MLB 2019 Season

1509511513514515

Comments

  • WobbieWobbie Posts: 25,115
    st. louis fans are a bunch of dopes.

    at least poo-holes probably realizes he made a major, money grab mistake.
    If I had known then what I know now...

    Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
    VIC 07
    EV LA1 08
    Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
    Columbus 10
    EV LA 11
    Vancouver 11
    Missoula 12
    Portland 13, Spokane 13
    St. Paul 14, Denver 14
    Philly I & II, 16
  • xavier mcdanielxavier mcdaniel Somewhere in NYCPosts: 8,296
    Reading 2004
    Albany 2006 Camden 2006 E. Rutherford 2, 2006 Inglewood 2006,
    Chicago 2007
    Camden 2008 MSG 2008 MSG 2008 Hartford 2008.
    Seattle 2009 Seattle 2009 Philadelphia 2009,Philadelphia 2009 Philadelphia 2009
    Hartford 2010 MSG 2010 MSG 2010
    Toronto 2011,Toronto 2011
    Wrigley Field 2013 Brooklyn 2013 Brooklyn 2013 Philadelphia 2, 2013
    Philadelphia 1, 2016 Philadelphia 2 2016 New York 2016 New York 2016 Fenway 1, 2016

    "I play good, hard-nosed basketball.
    Things happen in the game. Nothing you
    can do. I don't go and say,
    "I'm gonna beat this guy up."
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,729
    edited June 24
    Wobbie said:
    st. louis fans are a bunch of dopes.

    at least poo-holes probably realizes he made a major, money grab mistake.
    Oh no. After a year or two, there were hardly any Cardinal fans who would have still wanted him to be around at what he would have been making had he taken our offer. 
    Post edited by ledvedderman on
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 18,882
    mfc2006 said:
    Ugh. The Astros bats need to wake up. Ugly stretch for them.
    I was at the game Sunday and their bats woke up.

    Saw White hit that grandslam.

    Got to see Verlander pitch.

    Got to see judge hit a ball right to Altuve.  

    I had a blast even though Yanks lost.

    And yes I am an Angels fan...
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 18,882
    Was at the Cardinals game yesterday for Albert’s home run. Maybe the coolest live moment in sports I’ve ever been there for. So many memories watching him growing up flooded back in a moment and really hit me. 
    What a treat!
  • mfc2006mfc2006 PDX--->KCPosts: 31,851
    mfc2006 said:
    Ugh. The Astros bats need to wake up. Ugly stretch for them.
    I was at the game Sunday and their bats woke up.

    Saw White hit that grandslam.

    Got to see Verlander pitch.

    Got to see judge hit a ball right to Altuve.  

    I had a blast even though Yanks lost.

    And yes I am an Angels fan...
    Yesterday’s game was a very nice bday present!
    I LOVE MUSIC.
    www.cluthelee.com
    www.cluthe.com
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 18,882
    edited June 25
    Dbl post
  • HesCalledDyerHesCalledDyer MarylandPosts: 14,524
    edited June 25
  • igotid88igotid88 Posts: 16,465
    No one asked for this. But I wanted to check something. Top stats are Mike Trout's first 9 years not counting yesterday's game. Bottom stats are Don Mattingly's first 9 years. Unfortunately for Donnie he wasn't born with speed and didn't play a "prime" position like CF or SS. Mattingly's back problems started around '87 I believe. 
    G       PA     AB     R      H    2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB   SO     BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB   GDP HBP SH SF IBB
    1143 5022 4138 856 1268 242 45 262 705 197 36 762 1060 .306 .419 .577 .996    176  2386   56    75   0   46  97

