2019 MLB Season

[Quillz]

2 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

It's also bad for the sport when your best player is as boring as Mike Trout. He needs something to spice up his career.

I don't understand this. What should he do, start running his mouth and start creating drama and fights with other players? Sometimes it's nice to have a really good player who just seems to enjoy playing their sport and otherwise staying out of the limelight.

[The_Admiral]

He should do the Fortnite dance and the Randy Orton pose every time he gets on base! Structured Fun!

[SFGiants58]

8 minutes ago, Quillz said:

I don't understand this. What should he do, start running his mouth and start creating drama and fights with other players?

 

Yes, he should. A Barry Bonds or Lebron-level ego and similar charisma would make him far more marketable. Create controversy and drama, drawing the eyes towards you. Sabremetrics shows he’s the modern Mickey Mantle, therefore, it would be beneficial if he acted that way (minus the crippling addictions).

 

Quote

Sometimes it's nice to have a really good player who just seems to enjoy playing their sport and otherwise staying out of the limelight.

 

That’s true, but it’s also boring to the casual viewer. Show a little flair every once in a while (be it a routine with other players or sounding off against an opponent/teammate).

 

Tim Duncan was one of my favorite NBA players, but I’m glad that there were other stars on a similar (and better) level who could trash talk and carry themselves with a bit of an ego. Baseball needs that again.

[Quillz]

29 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Yes, he should. A Barry Bonds or Lebron-level ego and similar charisma would make him far more marketable. Create controversy and drama, drawing the eyes towards you. Sabremetrics shows he’s the modern Mickey Mantle, therefore, it would be beneficial if he acted that way (minus the crippling addictions).

I think a lot of Trout's actions (such as foregoing free agency) has shown he doesn't seem to be interested in this, though. He seems like a guy who just wants to play baseball and then go to his home in Laguna Beach (or was it Newport Beach?) And who knows how drama would affect his game? Some players can work through it, others can't. Some have suggested Kawhi choosing the Clippers over the Lakers is because there is naturally less drama and spotlight over the "other" team of LA, and the Angels fulfill that role with baseball.

 

31 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

That’s true, but it’s also boring to the casual viewer.

Fair enough, although I've been quite entertained by baseball in general these past few years. The playoffs have had some great games, weird plays, and there are plenty of other drama-generating players.

 

32 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Tim Duncan was one of my favorite NBA players, but I’m glad that there were other stars on a similar (and better) level who could trash talk and carry themselves with a bit of an ego. Baseball needs that again.

See, this is simply where you and I disagree. One of the reasons I liked Duncan so much was specifically because he was a great player who also largely kept to himself when off the court. I knew he'd be a good, reliable player that didn't try to seek out drama and be all about his ego. I think just like there are players that are interesting because of their hotheadedness, I think there's always a place for the players that are the exact opposite.

 

There used to be a lot of rumors about Mr. Rogers. That he was a Navy SEAL sniper. That he had served time for child molestation. That he had tattoos and some other dark past. I think it says a lot about society, that we have a hard time accepting that there are people out there who are just genuinely nice people with no drama or skeletons in their closet and are good at what they do and don't try to manufacture drama about themselves. A player like Trout kind of strikes me as someone like that: he just wants to play baseball and is probably well aware he'd be on a title contender by now if he requested a trade, but he seems to have other priorities.

[SFGiants58]

2 minutes ago, Quillz said:

I think a lot of Trout's actions (such as foregoing free agency) has shown he doesn't seem to be interested in this, though. He seems like a guy who just wants to play baseball and then go to his home in Laguna Beach (or was it Newport Beach?) And who knows how drama would affect his game? Some players can work through it, others can't. Some have suggested Kawhi choosing the Clippers over the Lakers is because there is naturally less drama and spotlight over the "other" team of LA, and the Angels fulfill that role with baseball.

 

That is definitely the case. Going somewhere where there’s less potential for drama or scrutiny is an entirely respectful position. 

 

2 minutes ago, Quillz said:

Fair enough, although I've been quite entertained by baseball in general these past few years. The playoffs have had some great games, weird plays, and there are plenty of other drama-generating players.

