I seriously doubt Buxton is a better hitter and has fewer holes in his swing. But time will tell.
Yeah, to be honest, I think it's the other way around. I think Buxton has more power than Trout did(at the time) with Trout being a better hitter.
either way, the similarities are there and he is by far the easy #1 prospect in all of MLB right now
I was at the Jay game last night (1st row) and I thought Lawrie had a similar body type to Trout. Lawrie is listed as 6-0 213 and Trout is listed as 6-1 200. When I saw them side by side Trout was at least an inch taller and he dwarfed Lawrie. Across his back he was at least 30 percent bigger and his legs made Lawrie's look like flamingos.
My point is I think Trout is more like 6-1 230 with amazing speed. They flashed a stat up on the scoreboard that stated Trout was the only player in major league history to have at least 50 homers and 70 stolen bases before turning 22 years old.
Very doubtful that Buxton will have more power than Trout given the fact he is probably 50 lbs of muscle less than Trout. Yes he is only 19 and more than 2 full years younger than Trout but it is doubtful he will every have the freakish body type of Trout.
At the very least I think being 6-1 230 with awesome speed is way more freakish and translates much better to major league success than being 6-1 175, freakishly fast and athletic with some pop.
I think the guys with great hit tools that are extremely fast with pop sometimes get overrated.
Also even with tremendous athletic ability the potential is still very uncertain to translate fully into being a star like Trout.
Sometimes I think raw potential is valued more highly than the achievement of that potential by scouts. Everybody likes to dream and predict the next star. Once they become a star people value them less even with a guy like Trout compared to Buxton.
Edited by archibjd, 12 September 2013 - 06:40 AM.