MilkSpiller22
Gorilla
LMFAO. No. Not even. Highest single-season OPS is only good enough for 119th all time. How about adjusted OPS+? He's single-season high is good enough for 60th all time and it is his only season in the top 100. No, he is not an all-time top five player, unless you want to pretend like the first 115 years of MLB did not happen.
His career averages are up there... I do agree, he still needs that single GREAT season, to be top 5 ever or even top 10... But he is the closest thing we have... He is the best player of this generation and that is not even close, and he is still only 27...
OPS and OPS+ are not perfect stats... in fact they are very flawed, as they over value Walks and power...
ALL adjusted numbers are pretty bad comparing between eras, as it relies too much on the average player... so it is not about how good player A is it is about how good they are compared to the average player... and ballpark factor is a pretty inexact stat too...
but even if you want to bring up OPS+, you realize Trout led baseball 4 times in his career, and is also leading this season...