MLB 2025 Season
Comments
-
Monkees is closer. What’s the argument against Jim Edmonds in the Hall?F Me In The Brain said:Donnie n'est pas The Rolling Stones0 -
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.igotid88 said:
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.DewieCox said:igotid88 said:
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 daysThe Juggler said:
So......Mike Trout is way better than Don Mattingly. Thank you for sharing this. The world has been waiting on this comparison.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
Do Graig Nettles next!
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.
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.Star Lake 00 / Pittsburgh 03 / State College 03 / Bristow 03 / Cleveland 06 / Camden II 06 / DC 08 / Pittsburgh 13 / Baltimore 13 / Charlottesville 13 / Cincinnati 14 / St. Paul 14 / Hampton 16 / Wrigley I 16 / Wrigley II 16 / Baltimore 20 / Camden 22 / Baltimore 24 / Raleigh I 25 / Raleigh II 25 / Pittsburgh I 250 -
He is not a nice person. ?DewieCox said:
Monkees is closer. What’s the argument against Jim Edmonds in the Hall?F Me In The Brain said:Donnie n'est pas The Rolling Stones
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 saved0 -
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.HesCalledDyer said:
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.igotid88 said:
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.DewieCox said:igotid88 said:
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 daysThe Juggler said:
So......Mike Trout is way better than Don Mattingly. Thank you for sharing this. The world has been waiting on this comparison.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
Do Graig Nettles next!
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.
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.I miss igotid880 -
-
Mets mistakenly list 2 living members of famous '69 team as being dead13h agoRob Tringali / Major League Baseball / Getty
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 thisNeither 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 on0 -
The Mets lolStar Lake 00 / Pittsburgh 03 / State College 03 / Bristow 03 / Cleveland 06 / Camden II 06 / DC 08 / Pittsburgh 13 / Baltimore 13 / Charlottesville 13 / Cincinnati 14 / St. Paul 14 / Hampton 16 / Wrigley I 16 / Wrigley II 16 / Baltimore 20 / Camden 22 / Baltimore 24 / Raleigh I 25 / Raleigh II 25 / Pittsburgh I 250
-
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.igotid88 said:
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 onwww.myspace.com0 -
It's so hideous. I don't understand the obvious pride in that flag. And you're right, it's everfuckingwhere in MD.The Juggler said:
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.igotid88 said:
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.0 -
agree on the Maryland flag. it's crazy how that damn flag appears everywhere down there.The Juggler said:
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.igotid88 said:
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.
and Don Mattingley should be in the Hall of Fame...but he is no where near Mike Trout. Trout might be the best player in my lifetime.0 -
+1 on the ugly flag debate.The love he receives is the love that is saved0
-
Does Don Mattingly have numbers as good as some HoFers? Probably. Does he deserve to be in the Hall because other unworthy players were elected? No.pjhawks said:
agree on the Maryland flag. it's crazy how that damn flag appears everywhere down there.The Juggler said:
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.igotid88 said:
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.
and Don Mattingley should be in the Hall of Fame...but he is no where near Mike Trout. Trout might be the best player in my lifetime.
He’d be the Maryland flag of the HoF if he ever got the votes.Post edited by DewieCox on0 -
Mattingly at that time was the best player in baseball and his numbers were staggering.
It's not a far fetch to want to put the two stats side by side.
Take a look at Pujols and Trout stats side by side. Everyone seems to forget just how amazing Pujols was as do they forget about how great Mattingly was for the first 9 years of his carer.0 -
FYI I just sent out 14 Christian Yelich cards to be graded.
Wish me luck!0 -
Mattingly was never the best player in baseball. Not even the best at his position in his division or city.tempo_n_groove said:Mattingly at that time was the best player in baseball and his numbers were staggering.
It's not a far fetch to want to put the two stats side by side.
Take a look at Pujols and Trout stats side by side. Everyone seems to forget just how amazing Pujols was as do they forget about how great Mattingly was for the first 9 years of his carer.
Pujols had 400HR, a .330BA and 3 MVPs by year 9. His numbers since aren’t that far below Mattinglys best years.0 -
That was my point. People here are including the final 5 years of Mattingly's with what Trout will most likely accomplish in the next 5-10 years.tempo_n_groove said:Mattingly at that time was the best player in baseball and his numbers were staggering.
It's not a far fetch to want to put the two stats side by side.
Take a look at Pujols and Trout stats side by side. Everyone seems to forget just how amazing Pujols was as do they forget about how great Mattingly was for the first 9 years of his carer.I miss igotid880 -
You are kidding me right?DewieCox said:
Mattingly was never the best player in baseball. Not even the best at his position in his division or city.tempo_n_groove said:Mattingly at that time was the best player in baseball and his numbers were staggering.
It's not a far fetch to want to put the two stats side by side.
Take a look at Pujols and Trout stats side by side. Everyone seems to forget just how amazing Pujols was as do they forget about how great Mattingly was for the first 9 years of his carer.
Pujols had 400HR, a .330BA and 3 MVPs by year 9. His numbers since aren’t that far below Mattinglys best years.
Mattingly is the 2nd best Yankees 1st baseman of all-time only behind Gherig.
I don't think he should be in the HOF but Mattingly was the best player in baseball for a period of time. 84-87.0 -
We cannot compare Pujols and Donnie. Not fair. Pujols, like Trout, is an all time great, no doubter type of player.Donnie was a star and stud player for a number of years in a row...and won an MVP. Not shabby, at all!It seems like fans of Donnie are taking the evaluation personally.
This is one of the best parts of being a baseball fan - trying to compare players from different times.
The love he receives is the love that is saved0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help