Matt Harvey or Mike Trout? Who would you take?

[will2survive]

How many times did the Sox need bloody socked Curt Schilling? The pitcher is the most important position on a team. Mike Trout is a SUPERSTAR, but I'll take Matt Harvey in a 7 game series because the ultimate goal is the World Series. Pitcher wins most of the time. Harvey is the answer here and he's a very emotional, gritty player.

Matt Harvey for a 2nd time

[Chi_archie]

Pitchers shelf life is too short these days

[frogsrangers]

Trout = Braun(roids)

[gryfyn1]

How many times did the Sox need bloody socked Curt Schilling? The pitcher is the most important position on a team. Mike Trout is a SUPERSTAR, but I'll take Matt Harvey in a 7 game series because the ultimate goal is the World Series. Pitcher wins most of the time. Harvey is the answer here and he's a very emotional, gritty player.

Matt Harvey for a 2nd time

Perhaps if you were building a team to win a 7 game sieres or a playoff tournament right now then Harvey is a reasonable choice, but with the attrition rate of pitchers, building a team for years into the future the position player is the better pick.

[C-Gold]

the 7 game playoff scenario does add some thought to this.

but again, just looking at trying to win as many games out of the 162 to GET to the playoffs.

In 2012 Trout won a team 10.7 MORE games than an average replacement player

the best pitcher was Justin Verlander who won the Tigers 7.6 games more than an average replacement pitcher.

there were not even 10 total pitchers in NL and AL that had a WAR higher than 5.0

Trout would have more of an impact over 162 games.

Remember his 10.7 was put up over just 139 games, at a young age. When he hits his peak he might be putting up a few 12.0-15.0 WAR years

I initially thought Trout and I know he had the highest WAR in the league last year, but is your goal to win the most games after 162 or to win the World Series. Harvey could have a lower WAR over 162, but in a 7 game playoff series he could pitch 3 games and be more valuable than Trout.

I'd still take Trout because pitchers are such a high injury risk and there's always the next Roger Clemens. Mark Prior, Kerry Wood, Phil Hughes was once a huge prospect, Dylan Bundy, Strassburg, these once in a 20 year prospect type guys pop up and get injured. The Mets have another young gun on their roster too.

I wouldn't be shocked if Trout is on something.

[15805]

Trout by a mile over Harvey. Trouts the best young major league player in quite a while!

[daneblazer]

and now you see why you don't build around a pitcher

[You mad bro]

anyone who would take harvey over trout is a moron .. the only pitcher id consider taking over him is kershaw and even id probably take trout 8 out of 10 times

[bubblebuttluv]

For say daily fantasy, I'd absolutely take Harvey.

for actual games, just remember that really good starting pitching is absolutely ruined by sub-par relievers and closers who can't close (they don't make them like Rivera anymore).

Also OP, like the profile pics, bruh. You good people.

[pologq]

before the injury i think i'd still take trout. harvey pitches well and is only 9-5...how many wins have the mets let slip by for harvey because of lack of runs? trout plays everyday and is entering other worldly territory like cabrera and bonds.

[bigballa]

In my opinion, these are the 2 best players where the future of baseball is concerned. If you were starting a team of the future, who would it be?

My answer: Matt Harvey

Pitching is so difficult to come by and although Harvey isn't an everyday player, he's simply unstoppable; a "Boss" if you will.

Who would you take?

well with harvey being hurt now trout is the answer for sure but even before that with how easy it is for pitchers these days to get hurt you take the for sure thing in an outfielder like trout is the way to go