Former Met Ron Darling says in new court papers that he couldn’t possibly have defamed his old teammate Lenny Dykstra — because Dykstra’s reputation can’t get any worse.

“Dykstra is a classic libel-proof plaintiff, whose reputation is so bad that he simply cannot be defamed,” Darling’s lawyer, Michael G. Berger, says in a motion asking a judge to toss Dykstra’s April defamation suit.

The Manhattan Supreme Court suit claims that Darling defamed Dykstra in his book, “108 Stitches: Loose Threads, Ripping Yarns, and the Darndest Characters from My Time in the Game.”

The book says that during the 1986 World Series, Dykstra went on a racist rant against then-Red Sox pitcher Dennis Ray “Oil Can” Boyd, who is black.

In his new motion, Darling’s side says that it has been widely publicized that Dykstra is a convicted felon — who did prison time for fraud and money laundering — a drug user, a liar, a doper, a blackmailer and a sexual predator.

And, “pertinent to his Complaint, Dykstra has been publicly referred to for years as a homophobe, misogynist, and racist whose bigotry is undeniable,” the motion says.

Dykstra even admitted in his own book, “House of Nails,” that he has used steroids and extorted and blackmailed in his life, Berger said in the papers.

“Defendants, overwhelming and uncontradictable public record evidence, by authors, journalists, and Dykstra himself in an autobiography, demonstrates that based on his own misconduct and words, and the public record of them, Dykstra has already placed an ‘irremovable stain and permanent cloud’ on his own reputation,” the motion reads.

In his book, Darling claimed the rant was so offensive he couldn’t quote Dykstra. Instead, he described the alleged rant as “foul, racist, hateful, hurtful stuff … the worst collection of taunts and insults I’d ever heard.”

Dykstra’s suit claimed that the book “maliciously portrayed Plaintiff as a racist, an irremovable stain and permanent cloud which will forever diminish Mr. Dykstra.’’

“He [Darling] literally made up a story,’’ Dykstra told The Post at the time.

Dykstra’s lawyer, Matthew Blit, told The Post, “The motion is just a delay of the inevitable and should be ignored by all as it will be by the court.”