Correa appears to have some competition for Rookie of the Year

Right. Correa would have to go crazy this last month to approach what Trout did in his official rookie (age 20) season.

Trout did not do much at age 19 in his 135 plate appearances. I assume this is the season that Hey Now was referencing.

 

He'll have to go totally apesh@t next year to equal what that smug f#@k Pujols did as a 21yr old his rookie year

 

That was his rookie year in terms of qualifying for the award - but unlike Correa, who is doing this with no previous Major League experience, Trout actually had a 40-game taste in 2011.

Comparing their first 40 MLB games:
Trout: .220/.281/.390/.672
Correa: .288/.333/.519/.852

Comparing their first 70 MLB games:
Trout: .260/.323/.455/.778
Correa: .279/.347/.518/.865

So this idea that Correa's not putting up Trout-esque numbers isn't really accurate. Full season, perennial MVP-candidate Mike Trout-numbers? Not yet. But Correa's ascension is actually ahead of Trout's pace.

As Nick has said - what Correa's doing right now is historic. They had a graphic last night comparing his first 69 games to Ernie Banks', and Correa's blew his away. Sample size 1,000% understood, but yeah, Correa's on a track to Cooperstown.

 

As a 20 year mike trout had a 10.8 WAR.

 

WAR is a counting stat, and Correa is going to finish with ~200 fewer ABs than 20-year old Mike Trout, who, again, was not technically a rookie, nor did he spend 2.5 months in the minors that year.

Correa's full-year WAR pace is, roughly, 6.5. As a 20-year old. Nine shortstops have posted a better WAR since 2000, and the youngest was 22-year old Troy Tulowitzki.

 

My friend calls him the GROAT.

(R stands for rookie). I love this kid.

 

Technically, Trout was a rookie and won rookie of the year.

 

Correa is a great I think he is going to HOF if he stays healthy,and is having a great rookie season, but there are a bunch of guys who have had great seasons.

 

No doubt. On a per at bat rate, he's the best hitting (RC+) SS with at least 200 ABs since Roger Hornsby, a guy Bobrek's Grandpa would tell Bobrek stories about.

 

According to arbitrary rules that govern an ultimately meaningless award, yes, he was technically still a rookie. But unlike Correa, it was *not* his first taste of Major League Baseball. There *is* a difference; significant difference, in fact. Getting a 40-game sneak preview - nearly a quarter of a MLB season - is a huge advantage in terms of building a foundation for your first full year. Correa did not have that luxury.

 

At 20 in their first call-up to the majors? That's a decidedly much smaller list.

 

But you specifically said he was "not technically a rookie" when technically he was.

 

By the rules set forth for an award. That is the only way his 40 games don't count as his "rookie season" - in conjunction with an award. But those games - valuable learning experiences - absolutely, positively matter in term of development.

Baseball is the only sport with this silly distinction. Last year was Jadeveon Clowny's rookie year; he is not eligible to win Rookie of the Year this year because he didn't pass some arbitrary games-played threshold. He's now a veteran.

 

Well, we're talking about baseball, not football, and they're the ones who make the rules, so technically, Trout was rookie and you were incorrect.

I agree those extra games do help with experience and what not. But technically he was a rookie.

 

Is this really worth arguing over?

 

Slow day at work. But I was hoping it'd be the first time he ever actually admitted he was wrong.

 

So basically Trout isn't as good as a rookie as Correa because he was good enough to be given a taste of the majors nearly a year earlier than Correa? At the same age as Correa is now, Trout had a lot more WAR. Getting to the majors earlier should not be held against a player.

That said, I love Correa. He'll be in HOF. Trout will, too. I hope Correa gets to be a 10 WAR player.

 

How good is Correa????

Well, the only good comparison is with best player in baseball????

Enough said

 

Oh, I'm wrong - and freely admit it - often. Here, I did it literally just yesterday. So with it being a slow work day, why don't you spend the rest of it thinking of creative places to shove your comment.

Again, he was only not a rookie in specific consideration of an award. It's not like I'm arguing spring training games should count - or even a September call-up. He made his debut July 8, struggled, and was sent back down (which will not happen to Carlos Correa, BTW). His arbitration clock started, he played in a pennant race - hell, he had a rookie card... IOW, he was a rookie. When he came to bat that year, announcers didn't refer to him as "not-yet-a-rookie" Mike Trout. And I'm not exactly standing on an island here.

Yes, I was wrong - through shrewd roster manipulation, he retained eligibility for an award. But he was not a rookie, in terms of what being a rookie actually means in every other instance BUT the Major League Baseball Rookie of the Year award. Carlos Correa's rookie year is *not* like Mike Trout's rookie year.

ETA: hold on to your hat, RM95 - I'm wrong again. He was *not* sent back down in 2011. He played in a pennant race, instead. BUT... wasn't a rookie because: awards.

 

That's an empty statement; Correa was certainly good enough to make his debut in 2014. Talent wasn't what kept in the minors. Actually, a major injury did most of the damage - but he was tearing apart minor league baseball.

He also had a lot more experience - he played in a pennant race during his not-a-rookie rookie season. You don't think that experience laid a tremendous foundation for his 2012 season?

I'm not holding anything against anyone. But the idea that Correa's rookie year isn't Trout-esque is just flat wrong. He's been better, offensively, at least, than Trout was in his first 70 games.