WicketMaiden

Sometimes I wonder if you have any capacity for critical thought at all.
I'm not a Boomer. Nowhere near.

All this shows is that older generations have more wealth than younger generations. Duh. Of course they do. And most of that wealth will filter down to Gen X when the Boomers die out, and then to the millenials after that.
Every generation thinks they have it harder than the one before, when in actual fact life gets easier all the time.
My parents are Boomers - they didn't spend any money on unnecessary things. They saved. They didn't use credit. They mended things and fixed things to save money. They didn't have a microwave, several TV's, several mobile phones and gym memberships etc, and they often worked two jobs. They went without things they wanted but didn't need. How much of that do Millenials do? Because I know Gen X didn't do much of it, we spent our money and had fun instead.

All this shows is that older generations have more wealth than younger generations. Duh. Of course they do. And most of that wealth will filter down to Gen X when the Boomers die out, and then to the millenials after that.
Every generation thinks they have it harder than the one before, when in actual fact life gets easier all the time.
My parents are Boomers - they didn't spend any money on unnecessary things. They saved. They didn't use credit. They mended things and fixed things to save money. They didn't have a microwave, several TV's, several mobile phones and gym memberships etc, and they often worked two jobs. They went without things they wanted but didn't need. How much of that do Millenials do? Because I know Gen X didn't do much of it, we spent our money and had fun instead.

Sometimes I wonder if you have any capacity for critical thought at all.
I'm not a Boomer. Nowhere near.

All this shows is that older generations have more wealth than younger generations. Duh. Of course they do. And most of that wealth will filter down to Gen X when the Boomers die out, and then to the millenials after that.
Every generation thinks they have it harder than the one before, when in actual fact life gets easier all the time.
My parents are Boomers - they didn't spend any money on unnecessary things. They saved. They didn't use credit. They mended things and fixed things to save money. They didn't have a microwave, several TV's, several mobile phones and gym memberships etc, and they often worked two jobs. They went without things they wanted but didn't need. How much of that do Millenials do? Because I know Gen X didn't do much of it, we spent our money and had fun instead.

Wages have increased in line with inflation. Housing costs are included in that inflation calculation, as is energy, medical costs, food and several others.
Education isn't included because not everyone uses it.
So the point stands: you are just as well off as your counterparts in the 1970's, you haven't had your spending power diminished, as was claimed in the original post I replied to.

This data does dispute your indisputable 'fact'. It shows that the value of real wages has been steady since 1973 and has not diminished as you contend, and the actual real value of wages since the 1960's has risen.
 

I think it's the same loyalty, our wives just have higher standards.
Our wives divorce us for looking at and visiting other women - our teams welcome us back no matter where we've been, who we've been with, or for how long.
Our wives divorce us for unreasonable behaviour and verbal abuse - our teams regularly allow us to verbally abuse them and don't really bat an eyelid to our unreasonable expectations, sulks, and venting.
We divorce our wives when they betray us with other men - we divorce our teams when they betray us and move to another city. (Sometimes.)
We don't divorce our wives because they're crap in the kitchen and burn dinner, or don't really have all the moves in bed, or have blown the family fun budget on yoga classes instead of paint-balling - we don't divorce our teams because they can't lay down a bunt and hit with RISP, or when they don't really have the moves out of the bull-pen, or when they've blown the budget on Wells, Pujols, Hamilton, rather than buying that nice shiny Beltre who would have been so much fun that Summer.

@full circle has made the perhaps trolling comment several times, that Trout can't be an all-time great hitter because of how much he strikes out. This view (whether serious or not) is based on an erroneous assumption: that strikeout rates have been relatively static over the course of baseball history. This is, of course, not only un-true, but wildly untrue.
First chart: K% over MLB history:

As you can see, strikeout rates were up and down in the 19th century, then relatively stable in the first half of the 20th century, rising in the 1950s, then leveling off and rising slowly until the 2000s, when they spiked again.
To put that another way, the last sixteen seasons are the sixteen highest K% in baseball history, going back to 1871. The 17th highest is 2001, so still recent history. To get a K% not in the 1990s-present, you have to go to 30th on the list (1967).
That, in itself, takes us most of the way to disproving the basis of the "Trout can't be a great hitter because of his strikeouts" fallacy. But let's take it further.
Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle were great hitters, right? Well, let's make sure.
Babe Ruth has the highest career wRC+ (194) in baseball history (not counting the Negro Leagues; Josh Gibson was at 202). Mantle is tied with Rogers Hornsby and Mike Trout with a 170 wRC+, for 5th-7th all-time, behind only Ruth, Ted Williams (187), Barry Bonds (173), and Lou Gehrig (171).
We can look at all sorts of stats, and both Ruth and Mantle will rank among the very best of the best. Ruth is one of two players in baseball history that has an argument for greatest hitter of all time, the other being Ted Williams. But Mantle is certainly in the top 10.
Well, that must mean that Ruth and Mantle didn't strike out a lot, right? I mean, Ruth only struck out 12.5% of the time, never more than 93 times in a season. Mantle struck out at a 17.3% rate, his highest being 126. So maybe they still qualify?
But how are those rates relative to the league? Well, let's take a look. 
Here's Ruth during 1918-34, the time in which he was a full-time hitter. The green is MLB average, the black is the MLB leader, and Ruth is purple.

