The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Mattingly at that time was the best player in baseball and his numbers were staggering.

It's not a far fetch to want to put the two stats side by side.

Take a look at Pujols and Trout stats side by side.  Everyone seems to forget just how amazing Pujols was as do they forget about how great Mattingly was for the first 9 years of his carer.

That was my point. People here are including the final 5 years of Mattingly's with what Trout will most likely accomplish in the next 5-10 years.

No. We're comparing the numbers you posted.
MAYS
AARON
GRIFFEY JR
BONDS
AROD
HORNSBY
MUSIAL
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/23800260/how-mike-trout-stacks-mlb-greats-first-1000-games


Those are the kinds of names to compare Trout's first 7 or 8 years too

That's different. Those are guys who played 20+ years. And retired in their late 30s early 40s Mattingly retired at 34. Played 14 seasons (12 full seasons) Which proves my point that you're including Mattingly's final years. I was saying for the first 9 years or similar amount of games. The numbers were not that far from each other. And that 9th year I included he missed 50 games. So I could've chosen the 92 or 93 season to make it look better.
Using the race analogy. If both runners are neck and neck. Maybe one guy is ahead a half second. And the other guy gets hurt half way. That doesn't mean the guy who couldn't finish the race wasn't up to that point a top runner.

THE ARTICLE IS COMPARING THEIR FIRST 1000 GAMES......just like the stats you provided comparing Trout and Mattingly's first however many years in the league.

j

I know. But they're still comparing to guys who played a long time. And were able to have full career. They're not going to put Mattingly on that list because the final 6 were not as great. They were still good considering. And if he played another 5 or 6  years. His numbers would have filled out nicely.

If ESPN did the same article in 89. They would be doing the same for Mattingly.  Keep in mind Mattingly wasn't thought of as a homerun hitter. They're not going to say "Well in 5 years he won't be the same player because of a bad back. So we can't compare him to guys who played over 20 years."

The same thing could happen to Trout next week and he might not be the same player. (Although he's buitl differently so he might overcome it a little more). It doesn't mean what he did before wasn't great or comparable to previous greats.

----- The. Stats. You. Provided. Disprove. Your. Own. Argument. -----
I don't know how to be more blunt.

Now you're saying "keep in mind he wasn't thought of as a home run hitter" so should we disregard the fact that Trout has hit about 15 more hr's per year than Don did the same way you suggested we should discount the fact that Trout has almost 200 more stolen bases?

Much higher OBP, way more home runs, much higher slugging, way higher OPS, way higher OPS+, way more walks, way more stolen bases, way more runs scores. These are all areas where Trout has been SIGNIFICANTLY better than Mattingly over his first nine season.
The ONLY area in which Mattingly was significantly better than Trout in was the fact that he hardly ever struck out. That's it. He's got him slightly in avg, doubles, and hits, but those are relatively all close. Trout trounces him in everything else. 

I'm obviously not the biggest sabermetrics guy in the world, but I recognize their importance in evaluating things like this. When it comes to WAR, Trout's first nine seasons essentially DOUBLES Mattingly's: 69.5 to 35. 

Mattingly was great for a four or five year run. I was a fan of his when I was a kdi. But Trout's literally been one of the best players to ever play the game for his first nine years. Big difference!

Jason P said:

Does Mike Trout have an iconic mustache???  Case closed.  Mattingly = GOAT

DewieCox said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Mattingly at that time was the best player in baseball and his numbers were staggering.

It's not a far fetch to want to put the two stats side by side.

Take a look at Pujols and Trout stats side by side.  Everyone seems to forget just how amazing Pujols was as do they forget about how great Mattingly was for the first 9 years of his carer.

That was my point. People here are including the final 5 years of Mattingly's with what Trout will most likely accomplish in the next 5-10 years.

No. We're comparing the numbers you posted.
MAYS
AARON
GRIFFEY JR
BONDS
AROD
HORNSBY
MUSIAL
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/23800260/how-mike-trout-stacks-mlb-greats-first-1000-games


Those are the kinds of names to compare Trout's first 7 or 8 years too

I'll throw this in the mix.

Can you name another player other than Mattingly, that had a great burst his first few years then fizzled out and isn't in the hall?

Soriano, Helton, Larry Walker?  Anybody else?

I would compare his numbers to another HOF'er in Kirby Puckett.  I still don't understand how he got in but he is in.

There numbers are really, really close.

Wow, they are crazy similar. But look at the trajectory. Puckett could’ve easily played a few more seasons and likely reached 3k hits, without the injury. Seems a little unfair but it’s certainly more reasonable to assume some numbers with Puckett vs boosting a half a career with Mattingly. Assuming a slight decline over a few more seasons and 2 rings gives Puckett the better resume.

igotid88 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Mattingly at that time was the best player in baseball and his numbers were staggering.

It's not a far fetch to want to put the two stats side by side.

Take a look at Pujols and Trout stats side by side.  Everyone seems to forget just how amazing Pujols was as do they forget about how great Mattingly was for the first 9 years of his carer.

