Is Trout HOF worthy right now?

Rovin Romine · Oct 12, 2016

No, too short; not enough counting stats. However, he's done so well that he's basically a shoe-in if he's even half his usual self for the next 10 years. (Basically so good he avoids the Dale Murphy effect.)

Smiling Joe Hesketh · Oct 12, 2016

He might be worthy by WAR, but there would be no way he would get elected if his career ended tomorrow because he doesn't have the counting stats at all. As RR said, he needs to pad his numbers over the next 10 years or so to be a shoo-in.

pokey_reese · Oct 12, 2016

...Also, doesn't meet the requirements for the Hall. But I guess that we are assuming he continues to play, and not actually "...if his career were to end today*?"

As amazing is seeing Pujols on that list twice in years that don't overlap at all.

Philip Jeff Frye · Oct 13, 2016

Wouldn't Koufax be the logical equivalent? Trout didn't have Koufax's early years of being fairly mediocre before suddenly becoming the Best Pitcher Ever in 1963, but Koufax is pretty much in the Hall because of 5 incredible seasons before his career suddenly stopped. Koufax's career WAR, if in reading Baseball Reference correctly was 53.2, which is not that different from what Trout has already done - Trout's probably passing that next year.

Trout doesn't nearly have Koufax's post season resume, so maybe he needs another MVP caliber season to make up for it, but I'd have to say in answer to the question, he's pretty close.

Papelbon's Poutine · Oct 13, 2016

I think the answer relies on your definition of "if his career were to end today".

If he died somehow, yes I think they'd make the exception and waive the ten year requirement (if for nothing else than PR).

If he had some kind of catastrophic injury and was basically replacement level for five more years and then washed out, no I don't think he would be.

Kliq · Oct 13, 2016

I don't like the Koufax comparison because isn't it much more normal for a pitcher to have 5 really strong years in a row and then tailing off as opposed to a position player? Koufax's peak is also significantly higher than Trout's imo, his run during the 60s is arguably the greatest run any pitcher has ever had and while Trout has been phenomenal so far, I don't think a lot of people are saying to themselves "this is the greatest player we have ever seen." Lastly, Koufax was elected during a time when it was significantly easier to get it to the HoF than it is today since 50 years of great players have come through and clogged the lane. The further you go back in history, the easier it was to get in the HoF (Rabbit Maranville anybody?) so it is much harder for Trout to crack the HoF than it was for Koufax. In hindsight, it is obvious that Koufax is a HoF.

Kliq · Oct 13, 2016

Lowrielicious said:
Get outta here with that on a redsox board of all places...

I was going to throw in "arguably one of the greatest" but decided that was superfluous. We can all agree that Koufax was mesmerizing at his peak.

grimshaw · Oct 13, 2016

Couple thoughts
-He could be just an average player (2-3 WAR a season for the rest of his career (maybe even if he has 10 career seasons) and be a first ballot guy, sort of like Pujols once he left St.Louis.

-I think he'd be the exception to the rule if he does it for 7 for years and then has some freak injury that ended his career. Really the typical candidate has an MVP caliber season, a few in the top 5, a couple all-star appearances, and 12+ years in the league. Trout could have started his career with 4 MVPs.

-In terms of career WAR he hasn't gotten to guys like Lofton (68! and not even glanced at), Larry Walker (72! and same deal) or Raines yet for those voters who would need some sort of artificial career number to get considered

-He is already two behind Jim Edmonds who was great in his own right and deserved a baseball-reference look up.

Saints Rest · Oct 13, 2016

Right now, he's Gayle Sayers.
But 5 football years is a lot closer to half a career than in baseball. So I agree with PP, that a tragic death tomorrow might mean a waiver to the 10 year rule, but otherwise, he needs to put up continued solid seasons.

