The 2009 Rose Award Player Of The Year.
weheardthenews
St. Louis Cardinals, who hit 47 home runs, scored 124 runs, had a
slugging percentage of .658, a batting average of .327, and had 135
RBIs.
This concludes The Rose Award presentation for 2009.
powrwrap
No hitter has come close to being responsible for as many failures as
Rose, who made 10,328 outs. Hank Aaron is next on that dubious list at
9,136.
One of Rose's greatest claims to fame is hitting .300 in nine
consecutive seasons (1965-73). But Cobb did it 23 years in a row, Stan
Musial 16 and Tony Gwynn 17.
When it comes to career batting average, Rose is no better than tied
for 170th — with Mike Greenwell and Buddy Myer — at .3028 (rounded up
to .303).
Rose led the National League in batting three times. Contemporaries
Roberto Clemente and Bill Madlock each won four NL batting crowns
before Gwynn won seven times in an 11-year span (1987-97).
In the American League, infielders Rod Carew won seven batting titles
and Wade Boggs five in six years.
Rose's highest single-season batting average was .348 in 1969. In the
next six seasons, Rico Carty (.366), Joe Torre (.363), Ralph Garr (.
353) and Madlock (.354) — none of whom are headed to Cooperstown
solely on the merits of their playing careers — led the NL with higher
averages.
Although he won NL Rookie of the Year honors in 1963, Rose was hardly
the best young hitter of his era. The Minnesota Twins' Tony Oliva won
batting titles his first two seasons. As a rookie in 1964, Oliva
batted .323 and hit 32 home runs, leading to a slugging percentage of .
557. That year, Rose hit .269 and slugged .326.
--------
"If I had played my career hitting singles like Pete, I'd wear a
dress."—Mickey Mantle
powrwrap
Let's see how Rose stacks up with Pujols...
Number of years batting over .300 (min ABs reached):
Rose: 15 out of 26 years, 57.7% of career
Pujols: 9 out of 9 years, 100.0%
Career batting average:
Rose .303
Pujols .334
Number of years hitting 30+ HRs in career:
Rose: never 0%
Pujols: 9 out of 9 seasons, 100.0%
Number of years hitting 100+ RBI in career:
Rose: never, 0%
Pujols: 9 out of 9 seasons, 100.0%
Number of years with Slugging Percentage above .500 in career:
Rose: 1 out of 26 seasons, 3.8%
Pujols: 9 out of 9 seasons, 100.0%
Number of years scoring more than 120 runs in career:
Rose: 10 out of 26 seasons, 38.5%
Pujols: 8 out of 9 (off year had 99 runs scored), 88.9%
Number of years with OBA above .400 in career:
Rose: 5 out of 26 seasons, 19.2%
Pujols: 8 out of 9 seasons, 88.9%
Stolen base success percentage:
Rose: 57.1%
Pujols: 67.0%
Pete Rose <yawn>
Corey
The Rose award is such a misnomer, unless you can really say that
during his time Pete Rose was a feared home-run hitter power slugger
like Albert Pujols is today. The only way the Rose Award makes any
sense if it it goes to the player with the most hits in the season
(since that's all Rose is known for, all the hits he got, which is
mainly due to the very long career he was able to have, which is an
acheivement in itself, as he never was a player who completely
dominated in a single season). And look here, Pujols was 14th in
major league baseball in hits:
1. Ichiro Suzuki - 225
2. Derek Jeter - 212
3. Robinson Cano - 204
4. Ryan Braun - 203
5. Miguel Tejada - 199
6. Miguel Cabrera - 198
7. Hanley Ramirez - 197
8. Aaron Hill - 195
9. Joe Mauer - 191
10. Pablo Sandoval - 189
11. Jacoby Ellsbury - 188
12. Nick Markakis - 188
13. Felipe Lopez - 187
14. Albert Pujols - 186
Lew Pitcher
> On Nov 25, 3:36?pm, weheardthenews <weheardthen...@aol.com> wrote:
>> The 2009 Rose Award Player of the Year goes to Albert Pujols of the
>> St. Louis Cardinals, who hit 47 home runs, scored 124 runs, had a
>> slugging percentage of .658, a batting average of .327, and had 135
>> RBIs.
