Retro: Amelia Earhart's Last Words ...
weheardthenews
PBDepot
> ... "Where the crap am I? And Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame."
nice, I didn't know she was psychic as well. That was one incredible
woman.
weheardthenews
Greatness can supercede time. And 4,256 hits is pretty great.
DaveW
<weheard...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Oct 26, 2:21?pm, PBDepot <chu...@paintball-depot.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 26, 12:48?pm, weheardthenews <weheardthen...@aol.com> wrote:> ... "Where the crap am I? ?And Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame."
>>
>> ~~~
>> nice, I didn't know she was psychic as well. That was one incredible
>> woman.
>
>Greatness can supercede time. And 4,256 hits is pretty great.
He made more outs than anyone in MLB history, and he gambled on games
when he was in a position to affect the outcome. He is a shitstain on
baseball, and he'll never get into the Hall, and rightfully so.
Dori
> nice, I didn't know she was psychic as well. That was one incredible
> woman.
And she still has no word on when the Chargers finally win a Super Bowl.
Dori
> He is a shitstain on baseball
No, that's the San Diego Padres.
PBDepot
No, but she did mention the Raiders don't win another playoff game
until 2065, just shortly after Al's death
His last words you ask? Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of fame of
course, though most everyone just had a good laugh since Pete Rose had
long since been inducted by then, and Al was actually just a
grapefruit wearing a wig and black sunglasses... though no Raiders
fans ever really noticed.
Will in New Haven
Pete Rose is not getting into the Hall until he is dead. I'm pretty
sure that is a slight injustice to Pete but not as bad as letting Pete
back into Organized Baseball, so he could coach or manage again. I do
know that it is no injustice at all to the Pete-lovers on here and it
is a pleasure to know that this will hurt them more than it will Pete,
as long as he has money and people who worship him.
--
Will in New Haven
weheardthenews
Willy, it's even money that you will die first, so it doesn't matter
what prerequisites you're adhering to.
Btw, do you still like to stare at men's zippers?
Will in New Haven
I will probably live to see Pete dead and in the Hall. That's just an
actuarial estimate, based on our ages and comparative consumption of
methamphetamines. Obviously, there are no sure things in these
matters.
>
> Btw, do you still like to stare at men's zippers?
Please don't append notes to your mom to remarks directed to me.
Kurgan Gringioni.
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> I will probably live to see Pete dead and in the Hall.
Why would they let Pete in and not Shoeless Joe Jackson?
Joe Jackson's lifetime BA: .356
Not involved in the Black Sox Scandal, but he was on the team.
Will in New Haven
wrote:
He was certainly involved. He took the money and he didn't let anyone
know about the plot. He also managed to do some things, like throw to
the wrong base and let a run score, that would not impact his
statistics but would hurt the team's chances. That throw to the wrong
base was in the first game and was the first thing that alerted some
observers that the Sox might be in the tank.
Kurgan Gringioni.
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2:54 am, "Kurgan Gringioni." <kgringi...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 27, 6:28 pm, Will in New Haven
>
> > <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> > > I will probably live to see Pete dead and in the Hall.
>
> > Why would they let Pete in and not Shoeless Joe Jackson?
>
> > Joe Jackson's lifetime BA: .356
>
> > Not involved in the Black Sox Scandal, but he was on the team.
>
> He was certainly involved. He took the money and he didn't let anyone
> know about the plot. He also managed to do some things, like throw to
> the wrong base and let a run score, that would not impact his
> statistics but would hurt the team's chances. That throw to the wrong
> base was in the first game and was the first thing that alerted some
> observers that the Sox might be in the tank.
Here's what wiki says. I still have to ask the question though, if Joe
Jackson's not in, why should Pete Rose be in?
Answer is: neither should be in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoeless_Joe_Jackson
<snip>
During the series, Jackson had 12 hits and a .375 batting average — in
both cases leading both teams. The 12 hits was a World Series record.
He committed no errors and even threw out a runner at the plate.[10]
Jackson did bat worse in the five games that the White Sox lost,
hitting .286, with no RBIs until the final contest, Game 8, when he
hit a home run in the 3rd inning and added two more RBIs on a double
in the 8th, when the White Sox were way behind.
<snip>
In testimony before the grand jury on September 28, 1920, Jackson
admitted under oath that he agreed to participate in the fix.
Contemporary news accounts contend that Jackson told the grand jury:
"When a Cincinnati player would bat a ball out in my territory I'd
muff it if I could — that is, fail to catch it. But if it would look
too much like crooked work to do that I'd be slow and make a throw to
the infield that would be short. My work netted the Cincinnati team
several runs that they never would have had if we had been been
playing on the square."[13]
No such direct quote or testimony to this effect appears in the actual
stenographic record of Jackson's grand jury appearance.[14]
Jackson did, however, admit to receiving a cash payment of $5,000
($83,099 in current dollar terms) and that he had been originally
promised a $20,000 ($332,396 in current dollar terms) bribe.
<snip><end>
Will in New Haven
That this is the actual stenographic record is in dispute. That he
_needed_ to do anything to throw the WS is not really in dispute. Just
by going along with it, he was guilty. He knew, any baseball person
knew, that having fixed the two best Pitchers on the team, the
gamblers were throwing their money away by giving any to anyone else
but Gandil, who was their connection to the Pitchers. But the gamblers
didn't know that.
