MLB 2025 World Series

1…763764766768769…1241

Comments

  • Wobbie
    Wobbie Posts: 31,607
    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
    Denver 22
    Missoula 24
  • xavier mcdaniel
    xavier mcdaniel Somewhere in NYC Posts: 9,464
    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/
    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
    Fenway 2, 2018
    MSG 2022
    St. Paul, 1, St. Paul 2 2023
    MSG 2024, MSG 2024
    Philadelphia 2024
    "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."
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    edited June 2019
    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
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,821
    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
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,821
    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
    mfc2006 HTOWN Posts: 37,491
    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!
    I LOVE MUSIC.
    www.cluthelee.com
    www.cluthe.com
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,821
    edited June 2019
    Dbl post
  • HesCalledDyer
    HesCalledDyer Maryland Posts: 16,500
    edited June 2019
    Tylers Flowers couldn't sleep because Willson Contreras was in his head all night.  Oh, and fuck Frenchy, too!
    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 25
  • igotid88
    igotid88 Posts: 28,764
    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 Juggler
    The Juggler Posts: 49,599
    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!
    www.myspace.com
  • igotid88
    igotid88 Posts: 28,764
    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
    I miss igotid88
  • The Juggler
    The Juggler Posts: 49,599
    edited June 2019
    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! 
    Post edited by The Juggler on
    www.myspace.com
  • F Me In The Brain
    F Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,960
    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
  • igotid88
    igotid88 Posts: 28,764
    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?


    I miss igotid88
  • DewieCox
    DewieCox Posts: 11,432
    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
    igotid88 Posts: 28,764
    edited June 2019
    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.
    Post edited by igotid88 on
    I miss igotid88
  • igotid88
    igotid88 Posts: 28,764

    I miss igotid88
  • The Juggler
    The Juggler Posts: 49,599
    edited June 2019
    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. 
    Post edited by The Juggler on
    www.myspace.com
  • The Juggler
    The Juggler Posts: 49,599
    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! 
    www.myspace.com
  • F Me In The Brain
    F Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,960
    Donnie n'est pas The Rolling Stones

    The love he receives is the love that is saved

Categories