    1117 4851 4416 655 1401 288 15 169 759   9     7 342  258   .317 .363 .504 .867   138  2226   114   13   13 66  95
    I miss igotid88
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 34,085
    igotid88 said:
    No one asked for this. But I wanted to check something. Top stats are Mike Trout's first 9 years not counting yesterday's game. Bottom stats are Don Mattingly's first 9 years. Unfortunately for Donnie he wasn't born with speed and didn't play a "prime" position like CF or SS. Mattingly's back problems started around '87 I believe. 
    G       PA     AB     R      H    2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB   SO     BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB   GDP HBP SH SF IBB
    1143 5022 4138 856 1268 242 45 262 705 197 36 762 1060 .306 .419 .577 .996    176  2386   56    75   0   46  97

    1117 4851 4416 655 1401 288 15 169 759   9     7 342  258   .317 .363 .504 .867   138  2226   114   13   13 66  95
    So......Mike Trout is way better than Don Mattingly. Thank you for sharing this. The world has been waiting on this comparison.

    Do Graig Nettles next!
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • igotid88igotid88 Posts: 16,465
    igotid88 said:
    No one asked for this. But I wanted to check something. Top stats are Mike Trout's first 9 years not counting yesterday's game. Bottom stats are Don Mattingly's first 9 years. Unfortunately for Donnie he wasn't born with speed and didn't play a "prime" position like CF or SS. Mattingly's back problems started around '87 I believe. 
    G       PA     AB     R      H    2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB   SO     BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB   GDP HBP SH SF IBB
    1143 5022 4138 856 1268 242 45 262 705 197 36 762 1060 .306 .419 .577 .996    176  2386   56    75   0   46  97

    1117 4851 4416 655 1401 288 15 169 759   9     7 342  258   .317 .363 .504 .867   138  2226   114   13   13 66  95
    So......Mike Trout is way better than Don Mattingly. Thank you for sharing this. The world has been waiting on this comparison.

    Do Graig Nettles next!
    Numbers are almost similar. So way better is not right. Also 88-90 Mattingly was playing with the bad back. Trout is 6' 2" 230lbs while Mattingly is 6' and maybe the most he weighed was 180-85 during his playing days
    I miss igotid88
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 34,085
    edited June 29
    igotid88 said:
    igotid88 said:
    No one asked for this. But I wanted to check something. Top stats are Mike Trout's first 9 years not counting yesterday's game. Bottom stats are Don Mattingly's first 9 years. Unfortunately for Donnie he wasn't born with speed and didn't play a "prime" position like CF or SS. Mattingly's back problems started around '87 I believe. 
    G       PA     AB     R      H    2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB   SO     BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB   GDP HBP SH SF IBB
    1143 5022 4138 856 1268 242 45 262 705 197 36 762 1060 .306 .419 .577 .996    176  2386   56    75   0   46  97

    1117 4851 4416 655 1401 288 15 169 759   9     7 342  258   .317 .363 .504 .867   138  2226   114   13   13 66  95
    So......Mike Trout is way better than Don Mattingly. Thank you for sharing this. The world has been waiting on this comparison.

    Do Graig Nettles next!
    Numbers are almost similar. So way better is not right. Also 88-90 Mattingly was playing with the bad back. Trout is 6' 2" 230lbs while Mattingly is 6' and maybe the most he weighed was 180-85 during his playing days
    Are you kidding?
    Trout has scored 200 more runs....has 30 more triples....has almost 100 more home runs...has almost 200 more stolen bases...more than double the amount of walks...on base percentage is .56% higher...SLG is .73% higher....OPS is a whopping .129% higher....160 more total bases...

    The only areas Donny beat him in were hits, doubles, RBI, and he struck out way less--but that's probably more a reflection of how the game was played verses now. 

    Trout is immensely better than Don Mattingly ever was. To blame it on his back and not being fast and not playing centerfield is ridiculous. That's like me saying if only I had Carl Lewis' speed, I would've multiple Olympic gold medals. 

