Bottom line is there is no better baseball player than Mike trout

[DingerzForDaze]

Do you guys think much separates Dave Winfield from Trout? D. Winfield nearly had a .300 batting average, 450+ HR and was a dam good outfielder with a cannon for an arm. His only World Series win was with the Blue Jays.

Dave Winfield played 22 seasons and has a cumulative WAR of 59.9. Trout already has 73.3 WAR in 8+ seasons. Trout has already had a better career than Winfield.

 

[PearlSUJam]

Clemente was 28 before he had a single season that was better than Trout's WORST season. In his career, Clemente had only 3 seasons where he posted a 7.0 WAR or higher (7.0, 7.1, 7.7). Trout has had one season with a WAR below 7.0 ... an injured shortened season with a 6.9 WAR. All his other seasons were 8.3 WAR or higher (often comfortably higher). Clemente had 80.6 cumulative WAR over his 18 year career. Trout already has 73.3 WAR in 8+ seasons.

Trout is already 47th in career WAR among positional players, after only 8+ seasons.

Trout is redonkulous.

If he were able to maintain this level of production (a HUGE if, of course), over the next 8 years, he'd be 5th all-time in WAR, behind Ruth, Bonds, May and Cobb ... and he'd have substantially fewer plate appearances than any of those guys ... except for Ruth (Trout would have only slightly lower in PAs than Ruth), who had a career 168.4 WAR (Trout would have 146.6).

Which means Ruth is beyond redonkulous.

How does WAR measure a walk off hit in the ninth with 2 outs?

 

[TheGLOV]

Clemente was 28 before he had a single season that was better than Trout's WORST season. In his career, Clemente had only 3 seasons where he posted a 7.0 WAR or higher (7.0, 7.1, 7.7). Trout has had one season with a WAR below 7.0 ... an injured shortened season with a 6.9 WAR. All his other seasons were 8.3 WAR or higher (often comfortably higher). Clemente had 80.6 cumulative WAR over his 18 year career. Trout already has 73.3 WAR in 8+ seasons.

Trout is already 47th in career WAR among positional players, after only 8+ seasons.

Trout is redonkulous.

If he were able to maintain this level of production (a HUGE if, of course), over the next 8 years, he'd be 5th all-time in WAR, behind Ruth, Bonds, May and Cobb ... and he'd have substantially fewer plate appearances than any of those guys ... except for Ruth (Trout would have only slightly lower in PAs than Ruth), who had a career 168.4 WAR (Trout would have 146.6).

Which means Ruth is beyond redonkulous.

Clemente has it all over your fish boy.

No doubt about it sir.

I respect your incorrect conclusion.

 

[DingerzForDaze]

How does WAR measure a walk off hit in the ninth with 2 outs?

View embedded media

It measures it as a hit, because it understands the walk off component is statistically insignificant in terms of frequency (not to mention the randomness inherent in the opportunity), and that there hasn't been any proven "skill" that is attributable to producing a "walk off" vs. any other hit.





Most of these "yeah but, I bet it can't calculate the value of ..." scenarios have been looked at and either actually calculated, or have been proven to not be worthy of inclusion.

 

[Chickenman Testa]

It measures it as a hit, because it understands the walk off component is statistically insignificant in terms of frequency (not to mention the randomness inherent in the opportunity), and that there hasn't been any proven "skill" that is attributable to producing a "walk off" vs. any other hit.

View embedded media

View embedded media

Most of these "yeah but, I bet it can't calculate the value of ..." scenarios have been looked at and either actually calculated, or have been proven to not be worthy of inclusion.

Keep fighting the good fight - Trout is incredible

 

[PearlSUJam]

It measures it as a hit, because it understands the walk off component is statistically insignificant in terms of frequency (not to mention the randomness inherent in the opportunity), and that there hasn't been any proven "skill" that is attributable to producing a "walk off" vs. any other hit.

View embedded media

View embedded media

Most of these "yeah but, I bet it can't calculate the value of ..." scenarios have been looked at and either actually calculated, or have been proven to not be worthy of inclusion.

Two statisticians were traveling in an airplane from LA to New York. About an hour into the flight, the pilot announced that they had lost an engine, but don’t worry, there are three left. However, instead of 5 hours it would take 7 hours to get to New York.

A little later, he announced that a second engine failed, and they still had two left, but it would take 10 hours to get to New York.

Somewhat later, the pilot again came on the intercom and announced that a third engine had died. Never fear, he announced, because the plane could fly on a single engine. However, it would now take 18 hours to get to New York.

At this point, one statistician turned to the other and said, “Gee, I hope we don’t lose that last engine, or we’ll be up here forever!”

 

[TheGLOV]

Two statisticians were traveling in an airplane from LA to New York. About an hour into the flight, the pilot announced that they had lost an engine, but don’t worry, there are three left. However, instead of 5 hours it would take 7 hours to get to New York.

A little later, he announced that a second engine failed, and they still had two left, but it would take 10 hours to get to New York.

Somewhat later, the pilot again came on the intercom and announced that a third engine had died. Never fear, he announced, because the plane could fly on a single engine. However, it would now take 18 hours to get to New York.

At this point, one statistician turned to the other and said, “Gee, I hope we don’t lose that last engine, or we’ll be up here forever!”

LOL!!

Great post sir!!!