Posted by MikeT23 on 8/22/2013 3:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 8/22/2013 3:47:00 PM (view original):Sustainability. Give Trout a few more years and you might have a point.
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/22/2013 3:29:00 PM (view original):Raines. He was better.
Seriously, and this will tell me all I need to know about your baseball knowledge, would you take Raines 23 year career or Ichiro's 13 year career if you were the GM of a baseball team?
I love your attempt at the pro-rated WAR argument.
According to Mike's logic, Mike Trout has been more valuable in his less than 2 years of MLB than Ichiro was for his 13 years of MLB.
Trout : 2 years : 19 WAR : 9.5 WAR per year.
Ichiro :13 years : 55 WAR : 4.23 WAR per year.
Mike Trout for the Hall of Fame.
I used WAR because that's your baby. Until it doesn't work for you. What was the other one you were using about a week ago? CHiPS?
BTW, taking Raines' 23 over Ichiro's 13 is retarded. I say the dumbest thing you've posted except there's way too much to choose from to narrow it down to one.
WAR isn't my baby. It's just one tool to evaluate players.
Based on WAR, Raines was more valuable over the course of his entire career than Ichiro was.
Raines also had a significantly higher OBP, a slightly higher SLG, a significantly better OPS+, and almost twice as many stolen bases with only 40 more caught stealing.
Had Ichiro played in MLB in his early 20's, the nod would probably go to Ichiro. But he didn't.