 

I agree with a lot of this. The past few years have been exceptionally exciting in the playoffs and for the regular season. However, I lament that guys like Harper, Machado, Betts, and Puig are not able to consistently compete stats-wise with Trout. To bring back my Tim Duncan comparison, you had guys like Kobe, Shaq, Garnett, and Lebron who could compete with him stats-wise and has more personality.

 

2 minutes ago, Quillz said:

See, this is simply where you and I disagree. One of the reasons I liked Duncan so much was specifically because he was a great player who also largely kept to himself when off the court. I knew he'd be a good, reliable player that didn't try to seek out drama and be all about his ego. I think just like there are players that are interesting because of their hotheadedness, I think there's always a place for the players that are the exact opposite.

 

While that’s true and I’m glad these types of players exist, the best player in the game should be much more charismatic than Trout is.

 

2 minutes ago, Quillz said:

There used to be a lot of rumors about Mr. Rogers. That he was a Navy SEAL sniper. That he had served time for child molestation. That he had tattoos and some other dark past. I think it says a lot about society, that we have a hard time accepting that there are people out there who are just genuinely nice people with no drama or skeletons in their closet and are good at what they do and don't try to manufacture drama about themselves.

 

I would say that we think we think like that because we’ve had our preconceived notions of seemingly “good” people busted up throughout the ages. We naturally want to question it because we’ve been burned so many times by our trust.

 

2 minutes ago, Quillz said:

 

A player like Trout kind of strikes me as someone like that: he just wants to play baseball and is probably well aware he'd be on a title contender by now if he requested a trade, but he seems to have other priorities.

 

While that’s good for him and fans who don’t want drama, it’s not that good for marketability. A bit more of a personality would go a long way in “selling” him to the public, as it did with guys like Bonds or Jeter.

[Still MIGHTY]

Mike Trout would be more marketable if the rest of the Angels weren’t trash. (Well, except Shohei Ohtani. He’s also a huge treat. Also not marketable in the US because 1) doesn’t speak English, 2) rest of the Angels are still trash.)

 

If the Angels were winning divisions or making playoff runs or just simply

making the playoffs or even being effing competitive come September, it’d be an easy sell.

 

“Best player in the game. Potentially best player of all time. In October. Come watch history be made.” 

 

For the record, I think Mike Trout is actually a pretty interesting dude. But nobody knows that because the Angels are bad and aren’t put in the spotlight and even the better baseball fans don’t follow anything outside of their own team’s fortunes during the regular 162.

 

I love watching Mike Trout play. It is an absolute joy, but even he alone isn’t enough to get me out to the ballpark most times because I really don’t want to sit through the rest of the slog the Angels throw out there. No one else is reliable enough outside of Ohtani, and he’s DHing for the season.

 

Fix the Angels, and you fix the Mike Trout “problem.”

 

——

 

Does Bryce Harper’s personality and attitude make him an easier sell than Mike Trout?

 

——

 

I guarantee we start seeing more Kawhi Leonard commercials this season upcoming season. Do you think that’s because he’s had some explosion of personality? Or because he just led Canada to its first NBA title and an upset of the Warriors? Yeah, we learned about the “board man gets paid” thing... in the Finals. We’ve seen some signs of personality... in championship celebrations.

 

Again, get the Angels winning, and you get a more marketable Mike Trout. I really think it’s that simple.

[Quillz]

1 hour ago, Still MIGHTY said:

Again, get the Angels winning, and you get a more marketable Mike Trout. I really think it’s that simple.

Yeah, I think this pretty perfectly sums up my thoughts. I would hate to see Trout start making drama for the sake of making drama. We already have plenty of "villains" in Harper and Machado. But give Trout a good team and the rest will take care of itself. You'll see his jersey being worn everywhere, because suddenly the Angels will have all kinds of fans. (Just like when the Clippers suddenly became "more popular" than the Lakers a few years back. I wonder why.)

[Quillz]

1 hour ago, Still MIGHTY said:

Does Bryce Harper’s personality and attitude make him an easier sell than Mike Trout?

