BREAK UP THE F-ING NATIONALS

All that is true, but at least Trout is not a Mormon. Plus, he's better looking.

imbecile wrote:
Granted, Trout is ripping it up for a 20 year old and comparing them today they're pretty much dead even.  Trout does have the edge by a good amount in AVG .345 vs. .307 and has more stolen bases (15 vs. 4).  Everything else is for the most part the same thus far this season.

That being said, Harper just played his 40th game in the majors and comparing his first 40 games in the majors to Trouts debut season in the majors (last year, and coincidentally 40 games while he was 19), there's no comparison.

Trout went .220/.281/.390 over his first 40
Harper went .307/.390/.553 over his first 40

That's a clown statement, bro.

James wrote:
All that is true, but at least Trout is not a Mormon. Plus, he's better looking.

imbecile wrote:
Granted, Trout is ripping it up for a 20 year old and comparing them today they're pretty much dead even.  Trout does have the edge by a good amount in AVG .345 vs. .307 and has more stolen bases (15 vs. 4).  Everything else is for the most part the same thus far this season.

That being said, Harper just played his 40th game in the majors and comparing his first 40 games in the majors to Trouts debut season in the majors (last year, and coincidentally 40 games while he was 19), there's no comparison.

Trout went .220/.281/.390 over his first 40
Harper went .307/.390/.553 over his first 40

Tyler Moore is fucking abusing the Blue Jays right now

James wrote:
All that is true, but at least Trout is not a Mormon. Plus, he's better looking.

imbecile wrote:
Granted, Trout is ripping it up for a 20 year old and comparing them today they're pretty much dead even.  Trout does have the edge by a good amount in AVG .345 vs. .307 and has more stolen bases (15 vs. 4).  Everything else is for the most part the same thus far this season.

That being said, Harper just played his 40th game in the majors and comparing his first 40 games in the majors to Trouts debut season in the majors (last year, and coincidentally 40 games while he was 19), there's no comparison.

Trout went .220/.281/.390 over his first 40
Harper went .307/.390/.553 over his first 40

Ha, if I were a stud baseball player at 19, I'd be down with polygamy as well, can't say I blame him.

As far as the looking better.. Smackie said the same thing.  What pictures are you guys finding to make this claim?  Granted, Bryce has a douchey 19-year old beard in a lot of photos, but Trout looks like a pastey doughboy in every photo that just popped up when I googled him.  It's a wash at best.


I don't follow much national media, but is Trout vs. Harper a big debate outside of this message board?  I really hope not as I'm assuming that will quickly lead into the ever-so-tired east coast bias rantings that everyone (i would hope) is tired of.

Another nice thing about being on the West Coast…. #perfectgames

vansmack wrote:
Another nice thing about being on the West Coast…. #perfectgames

So when nobody hits the fucking ball, that's considered exciting and entertaining?

???

You're going to just wet your trollys watching a 5 day testcricket match…

I miss the good old days when Mankie used to call it "runny-catchy".

James wrote:
I miss the good old days when Mankie used to call it "runny-catchy".

foot(?)ball = runny-catchy
baseball = hitty-runny (aka no-hitty-runny)
basketball =bouncy-netty
Hockey = Hockey….eh?

That's pretty good, but you're no Mankie.

Frank wrote:

James wrote:
I miss the good old days when Mankie used to call it "runny-catchy".

foot(?)ball = runny-catchy
baseball = hitty-runny (aka no-hitty-runny)
basketball =bouncy-netty
Hockey = Hockey….eh?

imbecile wrote:As far as the looking better.. Smackie said the same thing.  What pictures are you guys finding to make this claim?  Granted, Bryce has a douchey 19-year old beard in a lot of photos, but Trout looks like a pastey doughboy in every photo that just popped up when I googled him.  It's a wash at best.

Obviously, I was joking.  I was referencing the discussion amongst the scouts in "Moneyball" when they were down to the ridiculous things like "looks like a baseball player" and "He passes the eye candy test. He's got the looks, he's great at playing the part" although I give them full credence on the "ugly girlfriend means no confidence" line.  Totally true.  Plus it's a sign of poor vision.

imbecile wrote:
I don't follow much national media, but is Trout vs. Harper a big debate outside of this message board?  I really hope not as I'm assuming that will quickly lead into the ever-so-tired east coast bias rantings that everyone (i would hope) is tired of.

What spurred my post was a ridiculous discussion on one of those ESPN talking heads shows that fill the afternoon with yelling and buzzers and bells.  They were asked "Trout vs Harper - who's the better player?"  and every East Coast writer said "Well, I haven't seen Trout play yet, but definitely Harper.  He has all the tools" and I thought to myself (1) how is sports writing your job and you haven't seen Mike Trout play this season and (2) how do you say you like the guy you've seen because he "has all the tools" when the other guy you haven't seen has better numbers in the 4 offensive categories AND plays center field.  Ridiculous.

Anyhow, only Bill Plaschke (LA Times) said "The only true thing you guys said was that you 'haven't seen Trout play yet' because you all made ridiculous arguments that aren't based on anything other than hype."

Made me think of this thread…so whether it's East vs West or not, I can tell you I've seen them both play, a lot, and while I'd like either as a franchise player, I'm taking Trout over Harper, and it's memorialized here for all to reference later.

Frank wrote:So when nobody hits the fucking ball, that's considered exciting and entertaining?

That's about about as naive a statement as an American who dislikes soccer because there's not enough scoring.

Welcome back.

chaz wrote:
That's a clown statement, bro.