And re: Pujols, I think he is still a lock. The 8 of 9 Top 5 MVP finishes does it for me (and his one non-Top5 year, 2007, he finished 9th while leading the league in WAR). And he hasn't been THAT bad in Anaheim, just not STL level great. STL average OPS+ was 170 over 11 years; ANA average is 123 (so far). He's also a lock for 600 HRs without a whiff (that I know of) of PED use.

Cesar Crespo · Oct 13, 2016

Pujols could retire today and would be a first ballot HOF. He's probably a lock for 3000 hits too. He would get over 90% of the vote. It's not even a debate.

If Trout puts up 5 years of league average production, he'd probably still get in the HOF. He needs those 5 years though.

grimshaw · Oct 13, 2016

Saints Rest said:
And re: Pujols, I think he is still a lock. The 8 of 9 Top 5 MVP finishes does it for me (and his one non-Top5 year, 2007, he finished 9th while leading the league in WAR). And he hasn't been THAT bad in Anaheim, just not STL level great. STL average OPS+ was 170 over 11 years; ANA average is 123 (so far). He's also a lock for 600 HRs without a whiff (that I know of) of PED use.

Poor wording on my part. I was saying he was a HoF even if he never played another game after leaving. He could have been one of the worst players in baseball after that and it wouldn't matter too much. The fact that he's been fine in Anaheim too makes him one of the greatest hitters in history already.

joyofsox · Oct 14, 2016

Kliq said:
I was going to throw in "arguably one of the greatest" but decided that was superfluous. We can all agree that Koufax was mesmerizing at his peak.

Koufax's best ERA+: 190 (1966, his last season)
Pedro's ERA+ for his Red Sox career (7 seasons): 190.

Kliq · Oct 14, 2016

joyofsox said:
Koufax's best ERA+: 190 (1966, his last season)
Pedro's ERA+ for his Red Sox career (7 seasons): 190.

Blah, blah, blah I've heard it all before. This isn't a shot at Pedro.

Moog · Oct 22, 2016

JAWS lists Trout with the 8th-best 7-year peak of all time among center fielders (48.5 WAR, between Duke Snider and Andruw Jones). And he hasn’t played 7 years yet. This also counts his first, age-19 year when he played 40 games (0.7 WAR).

Let’s assume he plays four more completely average years, say 2 WAR/year, to meet the 10-year requirement. This is where JAWS would rank him all time:

…………………............WAR / WAR7 / JAWS
1 Willie Mays..........156.2 / 73.7 / 115.0
2 Ty Cobb...............151.0 / 69.0 / 110.0
3 Tris Speaker........133.7 / 62.1 / 97.9
4 Mickey Mantle.....109.7 / 64.7 / 87.2
5 Ken Griffey...........83.6 / 53.9 / 68.8
6 Joe DiMaggio.......78.1 / 51.0 / 64.5
7 Duke Snider.........66.5 / 50.0 / 58.2
9 Carlos Beltran......70.4 / 44.3 / 57.3
10 Kenny Lofton......68.2 / 43.3 / 55.7
11 Andruw Jones.....62.8 / 46.4 / 54.6
— Mike Trout.........56.5 / 51.8 / 54.2
12 Richie Ashburn...63.6 / 44.3 / 53.9
13 Andre Dawson....64.5 / 42.5 / 53.5
14 Billy Hamilton......63.3 / 42.6 / 53.0

This would make him the 12th-best CF of all time, with the 6th-best peak. At age 28.

Give him 3 WAR/year for those years and he would be roughly the 9th-best CF of all time (tied with Beltran), with the 5th-best peak (tied with Griffey).

Moog · Oct 22, 2016

A related question: what was the youngest age that a player was a clear Hall of Famer? That is: 10-year requirement notwithstanding, how early could the best players have retired and still plausibly have been regarded as no-doubt HOFers?

