We've reached the point in Mike Trout's career where it seems like the baseball gods have decided we're at an impasse. Either Trout leaves the Angels -- and he doesn't seem to want to -- or he's never going to win a World Series ring.
Sure, the tide could turn with that franchise in the coming years and given that he's signed through 2030, there's certainly time. It's unlikely, though, given everything we know about the Angels, and that's what drives an awful lot of fans and media members to pine for Trout to be traded to a contender.
If the Angels don't want to trade Trout and Trout doesn't want to be traded, why is it a discussion?
The answer you'll often get is "his legacy." Namely, he must win a World Series ring for the good of his legacy.
(To be clear, I'm not saying I believe this -- because I don't.)
It's all part of this ring culture that has permeated the minds of sports fans and media for the last few decades. I've harped on this one for years and it's only getting worse. I recently saw an argument for Justin Verlander to wear an Astros cap in the Hall of Fame even though he spent twice as long with the Tigers because "he never won anything" with the Tigers. The Tigers won four division titles and two American League pennants with Verlander on the team, but that's apparently "nothing."
Such lunacy, this all-or-nothing mindset. It really needs to stop, especially in Major League Baseball, where a starting pitcher only goes once every five days and a position player only bats once every nine spots and only fields one of nine positions. There's only so much one man can do.
Speaking of which, let's talk about the legacies of some players who never won the World Series to illustrate that Trout's so-called legacy absolutely does not need to include a ring.
When I was growing up, Ted Williams was rightfully held in absurdly high esteem. He has long been considered one of the greatest baseball players of all time and there's an argument that he was the greatest all-around hitter ever. Look no further than his career slash line of .344/.482/.634 (191 OPS+). He walked 2,021 times compared to 709 strikeouts. He hit 521 home runs, and that wasn't even his specialty.
Is there a virtual line of people around the block on social media any time someone mentions Williams to scream about how he "never won anything?"
You know who else "never won anything?" Ty Cobb.
Neither did Ernie Banks.
If you didn't know that these guys never won a ring, do you really, seriously, think less of Williams, Cobb and Banks as individual players right now? I sure as hell hope not. Sure, this is a team sport, but it's a team sport that is a series of individual matchups. Unlike other team sports, here in baseball, the lineup determines who bats in the biggest spot of the game, not a drawn-up play that generally always goes to the best player.
More recently, we have Barry Bonds and, well, the naysayers have plenty of other criticisms, but what about Ken Griffey Jr.? Is it really important when someone talks about what an all-time great player Junior was to fire back with, "yeah, but he never won a ring?"
If you answered yes to that question, why? We could play this same game with Tony Gwynn or Ichiro, too.
Obviously Trout would love to win a World Series and it would be really cool to watch him do so. That isn't in question. What I'm talking about is this notion that an all-time great player like him needs a World Series title in order to validate his status as an all-time great.
And I'm not just seeing it as a requirement.
Trout's legacy
Mike Trout is one of 13 players in MLB history to win at least three MVP awards. He has finished second in MVP voting four times and there was an argument for him to win it each of those four times -- in fact, generally, the biggest argument against him winning was that his teammates weren't good enough. Oh, sorry, he didn't "lead his team to the playoffs."
Trout has led MLB in WAR four times. The only other position players to do so at least four times were Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Albert Pujols, Rogers Hornsby, Alex Rodriguez, Babe Ruth, Stan Musial, Williams and Bonds.
He's led his league in WAR five times, runs four times, RBI once, steals once, walks three times, on-base percentage four times, slugging percentage three times, OPS four times and OPS+ six times. He's topped 100 runs seven times, 40 home runs three times, 30 home runs seven times, 100 RBI three times, 30 stolen bases three times, a .300 average in qualified seasons five times, a .400 OBP six times, a .500 SLG nine times and a .600 SLG four times.
In career WAR among center fielders, Trout is fifth all-time behind Mays, Cobb, Tris Speaker and Mantle. It's a cumulative stat and he's under contract for four years after this one. He's already ahead of Griffey and Joe DiMaggio.
With 422 in his career, Trout has 500 home runs within reach, too.
The only stain, if it counts as one, would be the injuries that have held down Trout's counting stats the last few years. On a rate basis, though, he's an inner-circle all-time great and truly one of the best the game has ever seen.
Now let's say, for the sake of argument, that Trout gets traded to a different team in 2030 and ends up winning the World Series as a part-time player with minimal contribution to the championship.
Honestly -- really, really honestly -- will that change your outlook on him as a player for the better?
C'mon.
Trout's "legacy" doesn't need a World Series title.