>>
>> This concludes The Rose Award presentation for 2009.
>
> No hitter has come close to being responsible for as many failures as
> Rose, who made 10,328 outs. Hank Aaron is next on that dubious list at
> 9,136.
Nobody, except anti-Rose zealots, takes any notice of the number of
outs. All the top outmakers were great players because the number
of outs is a direct function of being in the lineup more than anyone
else.
But even you are bright enough to know this and you are just trying
to cause trouble.
> One of Rose's greatest claims to fame is hitting .300 in nine
> consecutive seasons (1965-73). But Cobb did it 23 years in a row, Stan
> Musial 16 and Tony Gwynn 17.
Well, no, hitting .300 in nine consecutive seasons is not something
that Rose or his fans crow about, although they could. This is just
a strawman.
How many 200 hit seasons did Pete record?
Hmm?
> When it comes to career batting average, Rose is no better than tied
> for 170th ? with Mike Greenwell and Buddy Myer ? at .3028 (rounded up
> to .303).
Again, another strawman. Why don't you bring up Pete Rose's homerun
totals, while you're at it?
Why don't you tell us how many shoelaces he broke over his career?
> Rose led the National League in batting three times. Contemporaries
> Roberto Clemente and Bill Madlock each won four NL batting crowns
> before Gwynn won seven times in an 11-year span (1987-97).
Rose led the majors in lifetime hits. He still does. Of course he
only did that once...
Do you get to suck on your hemorrhoids while your head is jammed up
there?
> In the American League, infielders Rod Carew won seven batting titles
> and Wade Boggs five in six years.
Yeah, and Steve Carlton won over 300 games. Rose never did that.
Hell, Rose never even had a single twenty win season. And he never
recorded saves in double digits, not even once, although he played
in the NL for 43 seasons...
But Rose did take a bat and shove it, to the hilt, right up your
ass. And you are still thrilled about that, even if you are
embarrassed.
What is it like to learn sexual preference from Pete Rose?
> Rose's highest single-season batting average was .348 in 1969.
Yes, but in 1970 it rained a lot more.
> In the next six seasons, Rico Carty (.366), Joe Torre (.363),
> Ralph Garr (. 353) and Madlock (.354) ? none of whom are headed
> to Cooperstown solely on the merits of their playing careers ? led
> the NL with higher averages.
Pete Rose remains, by definition and without any qualification, the
greatest hitter in the history of baseball.
You can suck on all the Rico Carty dick you want, Jennifer, but Pete
Rose was the real deal and he didn't have to fuck with steroids.
cordially, as always,
LewPi...@LewPitcher.ca
--
Official Website -->> http://lewpitcher.ca/
Something to look at: -->> http://www.emusclemag.com/
Lonely in Brampton? -->> http://gaypros.meetup.com/cities/ca/on/brampton/
Peel HIV/AIDS Network -->> http://www.phan.ca/home.html
weheardthenews
Number of hits:
Rose: 4,256
Pujols: Will never happen.
Any major league player, past, present, future: Will never happen.
whatitis
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tell that to a certain ss....
Corey
If he can play 8 more seasons (he'd be 43 then), and average 188.625
hits per season.
Corey
Why does it seem that you base the Rose Award on the player with the
most home runs and RBIs rather than the player with the most hits,
then?
Will in New Haven
Because HR and getting on base and knocking in Runs help your team win
games much more certainly than Hits totals or Batting Average?
--
Will in New Haven
Will in New Haven
> to watch.
While you were watching him, did he have a sign over his head saying
"going to have the Hits record?" For most of his career, and I watched
his whole career, He was a great player, maybe a very great player,
but the cult of Rose, or at least the reasons usually given for the
elevation of Rose to an all-time great, seems based on something you
could not _see_ for most of his career.
There was a LOT to like about Rose and I enjoyed watching him but the
Hits record is only numbers on a page, doesn't really impact my memory
of him as a player on the field. I wish the Rose advocates would talk
more about those other qualities and less about a record that he
played too long, and gave himself too many At Bats, to achieve.
--
Will in New Haven
Give Rose some steroids and he'd have been even better.