As you can see, Ruth was generally closer to the leader than he was to league average - and above the average in every year but one (1931), which is a strange anomaly. Furthermore, he actually led the majors twice (tied with Hack Wilson in 1933), and in two other non-qualifying years, had a higher K% than the leader.
I guess Ruth wasn't a great hitter.
Now let's look at Mantle:

As you can see, while Mantle had a higher rate (17.3) than Ruth (12.5), he was actually a bit lower relative to the leader. He only led the majors once (1954), and wa below the average twice.
Finally, let's look at Trout. I mean, with a 22.4 K% he must be close to the lead every year and be way above the average, right?

Whoops. As you can see, relative to the league leaders Trout is actually mostly lower than Ruth or Mantle. In fact, he hovered close to the average for much of his career, only going significantly above in 2014 and 2021-23. In six of his seasons--including five in a row--he was actually below league average.
Conclusion
Hopefully the above puts the silly notion to bed. Great hitters--even the truly great--come in all shapes and sizes. Some strike out a lot, others (e.g. Ted Williams) don't. But strikeouts--while they aren't pretty--don't equate with how good a hitter is. Obviously Trout would be better if he struck out less (all other factors being equal), but it may be that his high(ish) strikeout rate is the result of the approach that has made him so great. He takes a lot of pitches, goes deep into counts and waits for a ball to drive.  
 
 
 
 
 

Just watched Jon Morosi cover the angels on MLB network, it’s good to put things in perspective sometimes. He still seems to think the angels are in the thick of the wild card race and just need to weather this storm for a couple more weeks until we can get relatively healthy. 
 
he also seemed relatively optimistic about Adell and Moniak. He also mentioned how losing 3 stars over the course of 2 days is just unheard of. 
 
I know it feels like we are spiraling around the drain and I think we are, but if we can stay a float for a few more weeks maybe once everyone is healthy we can take off and secure a wild card spot. 

If it means all the whiny douches are going to quit posting it's almost worth it

Also, the new John Mulaney special is on Netflix. Dude has my favorite bit of all time.
I literally stole the premise and did this with @JasonMBrennan when we would meet up and I told the bartenders what I was going to do and they thought it was hilarious. Don't want to ruin the joke in the video, but replace Tom Jones with Whitney Houston "I'm Every Woman". I even randomly ran into said bartender during Covid lock down at Paul's in Orange Circle and he remembered this joke almost 10 years later and bought me a drink because of it.
 

Booo!
Booooooo!
We saved you from Napoleon!
Booooooooooooooo!
 
 
 
 
 
 
*Numpty Notice: This is a joke... it's also true... but mostly it's a joke.

Is the sky falling in too?
Even if it's a broken bone, Trout will be swinging a bat again in the middle of August. A week of that absence will be for the All-star game; Moniak will cover half of Trout's missed games and he's doing pretty well; and Trout wasn't really himself this year at the plate: so how much of a loss is it really? One game lost? Two, three? Then add to that there is a fair chance that Trout comes back raking after his break and is fresh and revitalised at the plate.
And some of you want to trade the best bloody baseball player that has ever played the game? While he is having a career season? Performing at a level that has never been seen before?
Numpties.

Booo!
Booooooo!
We saved you from Napoleon!
Booooooooooooooo!
 
 
 
 
 
 
*Numpty Notice: This is a joke... it's also true... but mostly it's a joke.

Booo!
Booooooo!
We saved you from Napoleon!
Booooooooooooooo!
 
 
 
 
 
 
*Numpty Notice: This is a joke... it's also true... but mostly it's a joke.

LMAO!! I was hoping you would chime in. Well done 

Forever it was complaining that Trout had to do it himself.
Now the Angels have a player better than Trout, and the answer is punt on the season if they have to go without Trout for a bit?
So stupid.
How about open up a possible narrative where the rest of the roster evolves and comes together?
That’s what has to happen anyway to get to a World Series.  So let it play out.

Fuck you

No! End of Debate!