Fan Duel ranks the top 10 pro athletes in NY

[Gugny]

2 hours ago, buffalo2218 said:

I agree that pitchers have no business being on a list based on athletic players. WIth the NL now having a DH, DeGrom is basically in a county club

 

The DH in the National League made it more difficult for pitchers; not easier.

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, KDIGGZ said:

My readers? I said the readers as in people who read the forum posts. You sound like someone who reads something and then twists it up in your head to make yourself right so no use in continuing here as it will be misconstrued in some weird way. And PS Durant is still an overrated cry baby 👍

 

Misconstrued?? You posted that your ideas "resonate with the readers", as though that's not weird. What readers?

 

 

 

1 hour ago, ExWNYer said:

 

The Skanks are not better than the Mets. And NYC has always been and always will be a National League town.

 

WTF??

 

You haven't spent much time in "NYC"

 

 

1 hour ago, Rigotz said:

 

If you don't think DeGrom belongs on the list, you haven't watched baseball the past 4 years.

The CY Young award is given to the best pitcher in the league. It is extremely difficult to win.

 

2021: Injured after 15 games. At the time he was the best pitcher in the league: 1.08 ERA, 0.554 WHIP, 7-2 Record, 14.3 K/9.

2020: 3rd in Cy Young voting.... 2.38 ERA, 0.956 WHIP, 104 strikeouts (more than any pitcher in the NL).

2019: Cy Young award winner

2018: Cy Young award winner

 

If not the best pitcher in the league, he's easily top 3.

I'm not a Mets fan and don't watch much baseball, but I know enough to not embarrass myself with statement like "DeGrom isn't a top 10 NY athlete."

 

 

Cy Young winner.  Top athlete?

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by Mr. WEO

[ExWNYer]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

WTF??

 

You haven't spent much time in "NYC"

 

 

I know arguing with people is your thing but when both teams are doing well, the Mets own that town and it's not even close. The Dodgers and Giants were both more popular than the Yankees before they moved West in the 1950s. The Yankees are the team of the bougie. The Cowboys of baseball. Before their departure, the Dodgers and Giants were and the Mets have been since 1962, the team(s) of the blue collar fan.

[BillsfaninChicago]

Here I was all ready to point out the Giants and Jets are New Jersey teams but they had to go ahead and both suck to much to get any players on the list. 

[Mr. WEO]

2 minutes ago, ExWNYer said:

 

I know arguing with people is your thing but when both teams are doing well, the Mets own that town and it's not even close. The Dodgers and Giants were both more popular than the Yankees before they moved West in the 1950s. The Yankees are the team of the bougie. The Cowboys of baseball. Before their departure, the Dodgers and Giants were and the Mets have been since 1962, the team(s) of the blue collar fan.

 

I'm not arguing---don't have to.  You clearly said NYC "will always be a National League town".  

 

Sure, many years ago, the Giants and Dodgers were hugely popular.  Since they've left, the Mets have 2 WS wins in their history.  Other than posting these cliched "bougie" vs "blue collar" (you've never been to the Bronx) labels, how did you conclude this?

[ExWNYer]

9 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

I'm not arguing---don't have to.  You clearly said NYC "will always be a National League town".  

 

Sure, many years ago, the Giants and Dodgers were hugely popular.  Since they've left, the Mets have 2 WS wins in their history.  Other than posting these cliched "bougie" vs "blue collar" (you've never been to the Bronx) labels, how did you conclude this?

 

I've followed baseball my whole life and have family in NYC, as well. I've read enough and heard enough over the tears to know that it is a National League town. Despite their dominance in the '40s and '50s, the Yankees were still not as popular as the Dodgers and Giants. They were mostly middling to bad the majority of the '60s and '70's until George Steinbrenner bought them and they won back-to-back titles in in '77 and '78 before fading into obscurity again in the '80s. The rise of their dynasty in the '90s put them in the forefront of the minds of even casual fans. They are the more storied franchise for sure but NYC is still widely considered a NL town in baseball circles.

[Mr. WEO]

4 minutes ago, ExWNYer said:

 

I've followed baseball my whole life and have family in NYC, as well. I've read enough and heard enough over the tears to know that it is a National League town. Despite their dominance in the '40s and '50s, the Yankees were still not as popular as the Dodgers and Giants. They were mostly middling to bad the majority of the '60s and '70's until George Steinbrenner bought them and they won back-to-back titles in in '77 and '78 before fading into obscurity again in the '80s. The rise of their dynasty in the '90s put them in the forefront of the minds of even casual fans. They are the more storied franchise for sure but NYC is still widely considered a NL town in baseball circles.

 

Spend some time there.

 

It's exciting when both teams are both doing well (extremely rare, given the Mets seasons), but to say things like "and it's not even close" without any primary knowledge isn't much of an argument for your point.  Even their attendance numbers aren't close.  

