The Rose Award For 6-10-2007.
in [Detroit Tigers]
|
From: TenderRage on 14 Jun 2007 22:51 On Jun 14, 12:50?pm, r...(a)biteme.org wrote: > In rec.sport.baseball Sir Creep <sircr...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Actually what you would have been better off saying was 'a hitter that > > goes 3-for-5 with 3 homers is a greater hitter than the guy with 5 > > singles.' But alas, dimwit will actually argue the opposite....just > > wait! > > The hitter with the 3 homeruns would be regarded as the greater > slugger. In hitting, the distance of the hit is irrelevant. That's > why a hr is worth the same as a single when computing batting > average. > > Batting average is a measure of hitting. You know that, right? And > you know how to calculate batting average, don't you? > > Why are you people posting to baseball groups? The stuff we are > talking about is pretty fundamental. We don't see our role as being > primarily an educator. > > cordially, as always, > > rm And you are stubborn. Numbers? Averages? Of course that's the way it's set up. And anybody knows that numbers are to be interpreted. It is merely one facet. When it comes to winning the game and making sure that when a batter swings it is not to just get on base, it is to score. Control and artistry at the game to be the greatest means that the player is able to more than just connect with the ball, it is to win the game. A player who gets on base never getting a player on base to home plate is not the greatest as compared to a player who may have half as many hits but earns more runs for his team. IMO
From: rm on 15 Jun 2007 02:55 In rec.sport.baseball TenderRage <C.TenderRage(a)gmail.com> wrote: > And you are stubborn. Numbers? Averages? Of course that's the way > it's set up. And anybody knows that numbers are to be > interpreted. It is merely one facet. Well, no. That's not the way it is "set up." Counting stats is not part of the game, merely an abstraction. The only counting that is truly part of the game are runs. Individual statistics are totally irrelevant to the game itself, because it is a team game. > When it comes to winning the game and making sure that when a > batter swings it is not to just get on base, it is to score. > Control and artistry at the game to be the greatest means that the > player is able to more than just connect with the ball, it is to > win the game. Yawn. > A player who gets on base never getting a player on base to home > plate is not the greatest as compared to a player who may have > half as many hits but earns more runs for his team. IMO The player who has the greatest number of hits is the greatest hitter. By definition and without qualification. Now if you want to pretend that somebody other than the game's greatest hitter, is in fact the game's greatest hitter, then you will have to qualify your selection. In other words, Babe Ruth was the game's greatest hitter _because_ greatest hitter means most homeruns hit by a white man. Or Baby Bonds was the game's greatest hitter _because_ he had all of those intentional walks. Etc. But no _because_ is necessary for Pete Rose. He remains the game's greatest hitter, by definition and without qualification. 4256 cordially, as always, rm
From: Bill Kawalec on 15 Jun 2007 03:09 -- I never read email at the Yahoo address! <rm(a)biteme.org> wrote in message news:dJqci.236981$3h2.191138(a)fe08.news.easynews.com... > In rec.sport.baseball TenderRage <C.TenderRage(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> And you are stubborn. Numbers? Averages? Of course that's the way >> it's set up. And anybody knows that numbers are to be >> interpreted. It is merely one facet. > > Well, no. That's not the way it is "set up." Counting stats is not > part of the game, merely an abstraction. The only counting that is > truly part of the game are runs. Individual statistics are totally > irrelevant to the game itself, because it is a team game. > >> When it comes to winning the game and making sure that when a >> batter swings it is not to just get on base, it is to score. >> Control and artistry at the game to be the greatest means that the >> player is able to more than just connect with the ball, it is to >> win the game. > > Yawn. > >> A player who gets on base never getting a player on base to home >> plate is not the greatest as compared to a player who may have >> half as many hits but earns more runs for his team. IMO > > The player who has the greatest number of hits is the greatest > hitter. By definition and without qualification. G O T O H E L L !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now if you want > to pretend that somebody other than the game's greatest hitter, is > in fact the game's greatest hitter, then you will have to qualify > your selection. > > In other words, Babe Ruth was the game's greatest hitter _because_ > greatest hitter means most homeruns hit by a white man. Or Baby > Bonds was the game's greatest hitter _because_ he had all of those > intentional walks. > > Etc. But no _because_ is necessary for Pete Rose. He remains the > game's greatest hitter, by definition and without qualification. > > 4256 > > cordially, as always, > > rm
