Mike Trout - how do we measure ‘player greatness’
Will Mike Trout ever have the World Series ring to accompany his bank account and the best stats in the game?
Plenty has been written about Mike Trout and what an exceptional talent he is, not many MLB stories are written about elite players without his name being mentioned.
He is arguably the best player in MLB at the moment (Mookie Betts, Freddie Freeman, Juan Soto, Jacob de Grom, amongst others could challenge that), but he has definitely been the best player over the last decade and he will be in the conversation as one of the best, if not the best player ever to have played the game.
Dave White, from European Baseball is back at the plate, tackling a debate that will rage on for the next decade.
Mike Trout is really good at baseball
Trout hits with power, makes regular contact, is patient at the plate and plays stellar defence in centre field. He is also a clubhouse leader, the way he led the club through the sad death of Tyler Skaggs was exemplary. He is a three-time MVP and eight-time All-Star.
His current career stats stand at .304 average, .418 OBP and an even 1.000 OPS (respective career numbers of .300, .400 and .900 would be considered elite), add to this he has 302 home runs, and he is only 29. But this piece is not about his eminence in terms of playing ability, it is about the measurement of his success when his career is all said and done.
Mike Trout -a big contract in a big market, but playing for a poor team
Mike Trout plays for LA Angels, he has done all his career and signed a 12 year, $426.5 million contract in 2019 (at the time this was the biggest value contract in American sports history) that will take him to age 39 and will be a free agent after the 2030 season.
He would have been a free agent this time last year but chose to sign this extension. So why does he play for perennial non-achievers/under-achievers?
The Angels offence is elite - Fletcher, Trout, Rendon, Ohtani is a frightening top half of a hitting line-up, that is as good as you get.
Their pitching is woeful.
It is a clear and obvious chasm in this organisation, it has been for a long time, it still is and they do not seem motivated to resolve this, given the massive contracts held by Trout, Rendon and Pujols. You cannot be successful with poor pitching. The LA Angels have poor pitching and Trout knows this.
Mike Trout is exactly who he's always been: a kid who loves to play baseball.
The LA Angels recent history
In the last decade, Trout and the Angels have made one (ONE) postseason appearance, and this was a three-game sweep by the Royals in 2014 - so Trout has played the sum total of 3 postseason games and lost all 3 - this is the best player of our generation.
They have finished 1st once (2014) in their five-team division, 2nd twice and then either 3rd or 4th in the other seven seasons.
They have only had four winning seasons (winning more than they lose) in this decade, and the American League West is not the strongest currently and certainly hasn’t been that strong over the last decade - the Houston Astros are now very strong but were embarrassingly awful the first half of the decade.
The Seattle Mariners have been terrible the last ten years and going nowhere, not close to playing postseason baseball.
The Texas Rangers were decent the first half of the decade but are not anywhere near the contending conversation.
The Oakland As have been the most consistent team in the division (apart from 3 ropey seasons in the middle of the decade) but they do this on modest resources, far less than the Astros, Angels and Rangers.
My point is none of these teams are big hitters and the Angels have the money but consistently fail spectacularly and yet, Trout committed himself to the Angels for the rest of his career.
So why did Trout sign this massive contract?
Clearly, the Angels were desperate to keep their franchise face, they wanted to lay claim to having the best player in the sport. The motivation for the organisation is clear. But, is it possible that winning the greatest prize is not the goal for some players?
He would have hit free agency at the end of last year and could have played for whoever he wanted. Every single team would have taken Trout. So why did he not want to play for the Yankees, the Dodgers, the Red Sox, the Astros, whoever?
Is there another motivation at play?
It has felt in the last few years that contract size might be the goal for some of baseball's best players, and, for some, this trumps on-field success.
Take Bryce Harper, Manny Machado, Nolan Arenado and Trout, all position players who have signed ludicrous contracts recently.
Harper (in 2019, 13 years and $330 million with the Philadelphia Phillies)
Machado (in 2019, 10 years and $300 million with San Diego Padres)
Arenado (in 2019, 8 year extension and $260 million with the Colorado Rockies)
We had this ridiculous tit-for-tat situation after the 2018 season where Machado and Harper were free agents, the saga went on and on, seemingly on the basis of seeing what the other player got and then wanting to beat it, it felt like they didn’t mind which organisation they signed for they just wanted the biggest dollar amount.
Machado eventually signed on February 21st and Harper on the 28th. This is really late in the winter, given that Spring training was starting and I think backs up my point that they were competing with each other’s contracts. Harper points to the bigger overall contract value, Machado thinks he won because of the bigger annual average. Arenado got in on the act soon after and then in March, Trout blew them all away with his extension.
However, when all these contracts were signed, they were with teams who were nowhere near the champion conversation.
The Padres are forming a nice team, but this is more to do with the emergence of Tatis Jnr, Jake Cronenworth and some young pitching (take note Angels) which wasn’t evident when Machado signed, but as good as they are, they still have to contend with the Dodgers juggernaut.