Taking ~65 WAR as a fairly arbitrary benchmark, here are the youngest players to reach that threshold, plus major awards by that age: [*** = players ineligible for multiple MVPs before 1929]

Age 27
Ty Cobb 68.8 WAR, 1 MVP***
Mickey Mantle 67.9, 2 MVP, 3 top-5 finishes
Jimmie Foxx 64.6, 2 MVP
Rogers Hornsby 64.6

Age 28
Alex Rodriguez 68.6, 1 MVP, 3 top-5 finishes
Mel Ott 68.2, 1 top-5 finish
Babe Ruth 66.9, 1 MVP***

Age 29
Albert Pujols 70.6, 3 MVP, 5 top-5 finishes, ROY
Tris Speaker 70.1, 1 MVP***
Eddie Collins 69.4, 1 MVP***, 2 top-5 finishes
Hank Aaron 68.9, 1 MVP, 4 top-5 finishes
Ken Griffey Jr. 68.5, 1 MVP, 4 top-5 finishes
Eddie Mathews 68.3, 2 top-5 finishes
Ted Williams 67.2, 1 MVP, 5 top-5 finishes
Lou Gehrig 67.0, 1 MVP***, 2 top-5 finishes
Stan Musial 65.5, 3 MVP, 3 top-5 finishes
Willie Mays 65.0, 1 MVP, 4 top-5 finishes, ROY
Barry Bonds 64.9, 3 MVP, 2 top-5 finishes

The obvious exceptions are Ted Williams, who was a HOFer at 29 despite missing his age 24-26 years in WWII, and Joe DiMaggio, who served during his age 28-30 years and didn’t reach 65 WAR until age 33 (he had 2 MVP and 2 top-5 finishes by age 27).

Trout needs 16.5 WAR to reach 65, with at least 1 MVP, 4 top-five finishes (assuming this year), ROY. At his current pace (9.6 WAR/yr!) he’ll pass that by age 27; to reach it by age 28 he’d need to average a “mere” 5.5 WAR/yr. And that’s assuming he doesn’t get better in his prime years.

TheYaz67 · Nov 17, 2016

Omar Vizquel had a 24 year career, Brock and Nellie Fox played for 19 and even Delgado had a 17 year career - amazing....

Moog · Nov 18, 2016

Think about it this way: Trout might well pass David Ortiz in career WAR next year. After 6 full seasons.

NDame616 · Nov 18, 2016

Honest question : how much stock do you think HoF voters put into WAR? While I know they purged a bunch of old schoolers from the rolls recently , I wonder how many voters are like Mazz and outwardly mock WAR any chance they get

Snodgrass'Muff · Nov 20, 2016

Kliq said:
I don't like the Koufax comparison because isn't it much more normal for a pitcher to have 5 really strong years in a row and then tailing off as opposed to a position player? Koufax's peak is also significantly higher than Trout's imo, his run during the 60s is arguably the greatest run any pitcher has ever had and while Trout has been phenomenal so far, I don't think a lot of people are saying to themselves "this is the greatest player we have ever seen."

Then people are stupid. Trout's lowest WAR total in a season, according to B-Ref.com, is 7.9. Doing a play index search of players who started their careers with a season at 7.9 or higher in their first six seasons (I ran it at 6 since Trout's 40 game call up counts a season for these purposes, but this was really Trout's 5th full season) returns a list of 124 total seasons.

Trout's 5 full seasons are all in the top 86, and he is one of only three players appearing multiple times in the top 25 (the others being Ted Williams who shows up 4 times in his first 6 seasons and Roger Hornsby showing up twice). Trout shows up 4 times in the top 35, and as far as I can see is the only player to show up 5 times in their first 6 seasons. The next best is 4 by a bunch of all time greats.

We can look at this a number of ways, too. Looking just at offense, we can see his lowest season of runs created is 137. Using that as a benchmark in the first 6 years, we get a list of 147 players. Ted Williams shows up 6 times, and that's it for matching Trout at 5 times on the list.

168 is his lowest OPS+. Same span gives us two players at 5 appearances. Trout and Frank Thomas.

