24 MLB Season Thread

[infrared41]

9 hours ago, Cujo said:

Are the Snakes for real -- or the Rox  just really REALLY terrible?

 

 

It's one game of 162. Let's see where they both are after 20-25 games.

[SFGiants58]

1 hour ago, BBTV said:

But it would be nice to see if he can actually perform in games that matter, and in front of crowds that care.  I feel very strongly that he isn't even a HOFer now, because he's had literally zero impact on the sport and not shown that he can play when it matters.  Nothing in this history of MLB would have unfolded any differently had he never been born.  And it's not even about championships at all.

I fully agree with this - he is the ultimate “irrelevant superstar.” His loyalty to Moreno has condemned him to never experiencing a moment that truly mattered. Hell, he only played in one playoff series and underperformed in it.

 

He will make the hall of fame on stats alone, but his career will be akin to Chris Paul if he stayed on the Hornets – irrelevant.

[Sec19Row53]

7 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

I fully agree with this - he is the ultimate “irrelevant superstar.” His loyalty to Moreno has condemned him to never experiencing a moment that truly mattered. Hell, he only played in one playoff series and underperformed in it.

 

He will make the hall of fame on stats alone, but his career will be akin to Chris Paul if he stayed on the Hornets – irrelevant.

As opposed to his philanthropic endeavors??

[infrared41]

27 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

35 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

He will make the hall of fame on stats alone, but his career will be akin to Chris Paul if he stayed on the Hornets – irrelevant.

As opposed to his philanthropic endeavors??

 

He's also said to be a snappy dresser. 

 

 

[infrared41]

40 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

I fully agree with this - he is the ultimate “irrelevant superstar.” His loyalty to Moreno has condemned him to never experiencing a moment that truly mattered. Hell, he only played in one playoff series and underperformed in it.

 

He will make the hall of fame on stats alone, but his career will be akin to Chris Paul if he stayed on the Hornets – irrelevant.

 

Kinda like another irrelevant superstar who played his entire career with the Cubs and never experienced a "moment that truly mattered." His name was Ernie Banks. Maybe you've heard of him.

 

Players get inducted into the HOF for individual achievement. Last I checked, there isn't relevancy requirement.

[Sec19Row53]

31 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

Kinda like another irrelevant superstar who played his entire career with the Cubs and never experienced a "moment that truly mattered." His name was Ernie Banks. Maybe you've heard of him.

 

Players get inducted into the HOF for individual achievement. Last I checked, there isn't relevancy requirement.

I had Billy Williams in mind, but 'Let's Play Two' was a better answer.

[SFGiants58]

Banks played the vast majority of his career in the pre-playoff expansion era. Mike Trout has only played in the wild card, two wild card, and three wild card eras. It’s an entirely different consideration.

[Sec19Row53]

6 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Banks played the vast majority of his career in the pre-playoff expansion era. Mike Trout has only played in the wild card, two wild card, and three wild card eras. It’s an entirely different consideration.

Entirely different era, but still entirely based on stats.

[SFGiants58]

3 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Entirely different era, but still entirely based on stats.

And BBTV said his case for not letting Trout in better than I ever could. Why don’t you argue with him?

[Sec19Row53]

22 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

And BBTV said his case for not letting Trout in better than I ever could. Why don’t you argue with him?

Because sometimes it's easier to pick out a short, concise statement in a post that makes me think WTF. "He will make the hall of fame on stats alone". Yep. This history of the game need not be changed by someone in order to be considered a hall of Famer.

[FiddySicks]

12 hours ago, Cujo said:

Are the Snakes for real -- or the Rox  just really REALLY terrible?

 

Both. The NL West is murders row plus the sorry ass Rockies. 
 

 

As for Trout, he’s kind of the perfect symbolic representation for the league right now. He’s one of the biggest stars the game has ever seen, but he’s buried under a mountain of mediocrity. 
 

 

Like, we always give Lebron a ton of :censored: for the Miami move, but it was solving a similar issue. It was taking the face of the league and making sure he got the exposure that came along with that. It was a recognition by everyone that hey, we have a once in a lifetime guy here, and we have to do all we can to not waste that. Baseball never got that message. 
 

