One thing I've been realizing lately:
I've always been susceptible to getting caught up in hype because I always want to see historic/great things. But I mean, at this point Mike Trout has already done historic things.
It seems like even friends of mine who are baseball fans don't realize how valuable Mike Trout is. They question whether he is the most valuable player in baseball. And they laugh when I say that hes the most valuable athlete besides maybe Mayweather and some random soccer player I have no clue about.
I mean as far as I can think hes the only professional athlete alive right now who can be the best ever in his sport.

You're going to rustle a lot of LeBron fans with that comment.

Yeah, I would put Trout on par with LeBron right now. No one can really argue that he can't be the best ever in his sport, and he has a more impressive resume (Obviously because of his longer career)

Which one. Most valuable athlete, LeBron is 30 years old.
Only professional athlete alive right now who can be the best ever, yea sure, they can argue with that. It remains possible, the guy hasn't slowed down.

I was thinking the same thing.
I think LeBron is closer to athlete king than Trout is, but Trout is still doing a ton for baseball.

I think this sums up the the biggest question for me. Why is LeBron at that status when Trout isn't. If its because Bron has already won championships then fine.
But is it because people think hes more clearly the best in his sport? Or do people just think that because hes more visible and has had the longer career - is already a hall of famer. Or is it cuz in the NBA, one player can make more of a difference than in baseball.

Because he's proven that he's been at the top of his game for a long time without injuries. Sure Trout is the best baseball player in the world but to say he has a chance this early in his career to say he can be the best ever is a little too farfetched for me at this point. Now if he continues for a few more years and shows his longevity, then it's definitely possible. And there is a guy named Bryce Harper who might give him a run as far as young studs in MLB.

Maybe cause bron bron has been doing it for YEARS and trout literally only has 4 years under his belt. Not to discredit him, but he's got a fuckton of work ahead of him if he wants to become one of the all time greats. People become great because of the longevity and ability to perform through their elder years, that is what sets them apart from the rest of the "very good" athletes. Trout no doubt has the potential to become the best, but he still has a long way to go where anything can happen..
Let's hold off comparing him to Lebron or any other all time great for now.. And I hate basketball and LeBron in general if that means anything.

Oh yea, 4 years as the best in the game is really short. Only 2 years less than LeBron.
2 seasons which are in the top 50 seasons ever (in a sport thats been around for 130 years), another season that is top 250.

Still not enough time, just my opinion. And I love Trout.