Great line.  He's gonna get the credit for it, but Nat's PR did a wonderful job with that question - perfectly executed.

vansmack wrote:

Frank wrote:So when nobody hits the fucking ball, that's considered exciting and entertaining?

That's about about as naive a statement as an American who dislikes soccer because there's not enough scoring.

Welcome back.

err….that was my point.

vansmack wrote:

imbecile wrote:As far as the looking better.. Smackie said the same thing.  What pictures are you guys finding to make this claim?  Granted, Bryce has a douchey 19-year old beard in a lot of photos, but Trout looks like a pastey doughboy in every photo that just popped up when I googled him.  It's a wash at best.

Obviously, I was joking.  I was referencing the discussion amongst the scouts in "Moneyball" when they were down to the ridiculous things like "looks like a baseball player" and "He passes the eye candy test. He's got the looks, he's great at playing the part" although I give them full credence on the "ugly girlfriend means no confidence" line.  Totally true.  Plus it's a sign of poor vision.

imbecile wrote:
I don't follow much national media, but is Trout vs. Harper a big debate outside of this message board?  I really hope not as I'm assuming that will quickly lead into the ever-so-tired east coast bias rantings that everyone (i would hope) is tired of.

What spurred my post was a ridiculous discussion on one of those ESPN talking heads shows that fill the afternoon with yelling and buzzers and bells.  They were asked "Trout vs Harper - who's the better player?"  and every East Coast writer said "Well, I haven't seen Trout play yet, but definitely Harper.  He has all the tools" and I thought to myself (1) how is sports writing your job and you haven't seen Mike Trout play this season and (2) how do you say you like the guy you've seen because he "has all the tools" when the other guy you haven't seen has better numbers in the 4 offensive categories AND plays center field.  Ridiculous.

Anyhow, only Bill Plaschke (LA Times) said "The only true thing you guys said was that you 'haven't seen Trout play yet' because you all made ridiculous arguments that aren't based on anything other than hype."

Made me think of this thread…so whether it's East vs West or not, I can tell you I've seen them both play, a lot, and while I'd like either as a franchise player, I'm taking Trout over Harper, and it's memorialized here for all to reference later.

Got it.

Agreed, Trout looks more like a baseball player and is clearly a better 5-tool player at this point. 

Harper has played like 150-175 games in his life in the outfield, so hopefully he can close that gap and become better defensively (I've seen some woeful errors already out of him), but if he doesn't, I'm not sure it's going to hurt him (unless he has aspirations for a gold glove).

vansmack wrote:

imbecile wrote:As far as the looking better.. Smackie said the same thing.  What pictures are you guys finding to make this claim?  Granted, Bryce has a douchey 19-year old beard in a lot of photos, but Trout looks like a pastey doughboy in every photo that just popped up when I googled him.  It's a wash at best.

Obviously, I was joking.  I was referencing the discussion amongst the scouts in "Moneyball" when they were down to the ridiculous things like "looks like a baseball player" and "He passes the eye candy test. He's got the looks, he's great at playing the part" although I give them full credence on the "ugly girlfriend means no confidence" line.  Totally true.  Plus it's a sign of poor vision.

imbecile wrote:
I don't follow much national media, but is Trout vs. Harper a big debate outside of this message board?  I really hope not as I'm assuming that will quickly lead into the ever-so-tired east coast bias rantings that everyone (i would hope) is tired of.

What spurred my post was a ridiculous discussion on one of those ESPN talking heads shows that fill the afternoon with yelling and buzzers and bells.  They were asked "Trout vs Harper - who's the better player?"  and every East Coast writer said "Well, I haven't seen Trout play yet, but definitely Harper.  He has all the tools" and I thought to myself (1) how is sports writing your job and you haven't seen Mike Trout play this season and (2) how do you say you like the guy you've seen because he "has all the tools" when the other guy you haven't seen has better numbers in the 4 offensive categories AND plays center field.  Ridiculous.

Anyhow, only Bill Plaschke (LA Times) said "The only true thing you guys said was that you 'haven't seen Trout play yet' because you all made ridiculous arguments that aren't based on anything other than hype."

Made me think of this thread…so whether it's East vs West or not, I can tell you I've seen them both play, a lot, and while I'd like either as a franchise player, I'm taking Trout over Harper, and it's memorialized here for all to reference later.

I was actually watching Around The Horn when this came on, the east coast guy [from Washington] definitely said "I like Harper, but I have not seen enough of Trout" i think they split, 2 took Harper, 2 took Trout. I think it was the guy from Texas who had a bunch of stats on Trout. The next night they all agreed that it was in fact "A clown question, bro" though.

Heading to the Yankees game tonight, trying to keep up my one game per home series pace.

From Buster Olney's Blog…

? Mike Trout and Bryce Harper are having the kind of impact within the game that Magic Johnson and Larry Bird did during the 1979-80 season, with opposing executives and players marveling over their skills.

One GM says that Trout is the closest thing to Rickey Henderson that we've seen. "This kid's actually faster than Rickey," said the GM. "He just rockets around the bases; you don't find players that skilled."

"I don't think TV does him justice on how good he is."

Said another GM: "I've seen Trout and Harper in the last few weeks, and I can't remember the last time I saw two dynamic players that young. They're all tooled-up, and they know how to play."

Adam Kilgore asks: Should Bryce Harper be an All-Star?

The answer is yes.

Of course Bryce Harper should be an All-Star. That's a clown question, bro. Now the real question is whether Matheny will screw him out of a spot because "he hasn't paid his dues yet."

Still waiting for Harper to come in cleats up on Hamels at first base sometime.

How about beating the Yankees.  Once.