 

It’s one of the biggest reasons why I hate that MLB teams have nearly a decade of control over these guys (and can manipulate service time to make it even longer). It’s probably good some for development, but the downside is that’s how you get these Mike Trout like situations. 

[SFGiants58]

There’s also Mike Trout’s utter lack of a personality. I’m not asking for him to be deranged like Albert Belle, but a show of some emotion or overt wackiness would be an improvement.

[infrared41]

5 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

There’s also Mike Trout’s utter lack of a personality. I’m not asking for him to be deranged like Albert Belle, but a show of some emotion or overt wackiness would be an improvement.

 

And that makes him a better player how, exactly?

[infrared41]

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

Banks played the vast majority of his career in the pre-playoff expansion era. Mike Trout has only played in the wild card, two wild card, and three wild card eras. It’s an entirely different consideration.

 

So are we rewarding Banks for being born too soon or are we punishing Trout for being born too late? Unless there's a rule change I don't know about, a home run hit in 1962 counts the same as a home run hit today. Pretty sure that applies to all the other stats too.

[SFGiants58]

6 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

And that makes him a better player how, exactly?

It makes him a more engaging player who fits the “fame” and “journalists like him” parts of being in the hall. It also makes him much more marketable, something MLB has lacked for almost 20 years.

[infrared41]

5 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

There's only around 3 teams that can afford his salary unless the Angles eat half of it, and I think we know where he wants to play.  The problem is his health, and he'd have to play the field because said team already has a DH that can't play the field.

 

But it would be nice to see if he can actually perform in games that matter, and in front of crowds that care.  I feel very strongly that he isn't even a HOFer now, because he's had literally zero impact on the sport and not shown that he can play when it matters.  Nothing in this history of MLB would have unfolded any differently had he never been born.  And it's not even about championships at all.

 

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

And BBTV said his case for not letting Trout in better than I ever could. Why don’t you argue with him?

 

I added Vet to this post so you don't feel like you're being picked on. Now that we have have out of the way...

 

You're both wrong. Mike Trout's relevance and his impact on the game have nothing to do with his ability as a ball player. His lack of  "games that matter" can hardly be blamed on him. It takes a team to get to the playoffs. It's not his fault he plays for a organization.  His numbers are his numbers. They are what they are.  We can't cheer players on for taking all the money they can get and then hold it against them when the team they took the money from turns out to be terrible.

[FrutigerAero]

Snakes are good.  Not Dodger good, but they weren't a fluke last year (lucky, yes, but that's not the same thing).  They're a young team with some legit stars, and they got better this off season.  Their team was perfectly built last year for the new rules (they're very speedy) and MadBum being awful made their record look worse than it actually was IMO.   NL West has four legit playoff contenders right now.  Should be a fun division to watch.

[infrared41]

8 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

It makes him a more engaging player who fits the “fame” and “journalists like him” parts of being in the hall. It also makes him much more marketable, something MLB has lacked for almost 20 years.

 

Do journalists not like Mike Trout? When did marketability become part of the criteria for the HOF? I've seen plenty of videos of Mike Trout going out of his way to sign autographs for kids and fans. How much more engaging does he need to be?  Now we're blaming MLB's lousy marketing on Mike Trout's personality? C'mon, dude, I've seen you make way better arguments than this one.

[GDAWG]

5 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

There's only around 3 teams that can afford his salary unless the Angles eat half of it, and I think we know where he wants to play.  The problem is his health, and he'd have to play the field because said team already has a DH that can't play the field.

 

But it would be nice to see if he can actually perform in games that matter, and in front of crowds that care.  I feel very strongly that he isn't even a HOFer now, because he's had literally zero impact on the sport and not shown that he can play when it matters.  Nothing in this history of MLB would have unfolded any differently had he never been born.  And it's not even about championships at all.

 Trout to go along with Bryce Harper, Kyle Schwarber, Nick Castellanos, Trea Turner and JT Realmuto would be fun to watch.    

[Cujo]

Or how about this?... Mayyybe Mike Trout is just comfortable with life in Southern California and it's not about ring chasing at this time. Also knowing once he demands a trade, he's going leave a situation he actually enjoys and perhaps bounce from city to city going after a title he might not ever get. I mean, I've turned down jobs for that offer more money/benefits because I was in a good situation, so I can understand if that's Trout's thinking.