    There is a reason the Yankee he is most compared to is Mickey Mantle and not Donnie Baseball. Come on man! 
    Post edited by The Juggler on
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • F Me In The BrainF Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commetsPosts: 16,393
    Yeah...sorry, u like Donnie Baseball but he and Mike Trout occupy different ZIP Codes.
    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • igotid88igotid88 Posts: 16,465
    igotid88 said:
    igotid88 said:
    No one asked for this. But I wanted to check something. Top stats are Mike Trout's first 9 years not counting yesterday's game. Bottom stats are Don Mattingly's first 9 years. Unfortunately for Donnie he wasn't born with speed and didn't play a "prime" position like CF or SS. Mattingly's back problems started around '87 I believe. 
    G       PA     AB     R      H    2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB   SO     BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB   GDP HBP SH SF IBB
    1143 5022 4138 856 1268 242 45 262 705 197 36 762 1060 .306 .419 .577 .996    176  2386   56    75   0   46  97

    1117 4851 4416 655 1401 288 15 169 759   9     7 342  258   .317 .363 .504 .867   138  2226   114   13   13 66  95
    So......Mike Trout is way better than Don Mattingly. Thank you for sharing this. The world has been waiting on this comparison.

    Do Graig Nettles next!
    Numbers are almost similar. So way better is not right. Also 88-90 Mattingly was playing with the bad back. Trout is 6' 2" 230lbs while Mattingly is 6' and maybe the most he weighed was 180-85 during his playing days
    Are you kidding?
    Trout has scored 200 more runs....has 30 more triples....has almost 100 more home runs...has almost 200 more stolen bases...more than double the amount of walks...on base percentage is .56% higher...SLG is .73% higher....OPS is a whopping .129% higher....160 more total bases...

    The only areas Donny beat him in were hits, doubles, RBI, and he struck out way less--but that's probably more a reflection of how the game was played verses now. 

    Trout is immensely better than Don Mattingly ever was. To blame it on his back and not being fast and not playing centerfield is ridiculous. That's like me saying if only I had Carl Lewis' speed, I would've multiple Olympic gold medals. 

    There is a reason the Yankee he is most compared to is Mickey Mantle and not Donnie Baseball. Come on man! 
    Runs have to do with who's batting behind you and driving you home. Like I said Mattingly didn't have the speed Trout has. So Trout has been able to be out double plays. I wasn't saying one is better than the other. Just that their numbers up to this point are not that far apart. Unfortunately Mattingly's last 7 years with the injuries cloud what he did prior. Also if you had Carl Lewis' speed and competed you could have possibly won an Olympic medal. You're telling me if he didn't have the same amount of speed as Trout with how a great hitter he was he wouldn't have gotten more doubles or triples?


    I miss igotid88
  • DewieCoxDewieCox Posts: 9,839
    igotid88 said:
    igotid88 said:
    No one asked for this. But I wanted to check something. Top stats are Mike Trout's first 9 years not counting yesterday's game. Bottom stats are Don Mattingly's first 9 years. Unfortunately for Donnie he wasn't born with speed and didn't play a "prime" position like CF or SS. Mattingly's back problems started around '87 I believe. 
    G       PA     AB     R      H    2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB   SO     BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB   GDP HBP SH SF IBB
    1143 5022 4138 856 1268 242 45 262 705 197 36 762 1060 .306 .419 .577 .996    176  2386   56    75   0   46  97

    1117 4851 4416 655 1401 288 15 169 759   9     7 342  258   .317 .363 .504 .867   138  2226   114   13   13 66  95
    So......Mike Trout is way better than Don Mattingly. Thank you for sharing this. The world has been waiting on this comparison.

    Do Graig Nettles next!
    Numbers are almost similar. So way better is not right. Also 88-90 Mattingly was playing with the bad back. Trout is 6' 2" 230lbs while Mattingly is 6' and maybe the most he weighed was 180-85 during his playing days

    Don’t do this. Youre above this. Don’t go after the best player in the game at the peak of his powers.