>
> Tony LaRussa managed the Oakland A's who were a pack of juicers. Think
> he forgot that trick when he came to the Cards?
>
> --
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/rosepetal236/
weheardthenews
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jeter, a message to you from The Rose Committee: It will never happen.
weheardthenews
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Rose Award is awarded to the player(s) with the best game
performance for the day. That usually means an emphasis on RBIs and
home runs.
The Rose Award exists to remind everyone who the greatest player in
the history of baseball is. Greatest because he holds a record that
will never be broken.
When you're at the plate, you're there to get a hit, not to strike
out. A single is a hit. A double is a hit. A triple is a hit. A
home run is a hit, whether it's a solo shot or a grand slam, it's
still one hit.
weheardthenews
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Willy, do you still masturbate into the turkey stuffing every holiday
season?
Will in New Haven
No manager (except Pete himself) who had the choice of all the players
who ever played in their prime would take Pete Rose on his team.
That's not insulting Rose. It is just a fact. No twenty-five man "all-
time best" roster would include Pete Rose. He was never that good. So
he's not even twenty-fifth best.
You can't make a logical argument to refute this, so you will make
some lame attempt at an insult.
--
Will in New Haven
>
Will in New Haven
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Willy, do you still masturbate into the turkey stuffing every holiday
> season?
Only when your mom is sucking my cock.
--
Will in New Haven
Pete Rose will not get into the Hall of Fame while he was alive.
powrwrap
>
> At the time he played who was better?
Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Roberto Clemente, Frank
Robinson, Rod Carew, Tony Oliva, George Brett, Mike Schmidt, Reggie
Jackson, Harmon Killebrew, Johnny Bench, Willie Stargell, Yaz
brianj
And, check me if I am wrong here, but I don't think any of those other
guys has spent even one day under a lifetime suspension from major
league baseball for cheating. You say he didn't use steroids, and I
have no reason to believe he ever used performance enhancing drugs of
any kind. But we do know that he was willing to violate the rules and
then lie about it, so the truth is that we can't really be confident
about much that he did, or anything he says. Surely that means
something.
brianj
Will in New Haven
> Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> powrwrap <powrw...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Pete Rose <yawn>
>
> >> Pete Rose was one of the greatest players I've ever had the pleasure
> >> to watch.
>
> >While you were watching him, did he have a sign over his head saying
> >"going to have the Hits record?" For most of his career, and I watched
> >his whole career, He was a great player, maybe a very great player,
> >but the cult of Rose, or at least the reasons usually given for the
> >elevation of Rose to an all-time great, seems based on something you
> >could not _see_ for most of his career.
>
> >There was a LOT to like about Rose and I enjoyed watching him but the
> >Hits record is only numbers on a page, doesn't really impact my memory
> >of him as a player on the field. I wish the Rose advocates would talk
> >more about those other qualities and less about a record that he
> >played too long, and gave himself too many At Bats, to achieve.
>
> the field. He played hard on damn near every play. Sliding
> headfirst... Taking guys out. He was a switch hitter with the all
> time hits record. Three rings, an MVP, Rookie of the year and 17 All
> Star appearances. 44 game hitting streak. That's good enough for me.
>
> If you don't remember him as a great player then I wonder what sport
> you were watching.
I _said_ that he was a great player in the message to which you
replied. I think those are the sorts of things that should be
emphasized when talking about how great it was to watch Pete and _not_
the Hits record that did not become apparent until very late in his
career.
Will in New Haven
> Will in New Haven wrote:
>
>
>
> >No manager (except Pete himself) who had the choice of all the players
> >who ever played in their prime would take Pete Rose on his team.
>
> take a player as he is or as he was. A career .300 hitter with 4256
> hits is well worth it.
>
> >That's not insulting Rose. It is just a fact. No twenty-five man "all-
> >time best" roster would include Pete Rose. He was never that good. So
> >he's not even twenty-fifth best.
>
> than anyone else.
>
> >You can't make a logical argument to refute this, so you will make
> >some lame attempt at an insult.
>
>
> Pete Rose was a great baseball player and one of the most exciting
> players of his time.
>
> At the time he played who was better?
