Giambi. |
|
| Author: | Frank Coztansa [ Wed Oct 16, 2019 9:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mike Trout |
So inflated that a known juicer stole a second MVP award from him. I'm seriously asking if Trout's numbers are better than that. I'm not definitively saying Frank is better. |
|
| Author: | Nardi [ Wed Oct 16, 2019 9:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mike Trout |
Yes, Frank is better than Jason Giambi. |
|
| Author: | BigW72 [ Wed Oct 16, 2019 9:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mike Trout |
It's in interesting comparison. Frank led his teams and at times carried the offense on the back of his shoulders. That 1994 team that was robbed....1993, 2000 teams. Even in limited role, the 2005 team may not have stayed in contention without Frank. Trout obviously has way more value in terms of defense, but he's at a nice pace to rival Frank offensively. He's right on track around OBP and HR. Frank struck out much less than Trout and also has him beat in RBI's. All this means is that Trout is pretty fucking awesome, as was Bonds and Frank. There is absolutely zero comparison to Babe Ruth. Period. He's #1 and was clearly super-human. Anyone else starts at a very distant 2nd place and on. |
|
| Author: | GoldenJet [ Wed Oct 16, 2019 9:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mike Trout |
Quote: carried the offense on the back of his shoulders 
|
|
| Author: | Hatchetman [ Wed Oct 16, 2019 9:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mike Trout |
About the same level of hitter through 8-9 years. Obviously being able to play defense makes a difference. I wouldn't anticipate Trout to drop off like Thomas, but who knows with baseball. |
|
| Author: | tommy [ Wed Oct 16, 2019 9:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mike Trout |
Regular Reader wrote: Frank Coztansa wrote: Obivously CF is a lot different than 1B/DH, but are Trout's numbers as good as The Big Hurt? From 1991 thru 2000, here is what his average numbers were per season; 34 HRs 115 RBI 114 BB .321 AVG 1.025 OPS And I still get pissed by the mention of anything Giambi. Trout's a better fielder, particularly in throwing, but they play different positions. Faster, too. But Frank, until he got hurt, was one of the all-time great right-handers. Still is, but he could have been top five rather than top ten. I also can't stand Giambi, and only partially because of his ethnicity. |
|
| Author: | tommy [ Wed Oct 16, 2019 9:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mike Trout |
wdelaney72 wrote: All this means is that Trout is pretty fucking awesome, as was Bonds and Frank. There is absolutely zero comparison to Babe Ruth. Period. He's #1 and was clearly super-human. Anyone else starts at a very distant 2nd place and on. There ya go. He's the game greatest player. He had his advantages, but so did everyone else. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|