I don't know if this was rhetorical, but yes, for the reasons SFGiant mentioned. Harper seems to be one of those guys you like or hate, so he naturally will sell a lot of jerseys and tickets on the name alone. He's one of those "love to hate" people, I suppose.

 

With the Dodgers, Puig kind of fit that role. A good player but it was an open secret he was cancerous to the clubhouse. There was either "he's great, leave him be" or "trade his ass!" and nothing in between. Ultimately the Dodgers traded him, but he certainly was an interesting player.

[BBTV]

It’s pretty easy for a talented player to be awesome on a bad team when there’s no expectations of pressure. I have no doubts that Trout would be great no matter where he was, but until he does it under intense pressure, the numbers will be a little hollow. There are some guys that prefer the small or indifferent market that allows them to play outside the limelight and not be bothered.

 

Fitzgerald is a decent comparison. They had that freak good season, but I’m not sure he played under anywhere near the amount of scrutiny he would face in a “football town” or a major market where a dropped pass could cost a team a playoff game or SB berth. 

 

Bobby Abreu comes to mind as well. Guy put up outstanding numbers for 100-loss Phillies teams, but the one half season that they were contending and drawing, he wilted under the pressure (and it wasn’t even that much pressure). Not sure if he accomplished anything in NY after they finally dropped him. 

 

 

[The_Admiral]

I think flourishing under low pressure is a bigger deal in hockey than it is in baseball. I don't think you can go under the radar the same way in baseball, and certainly not in L.A. 

[Sport]

All numbers tabulated by anyone playing outside of Philadelphia are hollow. You're not a real athlete until you've had to deal with a bunch of dumb jabronis yelling "I'm not paying you 28 million to go 3 for 4!". That's pressure. Carrying a team single-handedly, knowing that if you don't reach base 3 times you're probably going to lose, getting the pitcher's best stuff every time at the plate, not pressure. 

 

 

The only issue I have with Mike Trout playing for the Angels is they're a west coast team and the older I get the fewer and fewer west coast games I stay up to watch. I try to keep an eye on the Mariners when they're out east or playing a day game, but they suck and they're not anything resembling interesting. The California teams, Dbacks, and Rockies basically don't exist to me. But better Trout plays for one of them than the following teams: Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Cubs, Mets, Cardinals. Ya know, the ahole collective. 

 

 

 

On 7/2/2019 at 8:17 PM, Quillz said:

 

Granted, yes, I think getting rid of Puig was good for clubhouse morale. And last year they weren't really all that healthy. Sigh... I just want to see them win one title before I die. (I was only seven months old in October '88, that hardly counts).

 

I have no doubt that the Los Angeles Dodgers will eventually figure out a way to win a World Series and it'll probably be sooner rather than later. It's LA. It's kind of weird that they haven't won one since 88. It's not like you're a Cincinnati Reds fan too young to remember the 70's or even 1990. 

 

 

 

 

[The_Admiral]

2 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

ahole collective

 

So you weren't that impressed with Merriweather Post Pavilion either, huh

[Brian in Boston]

13 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

While that’s good for him and fans who don’t want drama, it’s not that good for marketability. A bit more of a personality would go a long way in “selling” him to the public, as it did with guys like Bonds or Jeter.

The bottom line is that Mike Trout clearly wants what is "good for him" and, by extension, what he believes to be good for his family. That seems to revolve around pursuing an odds-on Hall-of-Fame-caliber career in a sport that he loves, doing so while publicly carrying himself in a dignified manner, and keeping much of his private life under wraps.  As is evidenced by his 12-year, $426,500,000 contract, what you perceive as his lack of "charisma", "flair", and "personality" aren't having much of a negative impact on his "marketability".

At the end of the day, Trout has seemingly followed a course of being true to a set of values he holds dear... and it appears to have paid off handsomely for him.    

[SFGiants58]

I would define “marketability” as people knowing who he is despite not being into the sport, people buying merchandise with his name on it, and bringing in ticket sales/ratings/subscriptions. It’s not about how big his contract is.

