With Wood, he had no exceptional physical abilities, nor did he exhibit even above average patience at the plate. He wasn’t good at taking the ball the other way, and he had a very long swing. He also struggled mightily against offspeed stuff as well. These should have been red flags, but neither one of them seemed glaring enough to be cautioned.

Trout has a tangible skill set that doesn’t go away easily. Even if his hitting skills regress, he won’t just stop having a good eye nor will he stop being insanely fast. Trout is advanced in the sense that he can hit the ball well to all fields. He has a short, compact swing that allows him to get to pitches Wood never could. He has patience that is almost to the level of Abreu or even Pujols, which is extremely rare for a young player.

The difference between Wood and Trout is their floor. Even if Trout doesn’t adapt as expected, he has such a good physical skill set that he will still be an above average player. With Wood, he didn’t have any physical set of tools to fall back on like Trout does. Mike Trout is the closest thing to a sure thing as you will ever find in a young player.

After Wood, I was becoming extremely skeptical of prospects and their development. In fact, I thik I still am a little bit. Trout, however, doesn’t worry me in the slightest. After seeing him play, I know he’s the real deal. He has a lasting skill set, plus a much better make-up. Wood was always trying to live up to expectations, and you could see it from the stands. Trout plays with a slight arrogance. If you watched him last year, he would always mouth the words, “Come on.” when he was awaiting the pitcher’s offering. That’s the kind of guy you build around. I know arrogance is frowned upon in sports, but you need a little bit of it to be successful in this game. The humble guys get eaten up. Trout knows his place. He gets that he’s an unproven rookie. The difference between he and Wood is that he wants to be the best, not just good enough.