Off the top of my head:
Leaving out the generation before Pete, guys like Mays and Aaron and
Mantle, and the generation after him, guys like Schmidt and Brett,
taking only position players who overlapped his career pretty
closely,
Bench, McCovey, Morgan, Frank Robinson, Reggie Jackson, Roberto
Clemente, and I could name more.
Will in New Haven
It means that he will not get into the Hall of Fame until he dies.
However, it _also_ means that people are so worked up about that they
will argue that he was a better player than some of the ones listed,
which he clearly was not. Well, he's about on a par with Carew and
Killebrew and Oliva and Clemente. All of them great players but _not_
in the class of Aaron, Mays, Robinson, Brett or Schmidt. And Joe
Morgan.
--
Will iin New Haven
weheardthenews
It's just that you're so easy to insult. And we wouldn't want to
waste logic on you.
Btw, how long have you been anti-Semitic?
>
>
>
>
>
> > When you're at the plate, you're there to get a hit, not to strike
> > out. �A single is a hit. �A double is a hit. �A triple is a hit. �A
> > home run is a hit, whether it's a solo shot or a grand slam, it's
> > still one hit.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
weheardthenews
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Willy, do you still masturbate into the turkey stuffing every holiday
> > season?
>
> Only when your mom is sucking my cock.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
>
> - Show quoted text -
Willy, is your cock really sewn on? Did the doctor sneeze when he was
circumcising you? What else are you missing?
weheardthenews
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 10:44�am, DG <nos...@nospam.nospammmm> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Will in New Haven wrote:
>
> > >No manager (except Pete himself) who had the choice of all the players
> > >who ever played in their prime would take Pete Rose on his team.
>
> > This is a dumb argument. �You can't take players in their prime. �You
> > take a player as he is or as he was. �A career .300 hitter with 4256
> > hits is well worth it.
>
> > >That's not insulting Rose. It is just a fact. No twenty-five man "all-
> > >time best" roster would include Pete Rose. He was never that good. So
> > >he's not even twenty-fifth best.
>
> > Unless you like guys who play hard all the time and have more hits
> > than anyone else.
>
> > >You can't make a logical argument to refute this, so you will make
> > >some lame attempt at an insult.
>
> > It's not an insult to say that your premise is flawed. �
>
> > Pete Rose was a great baseball player and one of the most exciting
> > players of his time.
>
> > At the time he played who was better?
>
> Off the top of my head:
>
> Leaving out the generation before Pete, guys like Mays and Aaron and
> Mantle, and the generation after him, guys like Schmidt and Brett,
Hey Einstein, Schmidt and Brett are in Rose's generation, not after.
All these heavy-hitters mentioned, both by you and powrpap, are
certainly great players. And not so surprisingly, you and powrpap
love the long ball, like any bimbo would. But with the bases loaded,
two out in the bottom of the ninth, and a 3-2 count, we'll take Rose.
> taking only position players who overlapped his career pretty
> closely,
>
> Bench, McCovey, Morgan, Frank Robinson, Reggie Jackson, Roberto
> Clemente, and I could name more.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -
weheardthenews
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's even money that you'll die before Pete. It's one of the reasons
why we check the obituaries daily.
Will in New Haven
You'll take his dick up your ass too, and pay him if he autographs it,
but that doesn't make him the logical choice for a baseball team.
Will in New Haven
It won't matter. He's still not going in while he lives.
LidsvilleNine
game.
LidsvilleNine
> Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> powrwrap <powrw...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Pete Rose <yawn>
>
> >> Pete Rose was one of the greatest players I've ever had the pleasure
> >> to watch.
>
> >While you were watching him, did he have a sign over his head saying
> >"going to have the Hits record?" For most of his career, and I watched
> >his whole career, He was a great player, maybe a very great player,
> >but the cult of Rose, or at least the reasons usually given for the
> >elevation of Rose to an all-time great, seems based on something you
> >could not _see_ for most of his career.
>
> >There was a LOT to like about Rose and I enjoyed watching him but the
> >Hits record is only numbers on a page, doesn't really impact my memory
> >of him as a player on the field. I wish the Rose advocates would talk
> >more about those other qualities and less about a record that he
> >played too long, and gave himself too many At Bats, to achieve.