    This is like if a Monkees fan showed up to a party in 1972 and tried convincing everybody(themselves and others) they were better than Zeppelin. 
  • igotid88igotid88 Posts: 16,465
    edited June 29
    DewieCox said:
    igotid88 said:
    igotid88 said:
    No one asked for this. But I wanted to check something. Top stats are Mike Trout's first 9 years not counting yesterday's game. Bottom stats are Don Mattingly's first 9 years. Unfortunately for Donnie he wasn't born with speed and didn't play a "prime" position like CF or SS. Mattingly's back problems started around '87 I believe. 
    G       PA     AB     R      H    2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB   SO     BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB   GDP HBP SH SF IBB
    1143 5022 4138 856 1268 242 45 262 705 197 36 762 1060 .306 .419 .577 .996    176  2386   56    75   0   46  97

    1117 4851 4416 655 1401 288 15 169 759   9     7 342  258   .317 .363 .504 .867   138  2226   114   13   13 66  95
    So......Mike Trout is way better than Don Mattingly. Thank you for sharing this. The world has been waiting on this comparison.

    Do Graig Nettles next!
    Numbers are almost similar. So way better is not right. Also 88-90 Mattingly was playing with the bad back. Trout is 6' 2" 230lbs while Mattingly is 6' and maybe the most he weighed was 180-85 during his playing days

    Don’t do this. Youre above this. Don’t go after the best player in the game at the peak of his powers.

    This is like if a Monkees fan showed up to a party in 1972 and tried convincing everybody(themselves and others) they were better than Zeppelin. 
    That's not a fair comparison. While The Monkees were a decent band. Mattingly's first half is more like comparing The Rolling Stones to The Beatles or The Who. That's if I was comparing Alvaro Espinoza to Mike Trout. Not everything has to be an argument.
    It's like when they were comparing Odell Beckham's first 3 years to Randy Moss' and people in the comments all up in arms. "How can you compare Beckham to Randy?"

    Why can't people be "oh wow those are interesting stats."? Obviously barring any serious injuries or unforseen events. Trout is going to have a better 2nd half of his career. 

    Also Mattingly was drafted in 19th round compared to Trout's 1st round.
    Post edited by igotid88 on
    I miss igotid88
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 34,085
    edited June 30
    igotid88 said:
    igotid88 said:
    igotid88 said:
    No one asked for this. But I wanted to check something. Top stats are Mike Trout's first 9 years not counting yesterday's game. Bottom stats are Don Mattingly's first 9 years. Unfortunately for Donnie he wasn't born with speed and didn't play a "prime" position like CF or SS. Mattingly's back problems started around '87 I believe. 
    G       PA     AB     R      H    2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB   SO     BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB   GDP HBP SH SF IBB
    1143 5022 4138 856 1268 242 45 262 705 197 36 762 1060 .306 .419 .577 .996    176  2386   56    75   0   46  97

    1117 4851 4416 655 1401 288 15 169 759   9     7 342  258   .317 .363 .504 .867   138  2226   114   13   13 66  95
    So......Mike Trout is way better than Don Mattingly. Thank you for sharing this. The world has been waiting on this comparison.

    Do Graig Nettles next!
    Numbers are almost similar. So way better is not right. Also 88-90 Mattingly was playing with the bad back. Trout is 6' 2" 230lbs while Mattingly is 6' and maybe the most he weighed was 180-85 during his playing days
    Are you kidding?
    Trout has scored 200 more runs....has 30 more triples....has almost 100 more home runs...has almost 200 more stolen bases...more than double the amount of walks...on base percentage is .56% higher...SLG is .73% higher....OPS is a whopping .129% higher....160 more total bases...

    The only areas Donny beat him in were hits, doubles, RBI, and he struck out way less--but that's probably more a reflection of how the game was played verses now. 

    Trout is immensely better than Don Mattingly ever was. To blame it on his back and not being fast and not playing centerfield is ridiculous. That's like me saying if only I had Carl Lewis' speed, I would've multiple Olympic gold medals. 