He's one of only 31 players to ever win multiple MVPs. He is behind Ted Williams and Stan Musial for the most 2nd place finishes ever at 3 (they each had 4), and is the only player ever with 5 top 2 finishes in his first 6 years in the the majors.

He has had the greatest start to a career that any offensive player has ever had and I don't think that's debatable. He is, currently, one of the best, if not the best player anyone alive has ever seen play, at least to this point in his career. Anyone who watches him and dismisses his place as one of the greatest of all time talents because he has only been in the league for 6 years and 5 full seasons is being willfully obtuse. I mean, is it technically true that he isn't there yet? Sure. But that's true of every player playing right now and has been true of every player who ever played right up until they got within sniffing distance of the ends of their careers. It's a really dumb way to look at it.

And transitioning to the question about the HoF, yes, if he blew out his hip and struggled to be replacement level for a few years then retired, he wouldn't go down as being in the conversation for greatest of all time, but he could be a league average player for the next ten years and would be an easy shoe-in for the Hall. If you cut his home run production in half over that span, that's another 160-ish home runs, putting him in the 350 range. Do the same to his stolen bases and he ends up somewhere near 300 stolen bases. Runs gets to around 1700. RBI's get to around 1450. Add the two MVP's and the 5 top 2 finishes to that, and I don't see how it's possible that he wouldn't get in.

Chances are, he'll finish will north of those numbers and when it's all said and done, he may actually be, statistically speaking, the greatest player who ever lived. Enjoy the ride. We probably won't see one like it again in our lives.

bigyazbread · Nov 21, 2016

I think that as long as he gets to the ten year mark, he's in...although if he limps through the last part of his career, it may take a few years for him to get into the HOF. Ask Chuck Klein http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/kleinch01.shtml

ifmanis5 · Nov 21, 2016

I remember when the NY media had Don Mattingly as a lock for The Hall in 1989. It takes more than 5 good years at the start of your career to get in; and that's a good thing.

moondog80 · Nov 21, 2016

ifmanis5 said:
I remember when the NY media had Don Mattingly as a lock for The Hall in 1989. It takes more than 5 good years at the start of your career to get in; and that's a good thing.

Mattingly had a WAR of 28.7 over his first five years; his best season was 7.1, second best 6.5.
Trout has a WAR of 47.8; his worst season was 7.9, second worst 9.3.

Trout is already 17th in career MVP shares.

Short of a Chris Benoit deal, there is no scenario where he doesn't get into the HOF. Even if he becomes a bad player next year for no apparent reason, voters will assume there was an injury and he will get in.

ifmanis5 · Nov 21, 2016

moondog80 said:
Mattingly had a WAR of 28.7 over his first five years; his best season was 7.1, second best 6.5.
Trout has a WAR of 47.8; his worst season was 7.9, second worst 9.3.

Trout is already 17th in career MVP shares.

Short of a Chris Benoit deal, there is no scenario where he doesn't get into the HOF. Even if he becomes a bad player next year for no apparent reason, voters will assume there was an injury and he will get in.

You forget who votes for these things. The Knights of the Keyboards aren't voting in someone without the longevity card. Not on their watch.

Rovin Romine · Nov 21, 2016

Snodgrass'Muff said:
Then people are stupid. Trout's lowest WAR total in a season, according to B-Ref.com, is 7.9. Doing a play index search of players who started their careers with a season at 7.9 or higher in their first six seasons (I ran it at 6 since Trout's 40 game call up counts a season for these purposes, but this was really Trout's 5th full season) returns a list of 124 total seasons.

Trout's 5 full seasons are all in the top 86, and he is one of only three players appearing multiple times in the top 25 (the others being Ted Williams who shows up 4 times in his first 6 seasons and Roger Hornsby showing up twice). Trout shows up 4 times in the top 35, and as far as I can see is the only player to show up 5 times in their first 6 seasons. The next best is 4 by a bunch of all time greats.