>
> the field. He played hard on damn near every play. Sliding
> headfirst... Taking guys out. He was a switch hitter with the all
> time hits record. Three rings, an MVP, Rookie of the year and 17 All
> Star appearances. 44 game hitting streak. That's good enough for me.
>
many of us.
LidsvilleNine
Like Hell.
All of them great players but _not_
> in the class of Aaron, Mays, Robinson, Brett or Schmidt. And Joe
> Morgan.
>
> --
> Will iin New Haven- Hide quoted text -
Will in New Haven
wrote:
I didn't type that. Get your attributions right. I might think a bit
more highly of Pete as a player than you do but not by much.
Corey
And I suppose your main reason for checking the obituaries is so you
can make false claims that the person's last words were "Pete Rose
belongs in the Hall of Fame".
Will in New Haven
>
> None of them had a 44 game hit streak...
Those are incredibly _stupid_ reasons to rank one player over another.
Getting on base and power are almost all of a player's offensive
contribution. If you add in baserunning, you have it all. None of it
is about Hits totals or Hit streaks.
Aaron, just to pick the first example, was a much better _baseball
player_ than Pete Rose. The game is baseball, not hits totals. Aaron
was better offensively and, although not as versatile, defensively.
E.F. Hokie
> Pete Rose
> Times On Base
> Career--5929--1st
>
> <Ben Stern>
> Quit acting stupid, ya moron...
> </Ben Stern>
Rose fans are constantly pulling out cumulative numbers, knowing full
well that Rose played for far too long, boosted by his own ego while he
was a player-manager. Take the above and get an average per season, and
then let's see how he compares to others... otherwise, shut it.
--
E.F. Hokie
"To those who have fought for it,
freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
Will in New Haven
> E.F. Hokie <efho...@nah.nope> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:06:13 -0500, DG wrote...
>
> >> Pete Rose
> >> Times On Base
> >> Career--5929--1st
>
> >> <Ben Stern>
> >> Quit acting stupid, ya moron...
> >> </Ben Stern>
>
> >Rose fans are constantly pulling out cumulative numbers, knowing full
> >well that Rose played for far too long, boosted by his own ego while he
> >was a player-manager.
>
But some of them care enough about the teams they are playing on and/
or managing not to give At Bats to a worn-out old wreck who happened
to be chasing a record. That was good for ticket sales but not for the
team's supposed goal of winning. He may, however, have been fooled by
his own ego into thinking that was the right choice.
>
> >Take the above and get an average per season, and
> >then let's see how he compares to others... otherwise, shut it.
>
> Pete Rose was an exciting, great player.
That's your pattern. First you say he was better than a list of
players, all of whom were at least as good as he was and several
better and then, when you cannot defend that statement, you fall back
on obviously true things. He was certainly exciting (which is pretty
much meaningless in winning ballgames) and great (which is very
meaningful in winning ballgames) He still wasn't as good as, another
example, Mays. That is, he could not replace Mays in a lineup unless
_he_ was filling out the lineup card. This is true even if we assume
that Pete could play Center Field, which he could not.
Will in New Haven
> Will in New Haven wrote:
>
>
>
> >That's your pattern. First you say he was better than a list of
> >players, all of whom were at least as good as he was and several
> >better and then, when you cannot defend that statement, you fall back
> >on obviously true things. He was certainly exciting (which is pretty
> >much meaningless in winning ballgames) and great (which is very
> >meaningful in winning ballgames) He still wasn't as good as, another
> >example, Mays. That is, he could not replace Mays in a lineup unless
> >_he_ was filling out the lineup card. This is true even if we assume
> >that Pete could play Center Field, which he could not.
>
The point is that Mays, among others, was _better_ than Rose. Address
that. I haven't denied that Rose was a great player but _you_ said he
was a better player than a list that included players like Mays,
Aaron, Schmidt, Morgan, McCovey. Bench, Frank Robinson and Mantle. He
wasn't. If he had to beat out those guys for a starting position he
would be a great utility player off the bench.
One Hell of a team, though, if they had some pitching.
