DCarp1231 Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 5 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said: Here's the difference - I don't get abstract "bad vibes" from Yount or any other legendary guys stuck on bad teams like I do with Trout. Mike Trout, for reasons I can't fully articulate, gives me very bad vibes. Like, everything people said about how much they hated Tom Brady applies to Mike Trout for me, even though Mike Trout has nowhere near as much to show for his career. Mike Trout is one of the best ever, but can it really be said that he changed the game or shaped its history in any meaningful way since 2011? Other than increasing demands for Arte Moreno to sell the team? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cujo Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 In baseball, it's ok to be greatest of your generation without having to be a b1tch by forcing trades and ring chasing. Spoiler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont care Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 1 hour ago, infrared41 said: And he chose the Angels. I don't have an issue with that. He chose perpetual mediocrity, and not even the biggest payday either. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFGiants58 Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Cujo said: In baseball, it's ok to be greatest of your generation without having to be a b1tch by forcing trades and ring chasing. Hide contents Junior Wasn't his trade from Seattle to Cincinnati somewhat messy? Just now, dont care said: He chose perpetual mediocrity, and not even the biggest payday either. Some people don't like to be the center of attention and being on Greater Los Angeles' lesser team is certainly away from the spotlight. Arte may have changed the team name to Los Angeles, but it doesn't seem like their reach expands beyond the Orange Curtain. Edited March 30 by SFGiants58 Quote MLB: Project 32 (Complete), MLB: The Defunct Saga (Complete) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infrared41 Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 5 hours ago, SFGiants58 said: Mike Trout just irrationally rubs me the wrong way and I’m mostly just trying to rationalize it (however flimsily). He always has and always will. I respect your honesty. 16 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said: Mike Trout is one of the best ever, but can it really be said that he changed the game or shaped its history in any meaningful way since 2011? We can say that about A LOT of HOF players. Did Craig Biggio change the game or shape its history? How about Larry Walker? Jack Morris? Harold Baines? Todd Helton? Fred McGriff? Alan Trammel? (FWIW, I wouldn't have inducted any of the players I just mentioned.) I mean, we could do this all day. Off the top of my head, I'd have a harder time coming up with 20 HOF players who did do those things. I'm sure there are plenty, but they don't come to mind as easily as the players who didn't. All that aside, I'm fine with anyone who has almost ridiculouslyhigh standards for the Baseball HOF . It's nice knowing I'm not the only one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFGiants58 Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 Just now, infrared41 said: All that aside, I'm fine with anyone who has almost ridiculouslyhigh standards for the Baseball HOF . It's nice knowing I'm not the only one. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I believe Albert Belle and Kenny Lofton should be in the Hall of Fame. Quote MLB: Project 32 (Complete), MLB: The Defunct Saga (Complete) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infrared41 Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 4 hours ago, dont care said: He had a choice before signing his extension. He has a choice now by demanding a trade. Players have more say now of where they play than they ever had. 7 minutes ago, dont care said: He chose perpetual mediocrity, and not even the biggest payday either. Using your own logic, that was his choice, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCarp1231 Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 Trout just doesn’t move the needle for me. Even if he did wind up on a more high profile team like the Dodgers, Yankees, or Red Sox, what’s the difference? There’s no doubt he’s a great player, but what does he even do that legitimately garners attention? To me, he’s just a guy on a team. Unpopular opinion, but he’s a slightly better Chris Davis. 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infrared41 Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 3 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said: I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I believe Albert Belle and Kenny Lofton should be in the Hall of Fame. If we're going by today's standards, I agree. If we're going by my standards, the number of HOFers would drop from the current 346 to about 200 and that's being generous. Belle and Lofton, two of my all-time favorite Clevelands, have no business being in the HOF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infrared41 Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 3 minutes ago, DCarp1231 said: Trout just doesn’t move the needle for me. Even if he did wind up on a more high profile team like the Dodgers, Yankees, or Red Sox, what’s the difference? There’s no doubt he’s a great player, but what does he even do that legitimately garners attention? To me, he’s just a guy on a team. When did "garnering attention" become a requirement for being a Major League Baseball player? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cujo Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 20 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said: Wasn't his trade from Seattle to Cincinnati somewhat messy? Griffey wanted to play in his hometown. Had nothing to do with getting a ring. Seattle still had A-Rod and won 120+ games the following season Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 47 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said: Mike Trout is one of the best ever, but can it really be said that he changed the game or shaped its history in any meaningful way since 2011? Speaking of him, LeBron didn't really do those things, either. Jordan changed basketball forever. Curry changed basketball forever. LeBron was just really good. 2 1 Quote ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFGiants58 Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 2 minutes ago, The_Admiral said: Speaking of him, LeBron didn't really do those things, either. Jordan changed basketball forever. Curry changed basketball forever. LeBron was just really good. He made a bunch of elder millennials angry and the whole Miami-Cleveland Mk II era created a whole host of storylines and drama. You’ve got Dirk’s ring, bringing a title to Cleveland, being the last hoorah of Popovich’s Spurs, forming a worthy rival to the Warriors, and snuffing out the Pacers’ relevancy. That’s shaping the game and being in the center of attention. DG may have more to say on this. At most, Mike Trout got rolled over by the 2014 Royals and was on one of several doormats for the Astros’ divisional dominance (through cheating). He doesn’t really attract legendary drama, but it’s just not who he is or the sport he plays. Maybe that’s good, maybe that’s bad. Quote MLB: Project 32 (Complete), MLB: The Defunct Saga (Complete) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 1 minute ago, SFGiants58 said: He made a bunch of elder millennials angry and the whole Miami-Cleveland Mk II era created a whole host of storylines and drama. You’ve got Dirk’s ring, bringing a title to Cleveland, being the last hoorah of Popovich’s Spurs, forming a worthy rival to the Warriors, and snuffing out the Pacers’ relevancy. That’s shaping the game and being in the center of attention. DG may have more to say on this. lol he's on the ass end of half of these. 1 Quote ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFGiants58 Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 Just now, The_Admiral said: lol he's on the ass end of half of these. Hey, that’s only two out of three. But still, even making it to the title and losing it is still shaping the story. Becoming the designated Eastern Conference representative from 2011-2018 is shaping the story and changing the fates of numerous franchises. Quote MLB: Project 32 (Complete), MLB: The Defunct Saga (Complete) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiddySicks Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 20 hours ago, SFGiants58 said: Mike Trout just irrationally rubs me the wrong way and I’m mostly just trying to rationalize it (however flimsily). He always has and always will. The only other guy who did this in baseball was Paul Goldschmidt and he eventually gave me a very good reason to despise him. Yeah I agree with you on the first point. That’s how I feel about Patrick Mahomes. I keep telling myself to not have the same kind of dislike for him that I had for Brady, and just enjoy his talent. But damn is it hard. I just flat out don’t like the dude and there isn’t a great reason why. I just do. Ooh, couldn’t disagree with you more about Goldy. I felt kind of off put by the guy, because he was a D Back and always killed the Giants. But then I got D Backs season tickets in 2013 and he was legit the ONLY bright light on that sorry ass team. God, he was just SO good, and getting to see him play up close for close to 90+ games turned him into one of my top 5 favorite players ever. 1 Quote On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said: She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 Here's a summary of my thoughts on Trout, that nobody should really care about. 1. I don't blame anyone for a) taking a huge contract when it's offered, no matter what other goals they're sacrificing b) wanting to play in LA(ish), in a place with perfect weather and where there's no microscope or pressure. It's an easy life, and one that anyone would love. c) not demanding a trade, for whatever reason - even if it's out of loyalty to the people that gave him that money in the first place. I have no problem with Trout or how he's carried himself or any choice he's made. 2. The HOF should have higher standards than it does. It should be above simply the "best players". Otherwise it should be called "the Hall of Best Players". It should be for the players who more/less you "can't tell the story of the game" without. That sounds a little dramatic, I just can't think of a better way of putting it. As much of a scumbag as he is, Curt Schilling is a lock HOFer in my book. He was a star in one of the most significant WSs in the past 50 years, and not only starred in Arizona, but did it in Boston. And sorry - but performing on that stage in that city simply matters more. Same with NY and other places. That's NOT NOT NOT to say that to be a HOFer you have to have played in those areas. Absolutely not. But it certainly gets you bonus points. Mike Trout has meant zero to the history of the game. I'd love for someone to tell me how the "story of the game" would be any better had he never played. He hasn't contributed to a championship team or even played in meaningful games on a big stage, and hasn't racked up his stats in games that matter, or on a team that matters. One or the other might change things. If the Angles are playing meaningful october games and simply come up short, but he's great, then that's good enough. Or if he's piling up his stats while playing for the Yankees, even if they're not winning, that matters too because it shows he can play through pressure, and the inarguable fact is that playing for some teams gets you more exposure and "fame" than playing on other teams. Mike Trout will absolutely make the HOF based on his numbers alone, and the voting patterns of the writers. It's a shame that we will likely never see what Mike Trout could have been, and I don't blame him one bit for his choices, but those choices have rendered him irrelevant (so far.) 4 1 Quote "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Cesarano Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 13 minutes ago, BBTV said: Mike Trout has meant zero to the history of the game. . . . He hasn't contributed to a championship team . . . Bad take. See: Ernie Banks. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 2 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said: Bad take. See: Ernie Banks. That's the literal definition of taking something out of context. You cut off the rest of the sentence, and everything else, where I clearly stated that winning a championship isn't necessary to be a HOFer. 3 Quote "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Cesarano Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 4 minutes ago, BBTV said: That's the literal definition of taking something out of context. You cut off the rest of the sentence, and everything else, where I clearly stated that winning a championship isn't necessary to be a HOFer. You called Trout irrelevant. No one with 500 home runs and well in excess of 2000 hits (both of which he will almost certainly reach) is irrelevant. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.