We can look at this a number of ways, too. Looking just at offense, we can see his lowest season of runs created is 137. Using that as a benchmark in the first 6 years, we get a list of 147 players. Ted Williams shows up 6 times, and that's it for matching Trout at 5 times on the list.

168 is his lowest OPS+. Same span gives us two players at 5 appearances. Trout and Frank Thomas.

He's one of only 31 players to ever win multiple MVPs. He is behind Ted Williams and Stan Musial for the most 2nd place finishes ever at 3 (they each had 4), and is the only player ever with 5 top 2 finishes in his first 6 years in the the majors.

He has had the greatest start to a career that any offensive player has ever had and I don't think that's debatable. He is, currently, one of the best, if not the best player anyone alive has ever seen play, at least to this point in his career. Anyone who watches him and dismisses his place as one of the greatest of all time talents because he has only been in the league for 6 years and 5 full seasons is being willfully obtuse. I mean, is it technically true that he isn't there yet? Sure. But that's true of every player playing right now and has been true of every player who ever played right up until they got within sniffing distance of the ends of their careers. It's a really dumb way to look at it.

And transitioning to the question about the HoF, yes, if he blew out his hip and struggled to be replacement level for a few years then retired, he wouldn't go down as being in the conversation for greatest of all time, but he could be a league average player for the next ten years and would be an easy shoe-in for the Hall. If you cut his home run production in half over that span, that's another 160-ish home runs, putting him in the 350 range. Do the same to his stolen bases and he ends up somewhere near 300 stolen bases. Runs gets to around 1700. RBI's get to around 1450. Add the two MVP's and the 5 top 2 finishes to that, and I don't see how it's possible that he wouldn't get in.

Chances are, he'll finish will north of those numbers and when it's all said and done, he may actually be, statistically speaking, the greatest player who ever lived. Enjoy the ride. We probably won't see one like it again in our lives.

Eh, I also don't see "the greatest player I've ever seen" in terms of raw talent.

We ought to distinguish what he's done. He's put together 5 great seasons without getting injured. He's usually excellent at many things, but he hasn't lead the league consistently by dominating in one area (not saying he has to.) But to separate results from talent - the ability to do the same going forward? That's tough. Has Trout gotten lucky, stayed healthy, and mined every bit of ore out of his vein of talent? Or did he not maximize it, and is there more to come?

If you had a time machine and could grab any player as a franchise cornerstone, starting at their age 25 season, without any guarantee they would replicate their numbers, who would you pick?

Trout absolutely gets serious consideration. But would you automatically pass up a Ruth or a Griffey or a Williams or a Thomas or a Pedro, or a Nomar, or a Bonds? Would you automatically say, comparing those players side by side at age 25 that Trout is the greatest player ever seen.

Marciano490 · Nov 21, 2016

Rovin Romine said:
Eh, I also don't see "the greatest player I've ever seen" in terms of raw talent.

We ought to distinguish what he's done. He's put together 5 great seasons without getting injured. He's usually excellent at many things, but he hasn't lead the league consistently by dominating in one area (not saying he has to.) But to separate results from talent - the ability to do the same going forward? That's tough. Has Trout gotten lucky, stayed healthy, and mined every bit of ore out of his vein of talent? Or did he not maximize it, and is there more to come?

If you had a time machine and could grab any player as a franchise cornerstone, starting at their age 25 season, without any guarantee they would replicate their numbers, who would you pick?

Trout absolutely gets serious consideration. But would you automatically pass up a Ruth or a Griffey or a Williams or a Thomas or a Pedro, or a Nomar, or a Bonds? Would you automatically say, comparing those players side by side at age 25 that Trout is the greatest player ever seen.

Yes, and I think anyone saying otherwise is making an aesthetic choice. I think because he's kind of goofy looking, soft spoken and still has some baby fat on him, his athleticism and talent is underappreciated. The man has every ounce of raw ability as anyone on your list.

