130 home runs, Bonds had 59
689 hits, Rose had 250ish
449 runs, Henderson had 389
1265 total bases, Aaron had 1240ish

Why would the game need Correa less than Trout? Seems like a good kid, plays the game hard, etc. I like them both and I think they will both be good for the game.

I'll be curious to see how their rookie seasons stack up after this year. Maybe Correa is a flash in the pan but I doubt it. The kid looks like one of the game's brightest stars already.

Don't get me wrong, Correa is a special talent but Trout is on pace to be one of the greatest ever.

quote:

---

Don't get me wrong, Correa is a special talent but Trout is on pace to be THE greatest ever.

---

FIFY

Correa is doing things that baseball hasn't seen in a century. I think it's at least somewhat deserved.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Are we really putting Correa in the same sentence as Trout?

---

Yes. As young up and coming phenoms. The future of the game.

Nothing incorrect about that at all.

---

.

This.

I posted that early in the morning with very little sleep, my thought was not complete. As to the lesser extent phrase was in reference to #'s and experience. Correa has proven to be pretty freaking legit 5 tool player. So yes the game needs special talents like trout and to a lessor statistical extent, correa.

hth

Correa isn't on Trouts level yet. He's on a heck of a pace but tap the brakes.

It is not an uncommon thought within baseball circles that Correa is a special talent. I never said correa is equal to trout.

quote:

---

It is not an uncommon thought within baseball circles that Correa is a special talent. I never said correa is equal to trout.

---

Who said it was uncommon to think he's special?

Folks just need stop mentioning him with Trout. Too soon.

Cool. We can agree to disagree. When Correa has an MVP trophy and is the consensus best player in baseball we'll be on the same page.

Barring a complete shut down Correa should have AL ROY too. I predict many years of very tight AL MVP between these two players.

quote:

---

By that rational then it is too soon to start mentioning Trout with the all time greats.

Correa has better numbers than Trout did through his 1st 40 games.

Trout has better numbers through his 1st 4 years than the guys mentioned on ESPN.

Its the same logic.

---

Trout has done it multiple, consecutive seasons.

Correa hasn't even been in the league for a half season. Not even comparable.

The problem trying to make that comparison the crappy time Mike Trout had as a teen-aged second-half-of-the season call-up (who played 40 games) isn't what made him famous, or a super star.

It is that he came back the next season and arguably deserved to be the MVP with a .326 batting average, good power, the best base-running in the league, and some of the better defense in the league.

Yes, Correa is off to a great start. No, he does not right now deserve to be in the same breath at Mike Trout.

Correa is still a hope, an expectation. Trout is a reality.

quote:

---

By that rational then it is too soon to start mentioning Trout with the all time greats.

Correa has better numbers than Trout did through his 1st 40 games.

Trout has better numbers through his 1st 4 years than the guys mentioned on ESPN.

Its the same logic.

---

1) What I said just above: Correa has not for any stretch of time played as well as Trout has played that has garnered Trout comparisons to the all-time greats. Again, Trout isn't getting this mention because of his first 40 games.

2) We're not putting Trout in the Hall of Fame yet, but you have to admit there is a difference between 40 games and the 599 games that Mike Trout has played.

And I don't know at what point it is, but at some point, you don't need matching sample sizes to compare players. Sandy Koufax and Shoeless Joe Jackson were both done by about age 30 and less than 10 full seasons.

I don't know what the number is, but its definitely more than 40 or 52 games.

3) With that in mind, its just too attenuated.

Player A played better B over 40 games, and Player B has played better than Hall of Famers over 599 games...therefore Player A deserves comparison to Hall of Famers?

No, it just doesn't work like that.

Re-visit the comparisons at the end of the season, or next season or sometime. But its too early and Correa isn't good enough, yet.

I would agree both Trout and Correa are good for the game.

And if Correa can continue to grow as a player and put up Mike Trout-like numbers, he'll be about as great for the game as Mike Trout has been.

The league is terribly mediocre and lousy this season, but the young wave of talent is exciting.

If the season were cancelled right now and all players redistributed by fantasy draft, I suspect Mike Trout would be drafted #1 and Carlos Correa #2 given GMs picking in those spots who aren't morons. (Harper only other logical pick, IMO)

Trout would be taken 1.

Who is taken 2 is debatable.

This is the point.

What point? That Correa cannot be compared to Trout in even benign ways recognizing their differing circumstances until they are on the "same level". And lets say by some miracle he's even better, then we cannot talk about Trout with Correa? If thats your point, then great. Also, its asinine.

I feel like I could explain it again but not simpler than what's already in the thread.

Carry on.

quote:

---

Player A played better B over 40 games, and Player B has played better than Hall of Famers over 599 games...therefore Player A deserves comparison to Hall of Famers?

---

Unless I missed it somewhere, I don't believe there's a single person on this thread who tried to compare Correa to any HOFs.

Shane Spencer was a 26 year old corner outfielder. Comparing him to correa is the biggest joke on this thread.

no kidding.



http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/fantasy-baseball-today/25261898/carlos-correa-isnt-kris-bryant-or-joc-pederson

quote:

---

Shane Spencer was a 26 year old corner outfielder. Comparing him to correa is the biggest joke on this thread.

---

No, trying to point out that Correa's #'s are better than Trouts after 40 games (when Trout's numbers after 40 games were mediocre) is the biggest joke on this thread.

A 40-50 game sample size in baseball is nothing.

Correa is not considered one of the games best young players because he's done better over his first 40-50 games than Mike Trout. Its because he's 20 years old and been one of (maybe THE) the top shortstops in the game over that period. Shortstops who have all the defensive tools and can hit 15 homeruns over 50 games don't exist in general and not at 20 years old especially.

quote:

---

Correa is not considered one of the games best young players because he's done better over his first 40-50 games than Mike Trout. Its because he's 20 years old and been one of (maybe THE) the top shortstops in the game over that period. Shortstops who have all the defensive tools and can hit 15 homeruns over 50 games don't exist in general and not at 20 years old especially.

---

I completely agree - I'm not trying to discount Correa, I think he'll be great.

I'm just saying that the thread was about Mike Trout and someone pointed out Correa's #'s in his first 40 games being better than Trout's like that was some sort of great accomplishment.

Ignoring that, Correa doesn't even have 300 plate appearances. The kid looks like he will be a star, but baseball is all about getting the book on a player and exposing his weaknesses. Correa may not have any, but at 200 something plate appearances it's far too early to tell.

It's interesting that on the Odor thread, Astros posters continually try and point out that you can't compare him to Altuve because of the 700-something plate appearances Odor has for sample size.

But 235 plate appearances is enough to toss Correa in comparison with the best player in baseball.

Correa was tossed into the discussion in terms of being one of the best young players, not in terms of being one of the best players in the game or even being as good as Trout.

Your second point cuts to the heart of the "issue" on this thread. It seems to be a Astros-Rangers pissing match and not a Correa one.

quote:

---

Correa is doing things that baseball hasn't seen in a century. I think it's at least somewhat deserved.

---

What would a few of those things? Correa is a fantastic young player, I'm just trying to understand your statement.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Correa is doing things that baseball hasn't seen in a century. I think it's at least somewhat deserved.

---

What would a few of those things? Correa is a fantastic young player, I'm just trying to understand your statement.

---

read here:

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/141483402/dyk-facts-from-carlos-correas-1st-50-games