These are both flawed statistics :) I am honestly just playing Devils advocate in many of these discussions because there is no right or wrong answer.
Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
Shane wants control, and Vince controls Undertaker...yeah injuries helped this happen. But the should be fun nonetheless.
Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
What are the chances of that truly happening though? I am having a realistic view, what are the true chances of your team developing a Correa, Cole, and Harper in three consecutive years? Not high I believe. Plus I would much rather have a guy that is already the best instead of three that could...
Yeah...I'd take Trout over every single one of those. Good attempt on the argument, but first overalls are majority busts. Trout is arguably the best player in baseball.
Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
If much rather hit .401. With that kind of average you are doing so much. Driving in runs, getting on base, dingers with it. 70 home runs just means that, probably driving in runs, but what else?
Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
Matt Bush is the worst, just look at the bio...I am not fond of the guy at all.
Best I will go with A-Rod over Griffey. Ken was an amazing player, but injuries hindered him. Alex is one of the best all-time.
Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk