Another Opinion
in [Baseball Chat]
|
From: Will in New Haven on 9 Dec 2009 19:50 On Dec 9, 7:38 pm, Lew Pitcher <LPitc...(a)techsavvy.ca> wrote: > Hank Gillette <hankgille...(a)yahoo.com> trolled: > > Ah, Mr. Gillette, who goes on to show us yet again that despite his > name, he is none too sharp! > > > Au contraire, other than home runs, Fenway helped Williams quite a > > bit. For his career, Williams hit .361 at home, .328 away. He > > also hit 319 doubles at Fenway, 206 on the road. Two other Boston > > left-handed hitters, Carl Yastrzemski and Fred Lynn, had similar > > home and road splits for average and doubles. Yaz and Lynn hit > > over .300 at home and in the .260s at home. > > For left-handed hitters, Fenway depresses home runs, but increases > > batting average and doubles. > > Don't try to fool these guys with facts. They only want to > establish their opinions. > > > Williams served as John Glenn's wingman in Korea. According to John > > McCain, "John Glenn said he was the best natural pilot he ever flew > > with." > > Williams had extraordinary vision and hand eye coordination and that > is the reason why such a statement was made. But don't forget that > Brigadier General Jimmy Stewart was a hell of a pilot as well. He > picked up the necessary skills when he played pitcher Monte Stratton > in the movie. > > > Williams was a much better baseball player than Rose, too. > > More undocumented opinion. You were doing so well, up to now. > > Williams accomplished little of note during his time in the majors. > > Pete Rose remains the game's greatest hitter, by definition and > without qualification. As long as the definition remains "had the most Hits" and counts Singles equally with Doubles, Triples and Home Runs and ignores Bases on Balls. As long as "greatest hitter" refers to a counting statistic that has more to do with longevity than ability. Let's adopt that definition. And then realize that "best hitter" is a very minor accomplishment. Especially when accomplished by a banjo hitter who didn't walk much and whose Caught Stealing numbers were appalling. There are many worse players than Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame. There are many better players in the Hall and a few who aren't even in the Hall. -- Will in New Haven Pete Rose, who is the greatest hitter of all time by virtue of having the most Hits, but nothing else, will never get into the Hall of Fame whiile he is alive.
From: Will in New Haven on 11 Dec 2009 19:26 On Dec 11, 5:36 pm, Lew Pitcher <LPitc...(a)techsavvy.ca> wrote: > > Never mind. All that really matters is that Pete Rose remains the > game's greatest hitter, by definition and without qualification. Since this only means that he has the Most Hits and as everyone already knew that, conceding it is true costs nothing and gives Rose's career, which was certainly of Hall of Fame caliber, no extra luster. As long as we realize that, and realize that this means nothing _resembling_ "best hitter" or "most effective batter" it becomes simply a different way to phrase a trivia question. -- Pete Rose, who is defined as the greatest hitter simply by virtue of having the most Hits, and nothing more, will not get into the Hall of Fame while he lives.
From: Lew Pitcher on 11 Dec 2009 22:59 Will in New Haven <bill.reich(a)taylorandfrancis.com> trolled: > On Dec 11, 5:36?pm, Lew Pitcher <LPitc...(a)techsavvy.ca> wrote: >> Never mind. ?All that really matters is that Pete Rose remains the >> game's greatest hitter, by definition and without qualification. > Since this only means that he has the Most Hits and as everyone > already knew that, conceding it is true costs nothing and gives > Rose's career, which was certainly of Hall of Fame caliber, no > extra luster. Luster? That would be lustre in English. Why do Americans think that it is important to mispell trivial words? > As long as we realize that, and realize that this means nothing > _resembling_ "best hitter" or "most effective batter" it becomes > simply a different way to phrase a trivia question. The problem being that there is no such thing as a "best hitter" by your definition. "Best" is entirely subjective, and as such is essentially meaningless to serious analysis. Calling someone the "best player" is uninteresting because such a definition is impossible to prove. Telling us who you think is the "best player" is akin to you telling us your favourite colour. (to use correct spelling) It is meaningless information and belongs in the "who cares?" bin. The only time the word "best" has any value is when it is defined in an objective manner. For example, Pete Rose remains the game's best hitter where "best" is defined as "greatest." But it is much easier to simply say that Pete Rose remains the game's greatest hitter by definition and without qualification. You see how easy it is to get there, once you know where you are going? The key is understanding the structure and boundaries of the English language. Until you master this essential skill, most of what you say will not hold up to even rudimentary inspection. cordially, as always, even to the small fry, rm
From: E.F. Hokie on 12 Dec 2009 13:37 On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 03:59:47 +0000, Lew Pitcher wrote... > But it is much easier to simply say that Pete Rose remains the > game's greatest hitter by definition and without qualification. The problem with that is that in your dishonesty you use 'greatest' in an ambiguous way, where it's only correct to describe quantity, while most people use the term to describe quality. You are dishonest. -- E.F. Hokie "To those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
From: Will in New Haven on 12 Dec 2009 19:14
On Dec 12, 1:37 pm, E.F. Hokie <efho...(a)nah.nope> wrote: > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 03:59:47 +0000, Lew Pitcher wrote... > > But it is much easier to simply say that Pete Rose remains the > > game's greatest hitter by definition and without qualification. > > The problem with that is that in your dishonesty you use 'greatest' in > an ambiguous way, where it's only correct to describe quantity, while > most people use the term to describe quality. You are dishonest. Not only is he dishonest but he's wrong. "Best hitter" is indeed subjective and open to debate. If people who follow the game seriously get together there will be many names mentioned as candidates for the title. However, there is a telling point that Lew doesn't want to admit. Very few of them would mention Pete Rose. There are dozens of players in the history of the game who would be considered ahead of Rose in this category. He just wasn't as good a hitter as, among others, Morgan or Schmidt They got on base more consistently and hit the ball harder. He is right about one thing. My spell-checker, which prefers "luster," is nuts. "Lustre" is correct, as far as I am concerned. . -- Will in New Haven |