From: SkippyPB on 15 Jun 2007 12:15 On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:38:37 GMT, Brian Matthews <noonecares(a)ddd.com> wrote: >On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 06:55:05 GMT, rm(a)biteme.org wrote: > >>The player who has the greatest number of hits is the greatest >>hitter. By definition and without qualification. Now if you want >>to pretend that somebody other than the game's greatest hitter, is >>in fact the game's greatest hitter, then you will have to qualify >>your selection > > >Ok, here's the problems with your "award" > >1. You give it to players who hit (multiple) home runs and drives in >(multiple) runs. This was not Rose's game. > >2. You should scour the box scores and give this "award" to the player >who has the most hits in a game, every day. You may have to split this >"award" to several players every day. > >3. The "award" should only go out once a year, at the end of the >season, to the N.L. batter with the most hits. > >4. In the June 10th game, you gave the award to Brandon Inge, even if >you don't know HOW to spell his name. And yet, three other Tigers had >three hits, as did Brandon. If it's your opinion that Pete was the >greatest hitter of all time because he had the most hits, then this >"award" should only go to an N.L. player who had the most hits that >day, whether his team won or lost. An example? If a player goes 4 for >5, with 3 home runs and 7 RBI and his team wins 12-6? Well...if a >player on the other team goes 5 for 5 with no runs scored, no RBI, >then HE should win the "award" It should only go to the player with >the most hits, not a slugger. > >Brian Let's put some numbers to Brians post. Career On Base % : Ty Cobb is number 9 at .4330 Pete Rose is number 234 at .3751 Career Slugging %: Ty Cobb is number 69 at .5120 Pete Rose is number 747 at .4093 Career Batting Average: Ty Cobb is number 1 at .3664 Pete Rose is tied at number 167 with two notable hitters Mike Greenwell and Buddy Myer at .3028 Career OPS % Ty Cobb is number 28 at .9450 Pete Rose is number 508 at .7844 Career Runs Scored: Ty Cobb is number 2 at 2,246 Pete Rose is number 6 at 2,165 Career Total Bases: Ty Cobb is number 5 at 5,854 Pete Rose is number 7 at 5,752 Career Grounded into Double Plays: Pete Rose is tied with Bill Buckner at number 28 with 247 in this dubious category. Ty Cobb did not make the top 1,000. So, to put this in a little perspective, Ty Cobb leads Pete Rose in every good category except number of hits and games played. Rose played in 3,562 (number 1) and Cobb in 3,035 (number 5). Looking at the overall picture of both players, Ty Cobb, hands down, was at least a far better hitter than Pete Rose if not the greatest hitter in all of baseball. Regards, //// (o o) -oOO--(_)--OOo- "You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test. -- George W. Bush (on Education reform, Feb 21, 2001) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Remove nospam to email me. Steve
From: rm on 15 Jun 2007 13:11
In rec.sport.baseball Brian Matthews <noonecares(a)ddd.com> wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 06:55:05 GMT, rm(a)biteme.org wrote: > >>The player who has the greatest number of hits is the greatest >>hitter. By definition and without qualification. Now if you want >>to pretend that somebody other than the game's greatest hitter, is >>in fact the game's greatest hitter, then you will have to qualify >>your selection > > > Ok, here's the problems with your "award" > > 1. You give it to players who hit (multiple) home runs and drives in > (multiple) runs. This was not Rose's game. But the leagues give out the Hank Aaron Awards to the best hitters and Hank was only the best hitter twice. Hitting was Hank's game. Slugging was. > 2. You should scour the box scores and give this "award" to the player > who has the most hits in a game, every day. You may have to split this > "award" to several players every day. The Committee has discretion in these matters, just as it should be. What you are suggesting could easily be done by a computer, and as such it would not constitute the same honour as an award bestowed on men, by other men, in recognition of their performance. > 3. The "award" should only go out once a year, at the end of the > season, to the N.L. batter with the most hits. Why? It's a daily award. There are weekly awards. There are monthly awards. And there are seasonal awards. This one is a daily award and it fills a niche nicely. > 4. In the June 10th game, you gave the award to Brandon Inge, even > if Brad Inge. The award was given to Brad Inge. > you don't know HOW to spell his name. And yet, three other Tigers > had three hits, as did Brandon. If it's your opinion that Pete was > the greatest hitter of all time because he had the most hits, then > this "award" should only go to an N.L. player who had the most > hits that day, whether his team won or lost. An example? If a That Pete was the greatest hitter, by definition and without qualification, is something obvious to us all. Unfortunately we are not a member of the Rose Committee. Someday we hope to be honoured thus, as do all real fans of the game. But you shouldn't confuse the feelings of fans of Pete Rose with the objective reasoning of the Rose Committee. > player goes 4 for 5, with 3 home runs and 7 RBI and his team wins > 12-6? Well...if a player on the other team goes 5 for 5 with no > runs scored, no RBI, then HE should win the "award" It should only > go to the player with the most hits, not a slugger. It should go to the player who sparked his team to victory. The only exception should be that it doesn't go to a player who is thrown out because he didn't hustle. Now go out and play with the other kids. cordially, as always, rm |