Grant77

That's a good point. However, if the 9% walk rate translates to the bigs then I'm not overly concerned. There's now way he keeps such a low BABIP with over 25% line drives.

The Upton comparison was taken out of context, but that's nothing new for me and I don't mind. If I remember correctly, I just meant that he could put up numbers similar to Upton in his peak. The career trajectory is obviously going to be very different The drop in prospect rankings really shows how fickle they can be. After a taste of AAA last year, he increased his power and walks and kept a decent K rate. The BABIP dropped, but that's really just noise because his batted ball profile is fantastic. To me, he either maintained or improved this year and should be ranked much higher. There really aren't any serious red flags at this point.

All of this from a comment saying that McKinney could hit 30 bombs with decent defense in his peak. With how good he's looking, a 121 wRC+ (Upton's career mark) doesn't seem overly optimistic for his peak years, but maybe I'm way off.

I'm not going to be upset it he's our shortstop until Bichette gets here. His defense has been steady and the bat looks to be average at worst. He's been a bright spot this season.

Granderson deserves better, hopefully in the form of a trade, but it's the right thing to do. McKinney looks like a stud and we need to play him every day.

I always expect a win against National League teams. The Phils really aren't much better than us.

Make sure you pick up Billy McKinney on waivers.

Giles has excellent control, but poor command or a poor grasp of pitching. Far too many pitches are down the middle. If he could start that slider in the zone and have it end up out of the zone and hit the corners a bit more with his fastball then we might start to see his ERA match his FIP. As things stand now, he's always going to give up a lot of hard contact.

I wonder if they will use him in the same way as the Royals in the playoffs.

Fight the good fight, Spanky! Down with moderator oppression!

This is a decent explanation of what other people hear sometimes. The stereotype is complete nonsense and we are clearly not saying 'aboot', but it is different

Nice job Boxy, I like it.

5 IP, 4 H, 2 ER, 3 BB, 5 K, 0 HR, 91 pitches

Since when is a 92 wRC+ 'great' ? Their offense completely collapsed without Ortiz.

I was actually completely right in saying that the offense would crumble after he left. JD Martinez was a wonderful signing.

I understand what you're trying to say and I agree with it to an extent. There are some other points worth considering, however. For one thing, you overstate the effect that an influx of new talent has on a generational player. I have serious doubts that an influx of black pitchers would have any more effect on Ruth than it did for a guy like Stan Musial during the height of integration ( https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/musiast01.shtml ). Even against the elite pitching of the playoffs, he was even better than he was in the regular season. These guys are just on a different level and will excel against any pitchers. Consider the other elite players of the era like Tris Speaker, Rogers Hornsby, and Harry Heilmann. Even if you expand the pool of players to include the negro leagues, it's fair to say that they were all top 10 players of that era. Ruth absolutely dwarfed their statistics. Consider the top white players of today like Donaldson, Harper, Judge, etc. and the difference is not nearly as large. Babe Ruth was so good that he changed the way that the game was played. He was putting up 50+ HR seasons when the next best player wasn't even reaching 20 and entire teams didn't hit 50. He was putting up 15 WAR seasons when the next best players were barely reaching half of that value. Trout isn't doing that. While his accomplishments are remarkable, there are always other guys like Jose Ramirez with similar reaults in any given year. He's not doing anything that has never been done before like Bonds or Ruth. Also, let's not forget the pitching aspect. Babe Ruth was one of the top pitchers in the league for a short time and anecdotal evidence suggests that he could have had a Hall of Fame career on the mound as well. How do we quantify this? I'm not sure, but I can just imagine that with modern training like Ohtani has, he could have been a 2 way sensation for the majority of his career. The level of talent it takes to be an all-time great on both sides of the ball is just incredible.

We know that Perez can get strikeouts. If he's going to succeed in the majors then he will need to have better control.

Ruth was much better compared to his peers than Trout is compared to his peers to this point in his career. That's the only argument that I'm interested in making. Comparing actual skills is an unfair argument, as older players didn't have access to the same opportunities. Basically, let's wait and see if he reaches another level in his late 20's and maintains it before we start mentioning him in the same breath with Ruth or even Barry Bonds for that matter.

Well let's keep in mind that Babe Ruth had 9 seasons better than Mike Trout has ever had. Not to downplay Trout's abilities or anything, but he has to improve and maintain that level for a long time to be in that conversation.

It was stated earlier in this thread that he was unavailable.

It would appear that Giles is available.

My friend at the game says Mariners fan judging by his friends.

A run for the Mariners! This elite offense is really something to behold. Their wOBA is almost as good as the Blue Jays! Very impressive.

Four walks in five innings for Perez.

Your terrible grammar makes this rather humourous.