 

I guess that turns into the issue that @Still MIGHTY brought up, in that a better Angels team would mean we’re not having this discussion. I just think it’s bad for the sport when the best overall (undisputed) player is a boring guy, as well as when the best player cannot get to the playoffs because his team has constant problems.

 

I’m sure if he even voiced some discontent slightly, things might be better for him. Of course, he could always wind up folding in the playoffs (as he did during his one trip there).

[BBTV]

I don’t blame Trout in any way for taking what they gave him and being comfortable staying out of the limelight.

 

As for the Angels, they’d lose any credibility they had with their fan base if they let a HOFer walk, and I know for a fact he’s said he was going to find a way to play in Philadelphia - which was made even more an eventuality once Harper signed. I don’t think it’s coincidence that they did this deal shortly after. He’d be a damn fool to turn down that deal even if it was for a team that played their games on the Sun or moon. 

 

As for marketability, I’m not sure if you can correlate his contract to “marketability”, at least not without more context. I’m sure there’s ways of measuring how much a single player contributes to club and league revenues, and maybe he really is worth that much, but I would suspect that the intangibles and PR played a big role in it. 

 

Who really is “marketable” in baseball anymore? 20 years ago, if you showed me - an average fan - photos of the top 10 players without their uniforms or caps - I’d probably know most of them. Guys like Griffey, Bonds, Thomas, Thome, Jeter, ARod etc. But now? Again, I’m an “average” to “below average” fan, but I wouldn’t know most players if I was sitting next to them on the subway and they were even in their caps. Hell - I’d barely know half the Phillies, and I see them every day. Maybe Harper is ‘marketable’, but he’s sucking right now so that takes away from that a lot. 

[Digby]

Anecdote on marketability: because of that shampoo commercial I thought CJ Wilson was Mike Trout for literal years.

[Marlins93]

I'm not someone who watches the HR derby religiously but this is so horribly produced. Something's up with the audio levels. Too much background noise between the music and stadium public address announcer.  It's like the commentators and interviewees are competing with it.

 

The whole thing is also a visual nightmare with the split screen video, scrolling score bugs, and extraneous windows. Everything is so cumbersome and noisy that it's giving me a headache.

 

ESPN way overproduced this thing. Turning it off.

[kroywen]

46 minutes ago, Marlins93 said:

I'm not someone who watches the HR derby religiously but this is so horribly produced. Something's up with the audio levels. Too much background noise between the music and stadium public address announcer.  It's like the commentators and interviewees are competing with it.

 

The whole thing is also a visual nightmare with the split screen video, scrolling score bugs, and extraneous windows. Everything is so cumbersome and noisy that it's giving me a headache.

 

ESPN way overproduced this thing. Turning it off.

 

I usually find the HR Derby to be fun, but I'm barely paying attention to it this year. The production on it is just terrible. Way too much visual and audio clutter. And is it me, or do the announcers sound completely unexcited?

 

One other problem - I don't like all these interviews during the action. Takes the attention off the action. This event needs an announcer hyping it up, not blandly interviewing someone else while homers are being hit in the background.

[Marlins93]

4 minutes ago, kroywen said:

 

I usually find the HR Derby to be fun, but I'm barely paying attention to it this year. The production on it is just terrible. Way too much visual and audio clutter. And is it me, or do the announcers sound completely unexcited?

 

One other problem - I don't like all these interviews during the action. Takes the attention off the action. This event needs an announcer hyping it up, not blandly interviewing someone else while homers are being hit in the background.

"Clutter" is a very appropriate word here. The entire telecast is pure clutter. It never used to be that way 15-20 years ago. It definitely feels like the main event is pushed to the background while all of these boring, vapid interviews drone on.

 

I'm guessing that ratings are a shadow of what they used to be because so many of the stars bow out. But I'm not changing the channel because Yelich, Judge, and Trout are no-shows, but rather because ESPN's production is an audio-visual nightmare.

[Kramerica Industries]

ESPN has been mailing it in with their production quality towards MLB broadcasts for some time now. The production, commentary, audio; everything is utter piss these days.