The Phillies are ok but they’re not ready to compete (and look set to lose Realmuto, Gregorius and Arrieta to free agency), and the Angels and Rockies are nowhere near. The way the Rockies and Arenado have behaved since that contract was signed is inexcusable, embarrassing and makes a mockery of the sport.
To me, sadly, these guys' motivations were to show they had the biggest contract, they were the top dog and that on-field, ultimate success to them did not matter (except their own personal stats). They would obviously make noises to the contrary, but let's face the facts, these organisations were not contenders when they signed, and don’t look like contenders right now. Prove me wrong.
So how do we measure player success?
How do we measure their careers when they retire? Is it World Series wins? Pennant wins? Division wins? Individual awards? The biggest contract? Statistics?
I think the answer to this would be different for different players and different people, and perhaps success is measured differently in different minds.
Surely you want to walk away knowing you were a champion, that you played in the best team and won a ring?
30 teams compete every year with the goal of winning the World Series, to not achieve that must feel like a failure, not achieving what you have set out to do. Or are some players just driven by how their own numbers (including contracts) will look at the end of their career?
I think these players with the bumper contracts try hard every day and want to win for their clubs every day, but where is their sporting ambition? We play sports for a number of reasons (enjoyment, fitness, competitive edge) but we play every game to win, and the ultimate win is the World Series. Any pro-baseball player is going to get paid a decent sum whoever they play for, so surely the goal should be that last win of the season?
What do the fans think?
For the fans, I think this can get clouded too. Fans of their own team will look at who has contributed. Take the 2014 Giants, they wouldn’t have won the World Series without the input of Yusmeiro Petit, Michael Morse and Travis Ishikawa. These guys are relative unknowns but their contribution to the season and the postseason was huge. They will never be held in elite esteem, they won’t get near the Hall of Fame, but they each have a ring. Trout - he does not have a ring.
But then fans will point to the likes of Trout, Harper, Arenado and Machado as some of the greatest players of this generation (rightly so on an individual level) - but they don’t have a ring between them (yet).
Yes, they can point to some sexy numbers - some phenomenal numbers and some outstanding individual seasons - and they can hold up some nice individual awards. Many fans will purr about these players and their stats, about that home run, that play or the power in that hit but can they be put on the highest pedestal without the greatest prize?
In other sports, professionals play for ‘trophies’
Whilst there is only one prize a season to compete for in baseball (in football, players compete for 3-4 club trophies a year and an international trophy every other year) there are only 30 teams playing, and, really, only 10-12 in with a shout of a chance of winning the prize each year (in football, there are many relevant teams or countries competing).
The best football players of this generation; Messi, Ronaldo, Salah, Van Dijk, Mbappe, Ibrahimovic, Aguero (this list could go on) all have won the biggest prizes in the sport - domestic leagues, Champions Leagues, European Championships, World Cups.
I would liken MLB to the Champions League the most - played every year with 10-12 teams with a realistic chance of winning each year. I consistently hear the best footballers wanting transfers to play Champions League football, to win the biggest prize - that’s why 4th place in the Premier League is as important to winning the league (sadly - in my opinion).
So why aren’t these superstar players in MLB not seeking out slightly smaller contracts but with more relevant teams? I mean, if you earn $20 million a year rather than $30 million, you’re still going to survive ok, you’ll still eat. Having the money would be nice, but wouldn’t it be nicer with a World Series win or two to back it up?
Or, does Trout love the LA Angels so much that he wants to play there forever? This is certainly a possibility as his contract includes a full ‘no trade’ clause, meaning he can refuse any trade and remain at the Angels until 2030. Is he the modern-day baseball equivalent of Matt Le Tissier?
Le Tiss could have played for almost any club he wanted yet stayed loyal to Southampton - but Matt earned far, far less money than Trout. If this is the case, this is a problem for MLB.
The best player in the sport should be well known globally, but he is not and it is usually team success that helps that player’s brand promotion.
With the very best player never making the postseason, never appearing in a World Series, never playing on the ultimate stage and perhaps playing up to a quarter of each season in meaningless games as the Angels lag far behind their division rivals, how do you sell that to newcomers to the game? I find this incredibly frustrating.
To conclude
I think the measure of success for a player must include what they have achieved on the field.
Providing entertainment and having amazing individual stats is one thing and you’ll certainly be held in high esteem for that and Trout will be forever loved by the Angels fans (and indeed all baseball fans as he is a true great), but you need to back this up with trophies, being the superstar to make a difference and lead a team to glory.
Contract size should not enter into this conversation in any way. The greatest players win the greatest prizes in sport. If baseball is to grow, especially in Europe, people need to know about Trout, Harper, Arenado and Machado for their undoubted skill displayed on the biggest stage and NOT their contract size.
