The "Mike Trout vs. Bryce Harper" Debate is Dead

[HammerDown]

Three years in and it's not even close. Trout is smashing records from the steroids era and Bryce Harper is flipping his hair.

 

[HammerDown]

This is everything you need to know about the difference in these two players.

At Monday's All-Star Game media session, the best players in the world were given a hypothetical scenario. Brand-new team, starting from scratch. You're the GM and get to pick one player around whom to build the franchise. Who is that player?

"Maybe Clayton Kershaw?" Trout said. "I like to watch Kershaw."


Los Angeles Angels, reigning MVP of the American League, favorite to win this year's, too. He is, by most measures, the best player in baseball. And as he chose Kershaw, the Los Angeles Dodgers ace typically seen as his pitching doppelganger, Trout was reminded he could select himself if he so desired.


"Naw," Trout said. "I'm not gonna take myself."

In 2012, Trout made his first All-Star team as a 20-year-old, and he looked positively wizened next to the 19-year-old Harper, he of the Sports Illustrated cover and skipping of his senior year in high school and rapid ascent through the minor leagues. Harper was every bit the extrovert as Trout was an introvert, and in that respect little has changed.

When asked which player he'd choose, Harper said St. Louis Cardinals catcher Yadier Molina, whom he called "the best catcher in the game." Then came the caveat.

"Of course I'm gonna pick myself if you give me that opportunity," Harper said.

The opportunity, he was told, was his.

"I'm gonna pick myself."

 

[Blitzville]

It's a totally contrived, bogus question designed to stir up controversy or find some faintly negative slant on the epic season Bryce Harper is having. The one legitimate comment was that Harper does need to show he can sustain this kind of performance over the next 2-3 years. If he stays healthy and delivers on that potential, then I think the answer "flips" to Harper. Hands down.

 

[PackJason]

Yeah, this isn't even a debate. Trout is going to go down as an all-time great and Harper is gonna be remembered more for his immaturity than being a good player.

 

[HammerDown]

It's a totally contrived, bogus question designed to stir up controversy or find some faintly negative slant on the epic season Bryce Harper is having. The one legitimate comment was that Harper does need to show he can sustain this kind of performance over the next 2-3 years. If he stays healthy and delivers on that potential, then I think the answer "flips" to Harper. Hands down.

Interesting. So you're suggesting we dismiss everything that's happened up to this point and Bryce Harper has the brighter future. Right.

 

[HammerDown]

Just saw this.

"I don't care what he's done for the first half of the year," Price said. "Do it for three seasons like Mike Trout has, and then you can have that discussion."

A good first half is NOT an "epic season" @Blitzville

 

[Yambag]

I remember watching a clip of Harper in the minors. He hit a HR off a pitcher then turned and mocked him from third to home. It was classless then and I see nothing has changed with his persona...

Harper's just a plain douche who only cares about Harper and Trout is the consummate teammate who everyone rallies around.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I do think Harper has the brighter future... But at this point Trout is the clear better player...

The problem is Trout is no longer on pace to be one of the greats... As he is no longer a huge SB threat... He is now here to hit HRs, and is great at doing so, but he will not be one of the greats on this road... It is tough to be too good for your own good... and that was Trout...

Look at his numbers the past 2 seasons, yes they are still great, but they are no longer the Mike trout that we fell in love with... Now he is a .290 power hitter who will never have enough power to reach 40+ HRs...

 

[Fountain City Blues]

Lolwut? Of all the years to pick, you pick THIS year to start this thread? Harper can very easily be greater than Trout when it's all said and done if this really is his breakout into what many assumed was a transcendent talent.

 

[huskers1217]

Bryce Harper and Scot Strausburg will go down as two of the most overrated pieces of crap ever to hit the diamond.

 

[powerchord86]

They're both ok..

 

[Fountain City Blues]

The grossly overrated Nat is Strasburg. Bryce Harper is a guy on a pace for a 10 War season in his age 22 season.

 

[Rock Strongo]

trout is what harper was supposed to be. harper gets the constant age excuse "but hes only blah blah blah". people act like trout is in his late 20's.

 

[obxyankeefan]

Bryce Harper and Scot Strausburg will go down as two of the most overrated pieces of crap ever to hit the diamond.

Who is Scot Strausburg?

Bryce was the NL MVP for the first half. Does he keep the pace up? Does he get injured like he has a history of doing? Without a crystal ball nobody can answer these questions yet. But even with the half of season that HArper has had he still is no where close to Trout yet.

 

[OregonDucks]

Stephen Strasburg is a joke.

 

[OregonDucks]

I don't think you can claim Mike Trout as "Post" steroid era......

 

[da55bums]

I do think Harper has the brighter future... But at this point Trout is the clear better player...

The problem is Trout is no longer on pace to be one of the greats... As he is no longer a huge SB threat... He is now here to hit HRs, and is great at doing so, but he will not be one of the greats on this road... It is tough to be too good for your own good... and that was Trout...

Look at his numbers the past 2 seasons, yes they are still great, but they are no longer the Mike trout that we fell in love with... Now he is a .290 power hitter who will never have enough power to reach 40+ HRs...

Just because a guy has a season off his last season, doesn't mean he isn't great. The "greats" didn't win MVPs every year they played. The "greats" didn't all have 30 hr, 40 sb seasons every season.

Trout is 23 yr old, peak baseball years are genenerally considered 27-32, and you're already dismissing trout? His numbers are on pace to be one of the greats, well unless you don't consider Hank Aaron a "great" as well as many others.

Never have enough power to reach 40+ hr? Crap, he is on pace for that, this season.

 

[navamind]

Lolwut? Of all the years to pick, you pick THIS year to start this thread? Harper can very easily be greater than Trout when it's all said and done if this really is his breakout into what many assumed was a transcendent talent.

 

[navamind]

I do think Harper has the brighter future... But at this point Trout is the clear better player...

The problem is Trout is no longer on pace to be one of the greats... As he is no longer a huge SB threat... He is now here to hit HRs, and is great at doing so, but he will not be one of the greats on this road... It is tough to be too good for your own good... and that was Trout...

Look at his numbers the past 2 seasons, yes they are still great, but they are no longer the Mike trout that we fell in love with... Now he is a .290 power hitter who will never have enough power to reach 40+ HRs...

He's on pace for 48 home runs this year and batting .312.

And even if he did bat .290 and "didn't reach 40 home runs", he's still elite.

 

[StanMarsh51]

I do think Harper has the brighter future... But at this point Trout is the clear better player...

The problem is Trout is no longer on pace to be one of the greats... As he is no longer a huge SB threat... He is now here to hit HRs, and is great at doing so, but he will not be one of the greats on this road... It is tough to be too good for your own good... and that was Trout...

Look at his numbers the past 2 seasons, yes they are still great, but they are no longer the Mike trout that we fell in love with... Now he is a .290 power hitter who will never have enough power to reach 40+ HRs...

Isn't he on pace to hit 45+ this year?