[ExWNYer]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Spend some time there.

 

It's exciting when both teams are both doing well (extremely rare, given the Mets seasons), but to say things like "and it's not even close" without any primary knowledge isn't much of an argument for your point.  Even their attendance numbers aren't close.  

 

We'll see if anything changes under Steve Cohen and gives you more tangible evidence. The Mets have been run like a small market club for most of their existence. In any event, I'm not going to belabor the point about whether it's a NL town or not. You're not changing your mind regardless.

[Mr. WEO]

9 minutes ago, ExWNYer said:

 

We'll see if anything changes under Steve Cohen and gives you more tangible evidence. The Mets have been run like a small market club for most of their existence. In any event, I'm not going to belabor the point about whether it's a NL town or not. You're not changing your mind regardless.

 

I can be convinced.  But you really haven't given anything but cliches and a personal anecdote.  Spend some time there

[NewEra]

1 hour ago, ExWNYer said:

 

I know arguing with people is your thing but when both teams are doing well, the Mets own that town and it's not even close. The Dodgers and Giants were both more popular than the Yankees before they moved West in the 1950s. The Yankees are the team of the bougie. The Cowboys of baseball. Before their departure, the Dodgers and Giants were and the Mets have been since 1962, the team(s) of the blue collar fan.

Lol.  Funny how people can be so delusional. “It’s not even close”……oh man. 

[Mr. WEO]

18 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Lol.  Funny how people can be so delusional. “It’s not even close”……oh man. 

 

By that math the Mets have owned that town maybe half a dozen times in 35 years.

Edited April 10, 2022 by Mr. WEO

[ExWNYer]

20 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

I can be convinced.  But you really haven't given anything but cliches and a personal anecdote.  Spend some time there

 

Yeah, you can't but that's fine. You do you.

[NewEra]

6 minutes ago, ExWNYer said:

 

Yeah, you can't but that's fine. You do you.

Do you have anything for us to read that can support this claim?  Or is this just what you’ve always believed….so it must be the truth?  I’m open to the discussion and my thought on the topic can definitely be swayed….but not by what you’ve said in this thread. 
 

https://sabr.org/journal/article/american-league-or-national-league-who-owns-new-york-city/
 

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/newyork/news/by-the-numbers-is-ny-a-national-league-or-american-league-city-part-1/
 

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/newyork/news/by-the-numbers-is-ny-a-national-league-or-american-league-city-part-2/

[CNY315]

7 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

So no Jets or Giants? Are they considered NJ athletes or they just don't have anyone good enough to make the list?

Yes

 

[ChevyVanMiller]

No Cody Eakin? 
 

The list is a sham, a sham I tell you!

[SinceThe70s]

8 hours ago, KDIGGZ said:

Judge way too low and Diggs too low. No offense to Mets fans but Yankees > Mets just like Giants > Jets who both surprisingly have nobody on this list lol. Durant is a fraud similar to Eichel. Big name that can't lead, can't win on their own. Good player but way overrated

 

So if you currently play for the Yankees you're automatically better than anyone that currently plays for the Mets? Or are you saying that if you are the best current player on the Yankees it automatically makes you better than the best current player on the Mets? Or is there some other point that you're making here that I'm missing?

[Tierlifer]

8 hours ago, TBBills said:

Kyrie Irving?!?!

deGrom needs to go to a team that can score more than 1 run when he is pitching.

Jake needs to stay on the field first without missing large chunks of time. Hasn’t happened since 2015. 

[Augie]

At least there were no Jets or Giants on the list. I’m not sure if that is being geographically accurate, or just recognizing how talented those teams are NOT. 

[K D]

12 minutes ago, SinceThe70s said:

 

So if you currently play for the Yankees you're automatically better than anyone that currently plays for the Mets? Or are you saying that if you are the best current player on the Yankees it automatically makes you better than the best current player on the Mets? Or is there some other point that you're making here that I'm missing?

Biggest star on the Yankees is almost always going to be a bigger star than anyone on the Mets. Just facts. Just like when Brett Favre went to play for the Jets, it's still the Jets. The Mets can add any old cy young pitchers they want and they are still the Mets as we have seen. It's where careers go to fizzle out and die

[SinceThe70s]

3 minutes ago, Tierlifer said:

Jake needs to stay on the field first without missing large chunks of time. Hasn’t happened since 2015. 

 

Jake's first year was 2014.  He started in 22 games that year. Since then he started 30 (2015). 24, 31, 32, 32, 12 and 15...so what are these large chunks of time he's missed since 2015?  Maybe you fat fingered and meant 2020. 

 

With that said, I think it's legit to question whether Jake will be able to stay on the field going forward.