MLB 2025 Season

Wobbie

st. louis fans are a bunch of dopes.

at least poo-holes probably realizes he made a major, money grab mistake.

xavier mcdaniel

as if the Mets don't have enough problems: https://nypost.com/2019/06/23/jason-vargas-threatens-reporter-in-angry-mets-clubhouse-knock-you-the-f-out/

ledvedderman

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. 

tempo_n_groove

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_groove

ledvedderman said:

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!

mfc2006

tempo_n_groove said:

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!

tempo_n_groove

Dbl post

HesCalledDyer

https://twitter.com/m_i_c_ah/status/1143517938147876865?s=09

Tylers Flowers couldn't sleep because Willson Contreras was in his head all night.  Oh, and fuck Frenchy, too!

igotid88

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

The Juggler

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!

igotid88

The Juggler 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

The Juggler

igotid88 said:

The Juggler 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! 

F Me In The Brain

Yeah...sorry, u like Donnie Baseball but he and Mike Trout occupy different ZIP Codes.

igotid88

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

The Juggler 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?

DewieCox

igotid88 said:

The Juggler 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. 

igotid88

DewieCox said:

igotid88 said:

The Juggler 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.

igotid88

https://twitter.com/MLBStats/status/1145123053887721474?s=19

The Juggler

igotid88 said:

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

The Juggler 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. 

The Juggler

igotid88 said:

DewieCox said:

igotid88 said:

The Juggler 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! 

F Me In The Brain

Donnie n'est pas The Rolling Stones