The Rose Award For 6-10-2007.
in [Detroit Tigers]
|
From: rm on 12 Jun 2007 21:26 In rec.sport.baseball Steve Cutchen <maxfaq(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > In article <m4Fbi.83424$d22.60329(a)fe03.news.easynews.com>, > <rm(a)biteme.org> wrote: > >> Again, whose interests are conflicted when you bet on yourself to >> win? > > I think it was April 13. > > The Yankees lost 5-4 in the 11th inning with Brian Bruney on the mound. > Torre had sent 5 relievers in, but not Rivera who hadn't pitched in a > while. ? > > With one out in the 11th, Bruney allowed a triple and then hit a batter > before Torre had him issue an intentional walk to load the bases. > > The best shot in that game might have been Rivera. But Rivera is 37 > years old. Torre is using him sparingly, specifically eyeing the long > run of the season more than the single game. > > Willie Randolph said , "You don't manage every game like it is the 7th > game of the WS. " What the hell does Randolph have to do with it? In any case, if the NYY had taken the lead in extra innings, Rivera would have come out. > Pete Rose would disagree. "You do if you got a bet down." You described a NYY game. Now show us a Reds game where you think that Pete made questionable decisions. Cincinnati is a knowledgeable baseball town. Surely, if Rose made a "controversial" managerial decision, we all would have heard about it. And if not from the fans, then at least from the coaches, players and management. And yet not once, in the entire history of the Pete Rose fiasco, has anyone ever produced a single example where it appears that Pete might have made a decision that was not in his own team's best interests. What this means is that your careful conjecture is worth absolutely doodley-squat. cordially, as always, rm
From: rm on 12 Jun 2007 21:32 In rec.sport.baseball TenderRage <C.TenderRage(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Plain and simple you work the percentages. > Cobb far exceeds what Rose did proportionately. > You must lose a lot of bets. Oh, so now your qualifier is "according to percentages." By definition, and without any qualification, Pete Rose remains the greatest hitter in the history of the game. You can't say that anyone is better without qualifying your statement. As for percentages? All that means is coulda, shoulda, woulda, or in simpler terms, doodley-squat. BTW: Cobb never won the WS. In fact, in the three he played, he hit over 100 points below his career average. How much do you think he made betting against himself? cordially, as always, rm
From: rm on 12 Jun 2007 21:56 In rec.sport.baseball TenderRage <C.TenderRage(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Would you be willing to acknowledge that Pete Rose has an illness? > When one is addicted their sense of reason goes out the window. How do you know he is "addicted?" Who knows if there really is such a thing as an addiction to gambling? > Do you go through this yourself? We are probably addicted to usenet, but that's about it. Is that an illness? > The fact that you take the time to defend this character....from > both his being the greatest hitter to justifying his gambling is > mystifying. All we are saying is that Rose should be recognized for what he did for the game. You are obviously too young to remember him playing but he was always one of our favourites because of his obvious love for the game. As for the gambling? That's his business, not ours. And unless MLB can show that his gambling hurt their game, and they have yet to show this, then it is not right that he be kept out of the HoF. You have to remember, Rose walked away from baseball before he could be banned. He never "agreed" to be banned from anything, much less the HoF. cordially, as always, rm
From: TenderRage on 12 Jun 2007 23:36 On Jun 12, 9:56?pm, r...(a)biteme.org wrote: > In rec.sport.baseball TenderRage <C.TenderR...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Would you be willing to acknowledge that Pete Rose has an illness? > > When one is addicted their sense of reason goes out the window. > > How do you know he is "addicted?" Who knows if there really is such > a thing as an addiction to gambling? > > > Do you go through this yourself? > > We are probably addicted to usenet, but that's about it. Is that an > illness? > > > The fact that you take the time to defend this character....from > > both his being the greatest hitter to justifying his gambling is > > mystifying. > > All we are saying is that Rose should be recognized for what he did > for the game. You are obviously too young to remember him playing > but he was always one of our favourites because of his obvious love > for the game. > > As for the gambling? That's his business, not ours. And unless MLB > can show that his gambling hurt their game, and they have yet to > show this, then it is not right that he be kept out of the HoF. > > You have to remember, Rose walked away from baseball before he could > be banned. He never "agreed" to be banned from anything, much less > the HoF. > > cordially, as always, > > rm Addiction could mean, obsession compulsion to receive what ever it is that you want and have to have more of it...even if you know it's not good for you or to excess....in other words....out of control. I remember watching Rose and found him to be an animal at the game. He could be fun to watch. I don't say that he wasn't a good player. And I haven't exactly passed judegment one way or the other as to how well he played the game or not. But the heart of the debate was over he was the all time best as compared to another/others as far as one thinks of hitting and the way records and averages were/are kept.
From: Steve Cutchen on 13 Jun 2007 00:04
In article <mJHbi.119039$NO1.21087(a)fe05.news.easynews.com>, <rm(a)biteme.org> wrote: > > In article <m4Fbi.83424$d22.60329(a)fe03.news.easynews.com>, > > <rm(a)biteme.org> wrote: > > > >> Again, whose interests are conflicted when you bet on yourself to > >> win? > You described a NYY game. Now show us a Reds game where you think > that Pete made questionable decisions. The game situation I related was not unusual nor specific to the Yankees. There are decisions made all the time where the manager has to weigh the possible benefits of a decision in the current game to the benefits long term over many games. The opportunity is there. Which is why Major League Rule 21 exists. Rule 21(d) provides: Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform, shall be declared ineligible for one year. Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible. Where in the rule do you find that it is acceptable to bet even on your own team to win? Any player, even Pete Rose,who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which he has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible. By definition and without qualification. Maybe you don't like the rule. Maybe your personal ethics are, uh, less rigorous. But Pete gets to be judged by this rule. There is no gray area here. There is no wordsmithing or mealy-mouthing over things like whether "great" means "more." It is absolutely black and white. Pete is permanently ineligible. And as such has no place in Baseball's most hallowed hall. The Hall of Fame is baseball's highest honor. Pete Rose is ineligible to put on a uniform for any reason. He was banned from playing, or managing, or coaching, or broadcasting, or sitting in the press box or stepping on the field, or being a batboy, or washing uniforms. How could anyone even argue that he be eligible for baseball's highest honor? Now, Pete's records and performance should be recorded, displayed and celebrated. The Hall itself acknowleges this: "We are the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum. It is important to make the distinction between the two. The "Hall of Fame" refers to the one-room gallery housing the 206 bronze plaques of those players, pioneers, executives, managers and umpires who have been elected to the Hall of Fame. The rest of the complex -two buildings and three floors - contain the Museum, showcasing the history of Baseball. Over 6,000 artifacts and photographs are on display here, most of which are not Hall of Famer related. Here are represented hundreds and hundreds of non-Hall of Famers, who for a career, a season, a game, or even a sole at-bat, have made a significant contribution to Baseball history. Bobby Thomson, Don Larsen, Johnny Vander Meer, Roger Maris, Joe Jackson and Bill Mazeroski, to mention only a few, may not be elected Hall of Famers at this time; but who can deny their niche in our game's history? For Pete Rose not to be represented in the Museum would be an aberration. He, as much or more than anyone, deserves to be recognized for his outstanding accomplishments on the playing field." But Pete should never be admitted to the Hall of Fame. |