> Jackson did, however, admit to receiving a cash payment of $5,000
> ($83,099 in current dollar terms) and that he had been originally
> promised a $20,000 ($332,396 in current dollar terms) bribe.
So he was guilty.
As for why would I think Pete Rose should be eligible for the Hall and
not Joe Jackson, the reasons are clear. The punishment for betting on
baseball (or throwing the WS) is banishment from Organized Baseball.
Eligibility for the Hall was not connected to that while people were
likely to consider Joe Jackson. They could have voted for him any time
until the Pete Rose rule, connecting the two things, went into affect.
They didn't. Also, he was barred from the game at a point where he did
not have a sufficiently long career to consider him a _prime_ Hof
candidate. Al Rosen was a better player but career length is keeping
HIM out.
His barring from the game was not unust and not being in the Hall is
just a side-effect. Pete Rose's being barred from _the game_ is not an
injustice. However, connecting that with his HoF eligibility is. I
have heard and read that Pete does not want the two issues searated.
He seems to insist that he be reinstated into Organized Baseball
before he will ACCEPT eligibility for the Hall. Well, fuck him and I'm
glad he's not going in before he dies.
weheardthenews
That's why it's even money.
>
>
>
> > Btw, do you still like to stare at men's zippers?
>
> Please don't append notes to your mom to remarks directed to me.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Willy, did your mother really say that the best thing about women's
tennis is watching their tits bounce up and down?
weheardthenews
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2:54�am, "Kurgan Gringioni." <kgringi...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 27, 6:28�pm, Will in New Haven
>
> > <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> > > I will probably live to see Pete dead and in the Hall.
>
> > Why would they let Pete in and not Shoeless Joe Jackson?
>
> > Joe Jackson's lifetime BA: .356
>
> > Not involved in the Black Sox Scandal, but he was on the team.
>
> He was certainly involved. He took the money and he didn't let anyone
> know about the plot. He also managed to do some things, like throw to
Big deal. The Dodgers and Padres do that all the time.
that would not impact his
> statistics but would hurt the team's chances. That throw to the wrong
> base was in the first game and was the first thing that alerted some
> observers that the Sox might be in the tank.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
Could be the reason contact lenses evolved so much.
Gerry Myerson
<142504fa-317d-45e3...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> Al Rosen was a better player [than Joe Jackson] but career length is keeping
> HIM out.
I'd really like to see your argument supporting this.
Jackson had a career OPS+ of 170, which is in the top 10 all-time,
just shy of Pujols and Mantle at 172, ahead of Cobb and Foxx.
Rosen is at 137, which puts him in the top 90, alongside Jack and
Will Clark and Pedro Guerrero. Sure, Rosen gets some points for
playing a more difficult position than Jackson played, and, by all
accounts, playing it well, but that's a lot of hitting to make up.
So far as I can see, the only way Rosen was a better player than
Jackson was that Rosen didn't take any money from gamblers.
--
Gerry Myerson (ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> In article
> <142504fa-317d-45e3-b763-937c4b094...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> > Al Rosen was a better player [than Joe Jackson] but career length is keeping
> > HIM out.
>
> I'd really like to see your argument supporting this.
> Jackson had a career OPS+ of 170, which is in the top 10 all-time,
> just shy of Pujols and Mantle at 172, ahead of Cobb and Foxx.
> Rosen is at 137, which puts him in the top 90, alongside Jack and
> Will Clark and Pedro Guerrero. Sure, Rosen gets some points for
> playing a more difficult position than Jackson played, and, by all
> accounts, playing it well, but that's a lot of hitting to make up.
>
> So far as I can see, the only way Rosen was a better player than
> Jackson was that Rosen didn't take any money from gamblers.
Jackson was playing in a much weaker league. A Run was worth more in
his day, so that mitigates against this but I'm pretty sure that very
few of the players in the AL of 1919 could, if brought forward in
time, make a ML roster in 1950. Still, the assumption for HoF voting
is that no such steep change in the game exists. So I will retract my
claim that Rosen was the better player.
Still, Jackson's _justified_ ouster from the game kept him from having
what the voters generally consider a full ML career. I see no
injustice in that, plus the voters' being disgusted by his selling a
WS, keeping him out.
I think the voters not being able to decide on Rose _is_ an injustice.
However, he made some of the decisions that put him in this position.
And the people who worship him are suffering because he isn't in. It
may not make me a nice person but I do enjoy that.
Gerry
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> Still, Jackson's _justified_ ouster from the game kept him from having
> what the voters generally consider a full ML career. I see no
> injustice in that, plus the voters' being disgusted by his selling a
> WS, keeping him out.
I think if Jackson's career had ended in 1920 in some non-scandalous
way, he'd be in the Hall today. His career would be considered short,
but comparable in length (and at least the equal in quality) to those
of
Kiner, Campanella, Jackie Robinson, Ross Youngs, Freddy Lindstrom,
and perhaps a few others who are now in the Hall. In my mind, there's
no doubt that it's the scandal that has kept him (and should continue
to keep him) out.