    There is a reason the Yankee he is most compared to is Mickey Mantle and not Donnie Baseball. Come on man! 
    Runs have to do with who's batting behind you and driving you home. Like I said Mattingly didn't have the speed Trout has. So Trout has been able to be out double plays. I wasn't saying one is better than the other. Just that their numbers up to this point are not that far apart. Unfortunately Mattingly's last 7 years with the injuries cloud what he did prior. Also if you had Carl Lewis' speed and competed you could have possibly won an Olympic medal. You're telling me if he didn't have the same amount of speed as Trout with how a great hitter he was he wouldn't have gotten more doubles or triples?


    Well RBIs have to do with who got on base before you got up. So take that one away from Donnie I guess? Ha. 
    And too bad he wasn’t fast! That’s another reason Trout is waaay better than he was.  That’s. The. Point. 

    Sorry man. These stats prove Trout is immensely better than Mattingly ever was. It’s not even remotely close. 
    Post edited by The Juggler on
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 34,085
    igotid88 said:
    DewieCox said:
    igotid88 said:
    igotid88 said:
    No one asked for this. But I wanted to check something. Top stats are Mike Trout's first 9 years not counting yesterday's game. Bottom stats are Don Mattingly's first 9 years. Unfortunately for Donnie he wasn't born with speed and didn't play a "prime" position like CF or SS. Mattingly's back problems started around '87 I believe. 
    G       PA     AB     R      H    2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB   SO     BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB   GDP HBP SH SF IBB
    1143 5022 4138 856 1268 242 45 262 705 197 36 762 1060 .306 .419 .577 .996    176  2386   56    75   0   46  97

    1117 4851 4416 655 1401 288 15 169 759   9     7 342  258   .317 .363 .504 .867   138  2226   114   13   13 66  95
    So......Mike Trout is way better than Don Mattingly. Thank you for sharing this. The world has been waiting on this comparison.

    Do Graig Nettles next!
    Numbers are almost similar. So way better is not right. Also 88-90 Mattingly was playing with the bad back. Trout is 6' 2" 230lbs while Mattingly is 6' and maybe the most he weighed was 180-85 during his playing days

    Don’t do this. Youre above this. Don’t go after the best player in the game at the peak of his powers.

    This is like if a Monkees fan showed up to a party in 1972 and tried convincing everybody(themselves and others) they were better than Zeppelin. 
    That's not a fair comparison. While The Monkees were a decent band. Mattingly's first half is more like comparing The Rolling Stones to The Beatles or The Who. That's if I was comparing Alvaro Espinoza to Mike Trout. Not everything has to be an argument.
    It's like when they were comparing Odell Beckham's first 3 years to Randy Moss' and people in the comments all up in arms. "How can you compare Beckham to Randy?"

    Why can't people be "oh wow those are interesting stats."? Obviously barring any serious injuries or unforseen events. Trout is going to have a better 2nd half of his career. 

    Also Mattingly was drafted in 19th round compared to Trout's 1st round.
    The stats are not close! 
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • F Me In The BrainF Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commetsPosts: 16,393
    Donnie n'est pas The Rolling Stones

    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • DewieCoxDewieCox Posts: 9,839
    Donnie n'est pas The Rolling Stones

    Monkees is closer. What’s the argument against Jim Edmonds in the Hall?
  • HesCalledDyerHesCalledDyer MarylandPosts: 14,524
    edited June 30
    igotid88 said:
    DewieCox said:
    igotid88 said:
    igotid88 said:
    No one asked for this. But I wanted to check something. Top stats are Mike Trout's first 9 years not counting yesterday's game. Bottom stats are Don Mattingly's first 9 years. Unfortunately for Donnie he wasn't born with speed and didn't play a "prime" position like CF or SS. Mattingly's back problems started around '87 I believe. 
    G       PA     AB     R      H    2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB   SO     BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB   GDP HBP SH SF IBB
    1143 5022 4138 856 1268 242 45 262 705 197 36 762 1060 .306 .419 .577 .996    176  2386   56    75   0   46  97

    1117 4851 4416 655 1401 288 15 169 759   9     7 342  258   .317 .363 .504 .867   138  2226   114   13   13 66  95
    So......Mike Trout is way better than Don Mattingly. Thank you for sharing this. The world has been waiting on this comparison.

