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

[SlinkyRedfoot]

now you know what infer is. congratulations.

And I learned it from an Ivy League English major who has no idea how to use quotation marks. Oh, happy day!

 

[Rock Strongo]

And I learned it from an Ivy League English major who has no idea how to use quotation marks. Oh, happy day!

i use them fine.

how did you infer that?

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

They need to be tested within two minutes of an AB. Pujols is doing a cocktail of drugs that will keep his head shaped like a cinder-block and him on the field til he's at least played out the contract. After all, this deal was more about "a commitment to the Lord" than the $254,000,000.

I'm afraid the PED manufacturers are always going to be ahead of the testing. If they know what is being tested for, they can design the PEDs to mask those results.

If MLB wants to get serious about it, they need to treat it like gambling -- if you're caught, you're out -- and keep samples for future testing as testing methods improve. They'll never do it though.

 

[HammerDown]

I'm afraid the PED manufacturers are always going to be ahead of the testing. If they know what is being tested for, they can design the PEDs to mask those results.

If MLB wants to get serious about it, they need to treat it like gambling -- if you're caught, you're out -- and keep samples for future testing as testing methods improve. They'll never do it though.

The drugs are having measurable effects on the body. Those are what get you caught. The A-Rod investigation proved that these effects become undetectable within minutes of an AB. That's what these guys are doing; a load as they walk to the on-deck circle.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

This thread has been seen 401 times meaning I made about .00000001 cent on it.

Well, I'm here to help. At that rate, if we can push this thread to a hundred billion views, we'll net you $2.50!

Who's with me?!

 

[ericd7633]

Never said he isn't great or elite... I just don't think he is on pace to be one of the greats anymore... His first 2 seasons he looked like he could be a top 10 player of all time... Now i see him to be top 50... Still elite, but just not one of the GREATEST...

And at this point he is no longer a big threat on the bases, and too much of a HR bat... i see this to only continue, and he will continually bulk up... the question is will he be able to keep his stellar BA up... and i just don't see it...

Bryce Harper has better power potential due to body type and swing... so I do think Harper at this point has the higher ceiling...

Are you serious? His last season and a half(the seasons you are questioning) Trout's OPS+ in the year and half is 176. Basing his decline on those types of numbers are just dumb. They're basically right in line with what he did his first two seasons. Is stealing bases really that important?

Trout is easily going to be a top 10 player, especially if he continues his pace of the last year and half.

Trout the last year and half:

.297/.387/.580/.967,

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Trout is easily going to be a top 10 player

He's certainly on pace for it, but being a top 10 all time player is not easy. I consider myself a fan of his, but to say he'll "easily" be one of the best all-time seems crazy to me.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

Are you serious? His last season and a half(the seasons you are questioning) Trout's OPS+ in the year and half is 176. Basing his decline on those types of numbers are just dumb. They're basically right in line with what he did his first two seasons. Is stealing bases really that important?

Trout is easily going to be a top 10 player, especially if he continues his pace of the last year and half.

Trout the last year and half:

.297/.387/.580/.967,

Easily? Methinks you underestimate who he'd have to chase. Forget about trying to project his 30's for the time being.

 

[ericd7633]

He's certainly on pace for it, but being a top 10 all time player is not easy. I consider myself a fan of his, but to say he'll "easily" be one of the best all-time seems crazy to me.

If he puts up another 10 years like his first 3 and a half years, that'll be enough to place him in the top 10.

His WAR after this season will be around 38. Assuming he plays at his current pace for the next 10 years, his WAR will be right around 130, which would put him right around 10th of all time.

Again at his pace, he will easily be a top 10 player all time. And after his next 10 year stretch, he'll only be 34 so he'll have another couple years to tack on numbers.

 

[ericd7633]

Easily? Methinks you underestimate who he'd have to chase. Forget about trying to project his 30's for the time being.

Yes, I am assuming and projecting. It's already been said a players prime is from 27-32. That means after this season Trout will have 9 years left in his prime. Projecting him to keep up his pace from his first 3.5 years doesn't seem like a stretch to me. If he plays at his pace through his prime, the numbers suggest he'll be a top 10 player.

 

[mr.hockey4242]

Shit Trout may even get better by his prime. Which is real fucking scary.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

Yes, I am assuming and projecting. It's already been said a players prime is from 27-32. That means after this season Trout will have 9 years left in his prime. Projecting him to keep up his pace from his first 3.5 years doesn't seem like a stretch to me. If he plays at his pace through his prime, the numbers suggest he'll be a top 10 player.

Is it? Some of the raw speed/range skills can start to decline as soon as 25 iirc. As much as I don't mind handing Trout 8-10 war seasons, projecting 10 years out seems overly aggressive for my tastes. I can totally understand why some would though.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

If he puts up another 10 years like his first 3 and a half years, that'll be enough to place him in the top 10.

That's a big if. It's not "easy" to do.

There was a time when Grady Sizemore was "on pace" to be ranked among the best OFs, if not players, of all time, and, well, it's not easy.

I hope he does it because I'd love to watch.

 

[ericd7633]

Is it? Some of the raw speed/range skills can start to decline as soon as 25 iirc. As much as I don't mind handing Trout 8-10 war seasons, projecting 10 years out seems overly aggressive for my tastes. I can totally understand why some would though.

I'm just going by what people have said. I have a hard time believing somebody reaches their full potential at age 25. And sure it is aggressive, I still don't take back what I said though. If he keeps up his pace, he's going to be a top 10 player all time.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Again at his pace, he will easily be a top 10 player all time.

The new caveat you're adding brings a level of reasonableness to your statement. Carry on.

 

[ericd7633]

That's a big if. It's not "easy" to do.

There was a time when Grady Sizemore was "on pace" to be ranked among the best OFs, if not players, of all time, and, well, it's not easy.

I hope he does it because I'd love to watch.

Grady Sizemore never came close to what Trout has done in his first 3.5 seasons. Trout's worst year was statistically way better than even Sizemore's best season.

 

[ericd7633]

The new caveat you're adding brings a level of reasonableness to your statement. Carry on.

I guess you can't read then, please re-read post #106. I'm adding nothing new. Carry on...

 

[Fountain City Blues]

I'm just going by what people have said. I have a hard time believing somebody reaches their full potential at age 25. And sure it is aggressive, I still don't take back what I said though. If he keeps up his pace, he's going to be a top 10 player all time.

Maybe not offensively. This is more based on track and other such things- speculation on my part, yes. Would hypothesize defense is the first thing to decline, however. Might be a pet project of mine this weekend.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Shit Trout may even get better by his prime. Which is real fucking scary.

Absolutely possible.

It's also possible that a fast ball shatters his wrist next week and he never recovers.

We'll see.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

I guess you can't read then, please re-read post #106. I'm adding nothing new. Carry on...

You mean, you're adding nothing new to post #106 that you edited 32 minutes ago, right?

Yeah, we can see that.