That was my point. People here are including the final 5 years of Mattingly's with what Trout will most likely accomplish in the next 5-10 years.

No. We're comparing the numbers you posted.
MAYS
AARON
GRIFFEY JR
BONDS
AROD
HORNSBY
MUSIAL
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/23800260/how-mike-trout-stacks-mlb-greats-first-1000-games


Those are the kinds of names to compare Trout's first 7 or 8 years too

I'll throw this in the mix.

Can you name another player other than Mattingly, that had a great burst his first few years then fizzled out and isn't in the hall?

Soriano, Helton, Larry Walker?  Anybody else?

I would compare his numbers to another HOF'er in Kirby Puckett.  I still don't understand how he got in but he is in.

There numbers are really, really close.

I could that. And the Kirby comparison has already been done. But those are different things. I just wanted to see how my favorite player's best years stacked up against someone who great now. It's what people don't get. 

igotid88 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

I've always felt a little bad for Mattingly. He's probably the most legendary Yankee to have no team success. What back luck, for your tenure with the greatest team in American sports history to coincide with that team's worst stretch (not counting their pre-Babe Ruth years). And after a distinguished 13-year career, the moment Mattingly retires, they win the World Series the very next year. Then the poor bastard returns to as a coach for the Yankees in 2004 when they should have beaten the Red Sox to advance to the World Series, and he leaves in 2007 two years before they beat the Phillies in the World Series. 

He was all but a lock to be the new manager until Cashman convinced George otherwise. 

igotid88 said:

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Mattingly at that time was the best player in baseball and his numbers were staggering.

It's not a far fetch to want to put the two stats side by side.

Take a look at Pujols and Trout stats side by side.  Everyone seems to forget just how amazing Pujols was as do they forget about how great Mattingly was for the first 9 years of his carer.

That was my point. People here are including the final 5 years of Mattingly's with what Trout will most likely accomplish in the next 5-10 years.

No. We're comparing the numbers you posted.
MAYS
AARON
GRIFFEY JR
BONDS
AROD
HORNSBY
MUSIAL
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/23800260/how-mike-trout-stacks-mlb-greats-first-1000-games


Those are the kinds of names to compare Trout's first 7 or 8 years too

That's different. Those are guys who played 20+ years. And retired in their late 30s early 40s Mattingly retired at 34. Played 14 seasons (12 full seasons) Which proves my point that you're including Mattingly's final years. I was saying for the first 9 years or similar amount of games. The numbers were not that far from each other. And that 9th year I included he missed 50 games. So I could've chosen the 92 or 93 season to make it look better.
Using the race analogy. If both runners are neck and neck. Maybe one guy is ahead a half second. And the other guy gets hurt half way. That doesn't mean the guy who couldn't finish the race wasn't up to that point a top runner.

THE ARTICLE IS COMPARING THEIR FIRST 1000 GAMES......just like the stats you provided comparing Trout and Mattingly's first however many years in the league.

j

I know. But they're still comparing to guys who played a long time. And were able to have full career. They're not going to put Mattingly on that list because the final 6 were not as great. They were still good considering. And if he played another 5 or 6  years. His numbers would have filled out nicely.

If ESPN did the same article in 89. They would be doing the same for Mattingly.  Keep in mind Mattingly wasn't thought of as a homerun hitter. They're not going to say "Well in 5 years he won't be the same player because of a bad back. So we can't compare him to guys who played over 20 years."

The same thing could happen to Trout next week and he might not be the same player. (Although he's buitl differently so he might overcome it a little more). It doesn't mean what he did before wasn't great or comparable to previous greats.

----- The. Stats. You. Provided. Disprove. Your. Own. Argument. -----
I don't know how to be more blunt.

Now you're saying "keep in mind he wasn't thought of as a home run hitter" so should we disregard the fact that Trout has hit about 15 more hr's per year than Don did the same way you suggested we should discount the fact that Trout has almost 200 more stolen bases?

Much higher OBP, way more home runs, much higher slugging, way higher OPS, way higher OPS+, way more walks, way more stolen bases, way more runs scores. These are all areas where Trout has been SIGNIFICANTLY better than Mattingly over his first nine season.
The ONLY area in which Mattingly was significantly better than Trout in was the fact that he hardly ever struck out. That's it. He's got him slightly in avg, doubles, and hits, but those are relatively all close. Trout trounces him in everything else. 

I'm obviously not the biggest sabermetrics guy in the world, but I recognize their importance in evaluating things like this. When it comes to WAR, Trout's first nine seasons essentially DOUBLES Mattingly's: 69.5 to 35. 

Mattingly was great for a four or five year run. I was a fan of his when I was a kdi. But Trout's literally been one of the best players to ever play the game for his first nine years. Big difference!

