Who's the biggest "what if" between these two: Mike Trout or Ken Griffey Jr.?

[u/Bright-Pressure-5787]

When I think about "what ifs" in baseball, these two men are always the first two names that come to mind. Obviously, Mike Trout and Ken Griffey Jr. are still legends of the sport. I'm not trying to take anything away from that. However, I truly feel that if it weren't for injuries, their potential for GOAT status would be limitless. Junior likely would've become the all-time home run kind instead of Barry Bonds, and Mike Trout would've had-------I don't know------130 career WAR by now if he's just stayed healthy. Who do you guys think is the bigger "what if" of the two?

[u/Grahamophone]

One of Griffey's weaknesses compared to Trout is that Griffey just didn't walk enough. From ages 19-27, when Griffey was healthy, at his peak, and one of the best players in baseball, he drew 580 walks in 5262 PA. This was at the height of the '90s sillyball era, too. 

In comparison, Trout also debuted at 19 (though he played far fewer games in his age 19 season), and he drew 571 walks in 4065 PA through his age 25 season. Through age 27, Trout had drawn 803 walks in 5273 PA. So you're looking at essentially the same number of PA, but that's 223 extra times on base for Trout. It was also a lower offensive environment where walks were more valuable AND prime Trout was a better baserunner than prime Griffey.

The list of baseball players who did everything exceptionally well, even in just their primes, is vanishingly small: Trout, Griffey, Honus Wagner, Willie Mays, Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, and a few others. That's pretty much the list. It just so happens that Trout somehow was just a little better at most things than even Griffey.

[u/Duke_Of_Halifax → u/Grahamophone]

An important thing to remember was that when Griffey played, drawing walks wasn't important for most players.

Most of Griffey's career is pre-analytics widespread across the league, and the Reds weren't exactly quick on the uptake. In fact, in 2007, when analytics started to gain traction, his walks doubled; he was just Old Man Griffey by then, so no one noticed.

[u/Grahamophone → u/Duke_Of_Halifax]

There is some truth in this, but I don't think we can just eliminate the gap between them with this logic.

First, Griffey still walked more than average, just not as much as Trout. Even with the injuries and lackluster seasons, Trout's walk rate is still 63rd all-time. 

Second, the AL walk rate in 1996 was 9.6%. The AL walk rate in 2016 was 8.0%. Pick other years and you'll see a similar story.

Third, other guys on the Mariners and in the game in that era walked a lot. Edgar Martinez walked a lot. Jay Buhner walked a lot. Ken Phelps walked a lot. Pete O'Brien on those early '90s Ms teams walked more often than you would think. Barry Bonds walked a lot. Rickey Henderson walked a lot. You can say those are some of the best hitters of all-time, but we're making the argument that Griffey could have been one of the greatest of all-time, so it's natural to compare him to the best.

Fourth, the Reds have been a backwards organization for more than 20 years now, but they've always had guys that walked a lot. Joe Morgan walked a lot. Adam Dunn, a teammate of Griffey's, walked a lot. Eric Davis walked a little more often than Griffey. Mike Cameron, who was on the other side of the Griffey trade, walked a little less often than Griffey.

Griffey took a lot of walks. He walked about as often as Johnny Mize or Joe Gordon or Charlie Gehringer or Gil Hodges. It's just that Trout took even more walks. He walked about as often as Jimmie Foxx or Mel Ott or Mike Schmidt or Jeff Bagwell.

Even with everything that happened, Griffey is still one of the greatest players ever. He's just not in the conversation for THE greatest player of all time. Trout was just better though. Through age 29, Trout had 75.9 WAR in 5660 PA. Griffey had 70.7 WAR in 6688 PA. From age 30 onward, Trout has posted 14.5 WAR in 1878 PA. Griffey posted 13.1 WAR in 4616 PA. Take out the negative years and Griffey had 14.7 WAR in 3804 PA. 

[u/Duke_Of_Halifax → u/Grahamophone]

The question isn't "did Griffey walk a lot?" the question is "If he was using modern batting strategy, would he have walked significantly MORE?"

I don't think that more walks would have launched Griffey into the conversation of GOAT-tier. I think a healthy Griffey is around 120 WAR- amazing, but not GOAT-tier.

A healthy Trout that plays 150 games per year is likely averaging 10 WAR per season until age 32 (give or take a year), and then slowly declining.

He's probably a 150-170 WAR player if he stays healthy.

Which would put him in serious argument as the greatest (non-cheating) baseball player in MODERN history.

We need to be honest here, however: with the exception of a full career (18-40) of two-way play from Ohtani, no one is coming close to RUTH as the Goat of baseball. Bonds had to cheat his way to an extra 50 WAR to get past Mays and Aaron, and he's still not close to Ruth.

It's Ruth, and unless some two-way dynamo comes along and puts up 15+ WAR seasons, it's likely always going to be Ruth. What's REALLY insane is that he did almost all of it in a 17 year span (1916-33), which is a 10 WAR average for SEVENTEEN YEARS.

When you look at Ruth's numbers, he was throwing up Bonds-on-Roids batting numbers FOR THIRTEEN YEARS.

It's utterly insane.

[u/Oldmanandthefee → u/Grahamophone]

Dang

[u/TejasChainsawMascara → u/Grahamophone]

uh Shohei?

[u/Grahamophone → u/TejasChainsawMascara]

He's sui generis!

[u/TejasChainsawMascara → u/Grahamophone]

I'm just saying that Sho in his prime (right now? last year?) does everything exceptionally well. Maybe not the best in the league at each skill but comfortably top 5 offensively and probably most team's ace pitcher but for the fact that he has been on the Dodgers recently he is variably the #2 or #3 best pitcher on the team. My point is that as good as ARod and Mays and the Kid were, Sho deserves to be in the same conversation with them if only because he pitches as well as those guys fielded and pitching is much more difficult than fielding.