Los Angeles Angels: Is Mike Trout this generation’s Ernie Banks?

Mike Trout has been patrolling center field for the Los Angeles Angels for most of this decade and is already one of the greatest players of all-time.

It is quite revolutionary what Los Angeles Angels center fielder Mike Trout has done thus far in his career. Trout is only 28 years old and is already considered one of the greatest players in MLB history and has a legitimate chance of finishing as the all-time MLB leader in Wins Above Replacement (WAR).

He is the perfect player to come along at the perfect time as well. Trout’s ascendence to the top of the MLB pyramid coincides directly with the increase in advanced statistics in the baseball world. We all know how good Trout is, but seeing his WAR climb at such a legendary pace is remarkable.

Only two players in MLB history have had a higher WAR (via Baseball-Reference) in the first nine seasons of their careers — Ted Williams and Albert Pujols. This is counting 2011, where Trout only played 40 games.

More from LA Sports Hub

• Lakers: 5 Players to Target Through Trades to make another championship run
• LA Chargers: Week 8 against Denver Broncos is a must-win
• LA Rams: Jared Goff wants to keep the Los Angeles title streak going
• Lakers Rumors: Los Angeles Clippers interested in Rajon Rondo
• LA Chargers: Justin Herbert wins AFC Rookie of the Month

There is one other narrative that has followed Trout around on the negative end of the spectrum, which is not so much his fault, but the Los Angeles Angels’ fault.

Trout has virtually no experience in the postseason. The Angels have made the playoffs once in Trout’s career and the team was swept in the ALDS by the Kansas City Royals. The best player of the decade does not even have a playoff win on his career resume.

Luckily for Trout, this is not basketball or football, where championships are used more in discussions of who the greatest of all-time really is. However, this lack of postseason success, or just postseason experience at all, does feel like an awful waste of his talent and draws an immediate comparison to a Hall of Famer.

The most notable legend in baseball history with no playoff success is Ernie Banks, who in his 19-year career with the Chicago Cubs, did not make the postseason once. Banks retired after the 1971 season as 40 years old, Trout’s current contract carries him through 2030, when he will be 38 years old.

Ironically, that will be 20 years for Trout. If Trout goes his entire career without being traded and the Angels can never find postseason success, Trout’s legacy will be similar to Banks’.

But how close is this comparison? We just told you that Trout has the third-best start in MLB history, so he’s got to be better than Banks, right? Trout has been better than Banks, but the numbers are not that far off.

We are comparing two different eight-year spans; 2012-2019 for Trout and 1955-1962 for Banks. Trout’s timeframe is from his rookie season on, Banks’ is from his second season on.

In those eight years, Trout had a .308 batting average, 1.009 OPS, 1,297 hits, 280 home runs, 736 RBIs and a 72.0 WAR. He has won three MVP awards, been an all-star eight times, has won seven Silver Sluggers (which were not established until 1980) and was the American League Rookie of the Year in 2012.

Banks had a .289 batting average, .912 OPS, 1,345 hits, 314 home runs, 877 RBIs and a 54.7 WAR. Banks was a two-time MVP, 11-time all-star (Three of those years he was named an all-star twice as there was a period where two All-Star Games were played, without those he is an eight-time all-star) and one-time Gold Glover.

So Trout has the advantage in batting average and OPS (as well as stolen bases) but Banks was the more prolific power hitter, hitting 34 more home runs than Trout and driving in 141 more RBIs. He also had 48 more hits, although Trout gets walked a lot more, which hurts his total hits but helps his OPS.

And while Trout has a significant advantage in WAR, Banks was in a very similar position at this point in his career as Trout is now. At the time, after the 1962 season, Banks was already ranked 53rd all-time in total WAR.

Trout is currently ranked 57th. Trout may be ranked 29 spots higher than Banks now, but at the time, Banks was on a similar trailblazing pace that was set to put him among the same MLB greats that Trout is currently chasing down.

The one saving grace that Trout and the Los Angeles Angels have is that they have been much better than Banks’ Cubs. The Angels had a 656-640 (.506) record in that span while the Cubs had a 523-716 (.422) in that span. Even if you take out the Angels’ one playoff year they are 558-576 (.492) in that span, which is still much better than the Cubs.

Angel fans better hope that the second-half of Trout’s career is not as similar to Banks’ second half as these eight-year spans are. After that eight-year span, Banks went on to be an all-star just three times and posted a combined 10.0 WAR in nine seasons.

There is a pretty good chance that Trout has a higher WAR in 2020 than Banks had in those last nine years, but thus far in his career, Mike Trout absolutely is this generation’s Ernie Banks.