Moog · Dec 5, 2016

Up to this point, Trout has essentially been Mickey Mantle (with better defense and baserunning):

http://calltothepen.com/2016/11/19/mlb-mike-trout-mickey-mantle-comparisons/

Through age 24 seasons:
Trout (811 games): .306/.405/.557, .963 OPS, 170 OPS+, 48.5 WAR, 168 HR
Mantle (808 games): .308/.412/.560, .972 OPS, 166 OPS+, 40.9 WAR, 173 HR

Moog · Jan 10, 2017

Your Mike Trout Hall of Fame Chances Update:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/your-mike-trout-hall-of-fame-chances-update/

*The line about Trout being "the best player we’ve had the privilege of watching since Ken Griffey Jr." is nonsensical though (unless he means CF only) —he apparently forgot about Bonds, Pujols, A-Rod, arguably Frank Thomas.

Snodgrass'Muff · Jan 10, 2017

He probably discounts Bonds for the PED issues. While I don't agree that that's valid, it's understandable at least. As for Pujols, A-Rod and Frank Thomas, sure, Trout has a long way to go to eclipse their career numbers, but he's off to a better start than any of them with no signs of slowing down. It's not nonsensical at all since he is obviously talking about talent level, not career totals.

I'd take the side of "Trout is currently a better player than any of them at their peak" aside from Bonds.

Red(s)HawksFan · Jan 10, 2017

Moog said:
Your Mike Trout Hall of Fame Chances Update:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/your-mike-trout-hall-of-fame-chances-update/

*The line about Trout being "the best player we’ve had the privilege of watching since Ken Griffey Jr." is nonsensical though (unless he means CF only) —he apparently forgot about Bonds, Pujols, A-Rod, arguably Frank Thomas.

Wouldn't "best player" go beyond being a great hitter, which Bonds, Pujols, A-Rod and Frank Thomas undoubtedly were? Of those four, only two could even possibly enter into the conversation when accounting for defense and baserunning as well: Bonds and A-Rod. A-Rod was never an elite defender, only good at his best. Bonds was a great defender but at a lesser position on the defensive spectrum.

I don't find the author's claim for Trout to be all that nonsensical at all.

drbretto · Jan 10, 2017

I feel like that author was snubbing Bonds and A-Rod because of steroid allegations.

The part that blew my mind there was the mention that Trout doesn't know what it feels like to be third place in MVP voting.

Moog · Jan 10, 2017

I don't dispute that Trout is the better all-around player when defense, baserunning etc. are taken into account, certainly better than Pujols, Thomas, and A-Rod. Nonsensical is maybe a bit much, but I meant more the "since Griffey Jr." part than the claim to Trout's supremacy. That claim feels a bit too pat without at least entertaining the notion of Bonds et al. in that timeframe, even if only to dismiss them.

I get that the author is probably going for an apples-to-apples comparison of CFs—and is implicitly snubbing Bonds for PEDs, yes—but to me, that sentence would be stronger if Bonds were swapped for Griffey, Jr.

threecy · Jan 10, 2017

Snodgrass'Muff said:
He has had the greatest start to a career that any offensive player has ever had and I don't think that's debatable.

Mike Trout has yet to have an OPS of 1.000.
Ted Williams only once had an OPS of less than 1.019, during his injury riddled age 40 season.

I think it's quite a stretch to say Trout has the best start of any offensive player ever.

Snodgrass'Muff · Jan 10, 2017

threecy said:
Mike Trout has yet to have an OPS of 1.000.
Ted Williams only once had an OPS of less than 1.019, during his injury riddled age 40 season.

I think it's quite a stretch to say Trout has the best start of any offensive player ever.

I should have said position player.

Savin Hillbilly · Jan 11, 2017

Red(s)HawksFan said:
A-Rod was never an elite defender, only good at his best.

But wouldn't that apply pretty well to Trout, too? And A-Rod was playing the tougher position of the two.

