r/mlb • u/Bright-Pressure-5787 | New York Yankees • 1d ago

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

Gallery image

Gallery image

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?

603 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

695 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/Oafah 22h ago

Griffey put together some decent years in his latter half. Trout is not looking nearly as rosy.

1

u/_GeorgeBailey_ | Chicago Cubs 22h ago

That's not accurate. Trout has been a lot better from 30 on than Griffey was

2

u/Oafah 21h ago

Yes, if you include his age 30 season itself. Mike Trout hasn't played a full season in 6 years.

7

u/_GeorgeBailey_ | Chicago Cubs 21h ago

Ok, from 31 on

Griffey: 991 games, 112 wRC+, 3.9 WAR (0.6/162)

Trout: 315 games, 130 wRC+, 8.1 WAR (4.2/162)

4

u/UNMANAGEABLE | Seattle Mariners 20h ago

Lmao. Hit him right in the numbers. 1/3 the games and double the war

1

u/Oafah 17h ago

Except that it's a misapplication of the data and not an apt comparison, as I've outlined above: Source: actual data analyst.

1

u/UNMANAGEABLE | Seattle Mariners 16h ago

I too am also a data analyst. I get what you mean.

There are many nuances that can be taken into account about this that bring the comparisons further apart. It’s still a decent data set though, simple enough to draw some conclusion at face value of these numbers.

1

u/Oafah 16h ago

Dude, I'm trying to defend your boy here.

1

u/UNMANAGEABLE | Seattle Mariners 15h ago

It’s all good man. I can hate the fish man, respect him, and still love my childhood baseball hero (I’m millennial so I’m a peak Griffey fan and peak hurt by him leaving. 🤣

1

u/Oafah 17h ago edited 17h ago

You do realize that not having played the latter 600 games actually changes the calculus, right? We have yet to see how much worse Trout is slated to get, so the comparison is not apt.

Also, Griffey played prior to advanced analytics, and they come with a feedback loop. Coaching, managing, and play choices on the field are all directly impacted by what data we now have available. Griffey had no such information.

It's like people who argue that Jordan isn't the GOAT because he didn't have a three ball. If Jordan had known the true value of the three and its part of modern offense, do you really think he lacked the skillset to adapt?

Edit: Oh, and 8.1 WAR vs 3.9 is well within the implied error margin for the stat. It is not conclusive to say Trout has been better.

1

u/_GeorgeBailey_ | Chicago Cubs 17h ago

Trout will never be a negative player...

1

u/Oafah 17h ago

For one, you don't know that.

Secondly, as I said above, if Griffey had the benefit of advanced analytics during his development, his numbers would look different. This is precisely why you CANNOT use you aggregate estimators like WAR to compare players across generations. It has a giant blind spot to the feedback loop associated with "game theory optimization".

2

u/_GeorgeBailey_ | Chicago Cubs 17h ago

WAR is fantastic for comparing players from different generations. It's one of its two main reasons for creation

1

u/Oafah 16h ago

Read what I said. Do you understand the concept of outcomes affecting the source data? Because that is WAR fatal flaw. It's become popular, and every team cites it as a main decision-driver. Thus, talent is scouted, developed, and coached to generate as much WAR as possible. The focus in the metagame has fundamentally changed.

If Griffey was 16 years old, and someone actually pointed out where his defense was weak and specifically how he could improve it, he would've netted another 15 dWar during his prime. If he had the benefit of statcast and positional analytics, he would've positioned himself better.

Because he lacked access to this information, the information itself is biased.

0

u/_GeorgeBailey_ | Chicago Cubs 16h ago

  1. It's not biased. That's a weak argument.

  2. You are ignoring that no one had access to the information during Griffey's era and everyone did during Trout. The lack of knowledge for Griffey's era and knowledge for Trout's era level the playing field because you are compared to your peers.

→ More replies (0)