    Do Graig Nettles next!
    Numbers are almost similar. So way better is not right. Also 88-90 Mattingly was playing with the bad back. Trout is 6' 2" 230lbs while Mattingly is 6' and maybe the most he weighed was 180-85 during his playing days

    Don’t do this. Youre above this. Don’t go after the best player in the game at the peak of his powers.

    This is like if a Monkees fan showed up to a party in 1972 and tried convincing everybody(themselves and others) they were better than Zeppelin. 
    That's not a fair comparison. While The Monkees were a decent band. Mattingly's first half is more like comparing The Rolling Stones to The Beatles or The Who. That's if I was comparing Alvaro Espinoza to Mike Trout. Not everything has to be an argument.
    It's like when they were comparing Odell Beckham's first 3 years to Randy Moss' and people in the comments all up in arms. "How can you compare Beckham to Randy?"

    Why can't people be "oh wow those are interesting stats."? Obviously barring any serious injuries or unforseen events. Trout is going to have a better 2nd half of his career. 

    Also Mattingly was drafted in 19th round compared to Trout's 1st round.
    Come on man, seriously. If you ask ANYONE to name a baseball player with the impact and presence The Beatles or The Rolling Stones had on music, no one is naming Don Mattingly. That’s a laughable comparison.
  • F Me In The BrainF Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commetsPosts: 16,393
    DewieCox said:
    Donnie n'est pas The Rolling Stones

    Monkees is closer. What’s the argument against Jim Edmonds in the Hall?
    He is not a nice person.  ?
    He dove for balls that he could have caught standing just as easily to make things look better?

    I am not a fan but the guy could play.  

    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • igotid88igotid88 Posts: 16,465
    igotid88 said:
    DewieCox said:
    igotid88 said:
    igotid88 said:
    No one asked for this. But I wanted to check something. Top stats are Mike Trout's first 9 years not counting yesterday's game. Bottom stats are Don Mattingly's first 9 years. Unfortunately for Donnie he wasn't born with speed and didn't play a "prime" position like CF or SS. Mattingly's back problems started around '87 I believe. 
    G       PA     AB     R      H    2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB   SO     BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB   GDP HBP SH SF IBB
    1143 5022 4138 856 1268 242 45 262 705 197 36 762 1060 .306 .419 .577 .996    176  2386   56    75   0   46  97

    1117 4851 4416 655 1401 288 15 169 759   9     7 342  258   .317 .363 .504 .867   138  2226   114   13   13 66  95
    So......Mike Trout is way better than Don Mattingly. Thank you for sharing this. The world has been waiting on this comparison.

    Do Graig Nettles next!
    Numbers are almost similar. So way better is not right. Also 88-90 Mattingly was playing with the bad back. Trout is 6' 2" 230lbs while Mattingly is 6' and maybe the most he weighed was 180-85 during his playing days

    Don’t do this. Youre above this. Don’t go after the best player in the game at the peak of his powers.

    This is like if a Monkees fan showed up to a party in 1972 and tried convincing everybody(themselves and others) they were better than Zeppelin. 
    That's not a fair comparison. While The Monkees were a decent band. Mattingly's first half is more like comparing The Rolling Stones to The Beatles or The Who. That's if I was comparing Alvaro Espinoza to Mike Trout. Not everything has to be an argument.
    It's like when they were comparing Odell Beckham's first 3 years to Randy Moss' and people in the comments all up in arms. "How can you compare Beckham to Randy?"

    Why can't people be "oh wow those are interesting stats."? Obviously barring any serious injuries or unforseen events. Trout is going to have a better 2nd half of his career. 