Dummy Hoy · Jan 11, 2017

Rovin Romine said:
We ought to distinguish what he's done. He's put together 5 great seasons without getting injured. He's usually excellent at many things, but he hasn't lead the league consistently by dominating in one area (not saying he has to.)

He has led the league in 9 different offensive categories (R, RBI, SB, BB, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+, TB) 15 times. He has led the league in runs 4 out of 5 years and OPS+ 3 out of 5.

threecy said:
Mike Trout has yet to have an OPS of 1.000.
Ted Williams only once had an OPS of less than 1.019, during his injury riddled age 40 season.
I think it's quite a stretch to say Trout has the best start of any offensive player ever.

OPS is a flawed stat. That said, Williams is the greatest offensive player ever at the plate. He also didn't average 30 SB a season at an 84% clip. Williams is a better hitter than Trout, but he may not necessarily be a better all around offensive player...I think he is a bit by bWAR, which wouldn't surprise me. Of course this doesn't take defense into account.

Trout should be 5 for 5 on MVPs to start his career.

Rovin Romine · Jan 12, 2017

Dummy Hoy said:
He has led the league in 9 different offensive categories (R, RBI, SB, BB, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+, TB) 15 times. He has led the league in runs 4 out of 5 years and OPS+ 3 out of 5.

My point was that he's an excellent all-around player, not limited to, say, being a transcendent bat-only player. There are aspects of his game that he might be able to improve on, and there are aspects of his game that might decline due to age or injury.
It also wouldn't surprise me if defensive metrics continue to be tweaked in the future. (Not that Trout isn't clearly a plus CF.)

All in all this is sort of a pointless conversation. It's too early to tell what he's going to do. He's got a legitimate shot at GOAT or HOF but it's also possible that he has an Albert Belle/Ken Griffey decline, or something more precipitous. I hope not - I'd love to see what he can do.

Savin Hillbilly · Jan 12, 2017

Rovin Romine said:
(Not that Trout isn't clearly a plus CF.)

What's "clearly plus" about a career UZR/150 of 0.2?

Granted the usual caveats about the limits of advanced defensive metrics, and also granted that his DRS numbers the past two years have been a little better than that (5 and 6), seems to me that that UZR/150 number, after nearly 6000 career innings in center field, means any conversation about Trout's defense should at least acknowledge the possibility that he is an ordinary fielder--certainly not a bad one, maybe even a "solid-average" one, but not necessarily "plus".

soxhop411 · May 29, 2017

Trout has a torn UCL in his thumb.

“@Alex_Curry: Mike Trout has a UCL tear in feft thumb, out for “more than a couple weeks” 5-8 weeks if he does undergo surgery @MLBONFOX @FoxSportsWest

PC Drunken Friar · May 29, 2017

soxhop411 said:
Trout has a torn UCL in his thumb.

“@Alex_Curry: Mike Trout has a UCL tear in feft thumb, out for “more than a couple weeks” 5-8 weeks if he does undergo surgery @MLBONFOX @FoxSportsWest

Ugh, that sucks. Hope for the best

Madmartigan · May 29, 2017

Shoot, he was having an unreal first half.

E5 Yaz · May 29, 2017

mlbtr: 10:26pm: Trout will undergo surgery on Wednesday, the club announced. He is expected to miss approximately six to eight weeks.

Is Trout HOF worthy right now?

Member

Johnny Rico

Throw Momma From the Train

Member

Member

Member

Homeland Security

Member

Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

79

Member

empty, bleak

Member

New Member

New Member

Member

Member

New Member

will bailey

oppresses WARmongers

Well-Known Member

Member

heart is two sizes two small

Member

Johnny Rico

Urological Expert

Member

New Member

New Member

oppresses WARmongers

Member

Member

New Member

Cosbologist

oppresses WARmongers

loves the secret sauce

Angry Pissbum

Johnny Rico

loves the secret sauce

news aggravator

Member

Member

polka king