(sarcasm button)

First, who among you (assuming we are all GM’s for a day) wouldn’t be thrilled to have either of these guys?

Thought so.

There are two ways to look at this: head-to-head, or 19 year old to 19 year old, because remember, Trout’s a year older, and as lots of stats guys have pointed out, that year is huge right now, but will be less meaningful when they are in their mid-20′s, from a developmental point of view.

Anyway, rather than bore everybody with a long stat-filled post, Trout’s OPS right now is .958 and last year he was .671. Harper is .836 right now.

So as a 19 year old, Harper destroys Trout offensively. But as a 20 year old, Trout is elite. And the comparison gets more Trout advantaged as we look at some secondary numbers, like SB’s. And defense.

But there’s that nagging issue. Harper is a year younger. He has a better arm. Even if Trout runs better, Harper runs well. Neither seems injury prone.

Bottom line: What’s not to like? Personally I’d take Harper because I think (it’s belief, faith, not yet a reality-based conclusion) he’ll have significantly more power as he matures.

But I’d be a happy GM if I had Trout, that’s for damn sure.

Over the last month:

google of “bryce harper” = 197K

google of “mike trout” = 97K

“Your Google result for “Mike Trout” returned about 316,000 results.”

I’ll just leave this here.

Maybe he’ll even come up with some kind of nifty catch phrase and all of a sudden become, well, *interesting*.

Funny replay: Bryce Harper runs home after Adam LaRoche hits his double play ball. Has his head down, unhappy that he was not scoring the winning run. Turns his head, takes a moment to digest the fact that he was indeed scoring the winning run, and applauds.

However it happened, the Nats maintain their best NL record and 4.5-game lead over the Mets. The Rockies arrive, without the altitude. Drew Pomeranz vs. Stephen Strasburg. Hopefully, Strasburg learned valuable lessons about pitching in the heat last Saturday in Atlanta, because it’s not a whole lot cooler here.

Despite the fact that watching people that are great at baseball be great is entertaining, I’m not sure how it can be interesting. Guys that are great at baseball essentially do the same thing that guys that are good at it do….they just do it more often and more consistently. Guys that do things differently (e.g. knuckleballers) are interesting because they get it done unlike everyone else, guys that do it the same as everyone else but better….not so interesting.

And it’s not so much of a complaint, as a egocentric Phillies fan I could give a rat’s ass about ther AL or Bryce Harper ultimately, but I just find it interesting that fluff wins over substance so much in society, this is another case of it. Make of that what you will.

And it could be said that the only reason Harper is more interesting than Trout is, well, it’s reported that way. Honestly, have enough articles been made redily available on the kid to make such an assesment?

The EMT story was from an interview with the Nationals’ blogger from the MLB network, not from ESPN or any other national outlet.

Again, not sure why you are bitching, you seem to be conflating interesting people with talent. Tebow is an interesting guy in that besides his athletic ability he lives a rare life style and has a rare approach to life and fame. Similarly, Harper is just a more interesting person than Trout, he gives better quotes and for whatever reason people are interested in reading/hearing about him. None of that has anything at all to do with baseball talent.

Not to be unnecessarily tautological, but people are interested in interesting things. If Trout said things or was a persona that people wanted to read about and discuss, he would be covered more….but he’s not. So what? As a baseball fan, you should just be really happy to have him. Why do you want the fluff, too?

So you’re inferring that ESPN and HBT are east coast focused outlets only and that folks on the other side of the country can find their own ball to play with?

And I just find it curious, the Tebowing of Harper: at what point did we stop recognizing top shelf prime rib for sensationalism? It’s like a microcosm commentary on how we are as a society these days.

I’m not sure why you are bitching. It is like complaining that Tebow got more press than Eli. If you win, who cares who the popular media fawns over? And at this point, wouldn’t most people take Trout over Harper?

1 – Trout and Harper could be all time greats
2 – Trout a potential MVP
3 – Trout, greatest 20 year old ever?
4 – Trout is pretty good too

Apparently four articles isn’t enough. Won’t someone please think of the children!??!?

1 – http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/page/rumblings120629/mike-trout-bryce-harper-all-time-greats
2 – http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/blog/_/name/law_keith/id/8081806/mike-trout-built-profile-potential-mvp-candidate
3 – http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/25469/mike-trout-greatest-20-year-old-ever
4 – http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/mike-trout-is-pretty-good-too/