    Also Mattingly was drafted in 19th round compared to Trout's 1st round.
    Come on man, seriously. If you ask ANYONE to name a baseball player with the impact and presence The Beatles or The Rolling Stones had on music, no one is naming Don Mattingly. That’s a laughable comparison.
    Again. I'm comparing the first 9 years. Mostly the first 7 not the injury plagued last 7. And that part of his career is more closer to comparing The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. Than The Monkees and either of those 2. Speaking of the HOF. He stayed on the ballot for as long as you are allowed. So for someone who didn't have any impact. He was still good enough to continue to get votes.
    I miss igotid88
  • igotid88igotid88 Posts: 16,465
    igotid88 said:
    And I'm not comparing them to the 27' Yankees
    I miss igotid88
  • cutzcutz Posts: 8,091
    edited June 30
    Mets mistakenly list 2 living members of famous '69 team as being dead
    13h ago
    Rob Tringali / Major League Baseball / Getty
    FLUSHING NY - JUNE 29 The 1969 New York Mets are honored during the 50th Anniversary of the Mets winning the World Series before the game between the Atlanta Braves and the New York Mets at Citi Field on Saturday June 29 2019 in Flushing New York

    Nothing is going right for the New York Mets these days.

    After a rough week filled with losses and off-field controversies, the Mets returned home to Queens this weekend to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the 1969 "Miracle Mets" squad that improbably won the World Series. The team unveiled plans for a statue of beloved former ace Tom Seaver, and many members of the '69 team were honored at Citi Field on Saturday.

    Unfortunately, the Mets didn't get one rather critical detail of Saturday's ceremony right.

    Two members of that championship team, Jim Gosger and Jesse Hudson, were included in a montage remembering now-deceased members of the '69 Mets, even though both men are still very much alive.


    The Mets paid tribute to Jim Gosger and Jesse Hudson in their 1969 video. But both are alive.

    317 people are talking about this

    Neither Gosger, now 76, nor Hudson, 70, were in attendance on Saturday. Gosger was watching from home and immediately made it clear on his Facebook account that he's still breathing - while also taking a few shots at his former team.

    The team has since reached out to Gosger to apologize, and the Mets are trying to do the same with Hudson, according to Zach Braziller of the New York Post.

    Both Gosger and Hudson were minor players on that 1969 team, and neither appeared in the playoffs. Gosger, an outfielder and first baseman who spent 10 years in the majors, appeared in 10 games for the Mets after being acquired from the Seattle Pilots in July 1969. Hudson pitched two innings during a loss that September, his lone big-league appearance.

    The 1969 Mets remain one of baseball's most iconic and shocking champions, as the team produced the first winning record in the franchise's then eight-year history before beating the 109-win Orioles in five games to win the World Series.






    Post edited by cutz on
  • DewieCoxDewieCox Posts: 9,839
    igotid88 said:
    igotid88 said:
    And I'm not comparing them to the 27' Yankees



    But you did compare Don fucking Mattingly to Mike Trout.
  • igotid88igotid88 Posts: 16,465
    DewieCox said:
    igotid88 said:
    igotid88 said:
    And I'm not comparing them to the 27' Yankees



    But you did compare Don fucking Mattingly to Mike Trout.
    First 9 years. Jeez. The numbers are not that far apart. For a 19th rounder to do that. What don't you people get? 
    I miss igotid88
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 34,085
    edited July 1
    igotid88 said:
    DewieCox said:
    igotid88 said:
    igotid88 said:
    And I'm not comparing them to the 27' Yankees



    But you did compare Don fucking Mattingly to Mike Trout.
    First 9 years. Jeez. The numbers are not that far apart. For a 19th rounder to do that. What don't you people get? 
    You posted the numbers. The numbers do not reflect what you're saying. Donnie Baseball was a very good player. Mike Trout is an all-timer.  There is no comparison. 




    And, by the way: fuck the Maryland state flag. It's everywhere in that state, now on the Orioles jersey? Good god. There's no escaping that thing down there.
    Post edited by The Juggler on
    chinese-happy.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.