The homerun thing means the fact Mattingly hitting all those homeruns was unexpected. So the factl that they were close is a good thing for Donnie. And Mattingly also had way more hits. Their total bases were very close. Mattingly had over 150 plate apperances less. And you're still not getting it. I'm not staying one is better than the other. Just that their numbers are close for the first 9 years. 3 of which includes Mattingly's injury seasons. There are also 2 seasons in which he barely started. So that takes a few WAR points off the board. 

igotid88 said:

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Mattingly at that time was the best player in baseball and his numbers were staggering.

It's not a far fetch to want to put the two stats side by side.

Take a look at Pujols and Trout stats side by side.  Everyone seems to forget just how amazing Pujols was as do they forget about how great Mattingly was for the first 9 years of his carer.

That was my point. People here are including the final 5 years of Mattingly's with what Trout will most likely accomplish in the next 5-10 years.

No. We're comparing the numbers you posted.
MAYS
AARON
GRIFFEY JR
BONDS
AROD
HORNSBY
MUSIAL
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/23800260/how-mike-trout-stacks-mlb-greats-first-1000-games


Those are the kinds of names to compare Trout's first 7 or 8 years too

That's different. Those are guys who played 20+ years. And retired in their late 30s early 40s Mattingly retired at 34. Played 14 seasons (12 full seasons) Which proves my point that you're including Mattingly's final years. I was saying for the first 9 years or similar amount of games. The numbers were not that far from each other. And that 9th year I included he missed 50 games. So I could've chosen the 92 or 93 season to make it look better.
Using the race analogy. If both runners are neck and neck. Maybe one guy is ahead a half second. And the other guy gets hurt half way. That doesn't mean the guy who couldn't finish the race wasn't up to that point a top runner.

THE ARTICLE IS COMPARING THEIR FIRST 1000 GAMES......just like the stats you provided comparing Trout and Mattingly's first however many years in the league.

j

I know. But they're still comparing to guys who played a long time. And were able to have full career. They're not going to put Mattingly on that list because the final 6 were not as great. They were still good considering. And if he played another 5 or 6  years. His numbers would have filled out nicely.

If ESPN did the same article in 89. They would be doing the same for Mattingly.  Keep in mind Mattingly wasn't thought of as a homerun hitter. They're not going to say "Well in 5 years he won't be the same player because of a bad back. So we can't compare him to guys who played over 20 years."

The same thing could happen to Trout next week and he might not be the same player. (Although he's buitl differently so he might overcome it a little more). It doesn't mean what he did before wasn't great or comparable to previous greats.

----- The. Stats. You. Provided. Disprove. Your. Own. Argument. -----
I don't know how to be more blunt.

Now you're saying "keep in mind he wasn't thought of as a home run hitter" so should we disregard the fact that Trout has hit about 15 more hr's per year than Don did the same way you suggested we should discount the fact that Trout has almost 200 more stolen bases?

Much higher OBP, way more home runs, much higher slugging, way higher OPS, way higher OPS+, way more walks, way more stolen bases, way more runs scores. These are all areas where Trout has been SIGNIFICANTLY better than Mattingly over his first nine season.
The ONLY area in which Mattingly was significantly better than Trout in was the fact that he hardly ever struck out. That's it. He's got him slightly in avg, doubles, and hits, but those are relatively all close. Trout trounces him in everything else. 

I'm obviously not the biggest sabermetrics guy in the world, but I recognize their importance in evaluating things like this. When it comes to WAR, Trout's first nine seasons essentially DOUBLES Mattingly's: 69.5 to 35. 

Mattingly was great for a four or five year run. I was a fan of his when I was a kdi. But Trout's literally been one of the best players to ever play the game for his first nine years. Big difference!

The homerun thing means the fact Mattingly hitting all those homeruns was unexpected. So the factl that they were close is a good thing for Donnie. And Mattingly also had way more hits. Their total bases were very close. Mattingly had over 150 plate apperances less. And you're still not getting it. I'm not staying one is better than the other. Just that their numbers are close for the first 9 years. 3 of which includes Mattingly's injury seasons. There are also 2 seasons in which he barely started. So that takes a few WAR points off the board. 

How is about 100 more home runs considered "close" to you? It's not. Its a wide margin. Mattingly averaged 14 more hits per year. That's not "way" more, THAT'S considered close. But averaging more than 10 homers per year is not considered close. 


Much higher OBP,
Way more home runs,
Much higher slugging,
Way higher OPS,
Way higher OPS+,
Way more walks,
Way more stolen bases,
Way more runs scores. 
69.5 war to 35

Their overall numbers are not close...in a few categories they are. But you can say that about a lot of players. Overall? Not remotely close. 

More walks and homeruns and their total bases were within 100+. Mattingly could have walked more but he was able to put the bat to the ball more.  We're including 3 years where Mattingly lost his power hence the home runs were down. He was also not trying to hit homeruns like players are now. He entered the homerun derby and didn't do well. So basically the majority of those numbers came in 5 years. Stolen bases like I said earlier if he had the speed he'd have more. They were born with different genes. Also averaging 14 more hits is a big deal. I would rather that than 14 more walks. Especially when you don't have a Pujols to drive you in. We're arguing 2 different things

Trainers, MLB Teams Unhappy With Current International Signing System