Will in New Haven
> Will in New Haven wrote:
>
>
>
> >contribution. If you add in baserunning, you have it all. None of it
> >is about Hits totals or Hit streaks.
>
> Times On Base
> Career--5929--1st
It's very good. Sorry I avoided it. It exactly matches the fact that
he is first in Outs. In other words, he played a long, long time. Now
the argument has been made that longevity is a proof of excellence
because it means a manager thought you were good enough to keep
putting you back in the lineup. There is something to this but Pete's
value in this regard is somewhat tainted because he was the manager
who kept writing his name into the lineup after he was no longer a
good enough player to be playing regularly.
He did this because he was chasing that record and, probably, because
he was deluded enough to think he was helping the team. Maybe that was
the ego that you think every great sportsman has. Or maybe he was just
an asshole who could see how that record could help him sell
autographs. And he know his fans wouldn't care if he hurt the Reds,
because they never realizes that all that hustle and intensity was not
sparked by a desire to win as much as it was by a desire to be seen as
great.
weheardthenews
E.F. Hokie, did you really say that rape should be the new national
pasttime? Are you angry because your mother was raped when she turned
89?
Will in New Haven
This is how Rose-supporters (a division of athletic supporters) make
their arguments. Since they cannot support their claims with logic,
they get nasty.
E.F. Hokie
> Pete Rose
> Times On Base
> Career--5929--1st
>
>
>
> Why do you avoid this?
It was answered, in spades, and you ducked the answer.
Lidsville Nine
>
> - Show quoted text -
Piss off. I copied the thread straight from the earlier post. As
Willie the Janitor might say "Urinize somewhey else, fool."
Lidsville Nine
> Will in New Haven wrote:
>
>
>
> >contribution. If you add in baserunning, you have it all. None of it
> >is about Hits totals or Hit streaks.
>
> Times On Base
> Career--5929--1st
>
>
Who cares? Look at how often he promptly made an OUT "trying" to steal
2nd.
Corey
>
> --
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/rosepetal236/
In any case, with 50+ posts later, it's official: The Rose Award is
more controversial than the Nobel Peace Prize.
weheardthenews
Willy, is it true that your dog has a dick 10 times bigger than
yours? Is that why you hardly ever feed him?
Will in New Haven
wrote:
Fuck off yourself. I didn't type that. I don't care what you think you
copied.
Will in New Haven
Your whore mom could answer that question. He's quite satisfied with
HER is all I can tell you.
LidsvilleNine
> Lidsville Nine wrote:
>
remember. Look at his stolen base numbers/ratio. He made a lot of
needless outs and took the bat out of some qualified hands when
successful. Sure, he generated some runs as well.
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/rosepetal236/- Hide quoted text -
LidsvilleNine
Ooh! We're taking it up a level - and I hardly know you. We hardly
ever have this sort of excitement here!
Will in New Haven
wrote:
Rose made the most Outs in history, both needless and unavoidable. All
the Rose-sniffers want is for him to be evaluated by his impressive
positive totals, ignoring the costs to his teams. They say those Outs
are just a side-effect of all the Plate Appearances he got and, except
for the Caught Stealing, they are. But so are all those Hits.
Just as an example, it was very late in Mantle's career and after many
injuries that he was not a MUCH better base-stealer than Rose ever
was. But you can't tell it by the totals.
powrwrap
>
> Times On Base
> Career--5929--1st
>
Actually, he reached 5,958 times. The only reason why it is remarkable
is because of Pete's longevity at the game. His career OBA is .375,
good for 212th place all time. Big deal.
Will in New Haven
That's not a negative thing except in the context of the Rose-
sniffers' claims that he is one of the all-time greats.
Lew Pitcher
> Rose made the most Outs in history, both needless and unavoidable.
So this bait is still effective, eh?
> All the Rose-sniffers want is for him to be evaluated by his
> impressive positive totals, ignoring the costs to his teams. They
> say those Outs are just a side-effect of all the Plate Appearances
> he got and, except for the Caught Stealing, they are. But so are
> all those Hits.
But the only reason he got all of those "negatives" is because he
had so many positives.
You don't keep around the all-time out-maker, unless he just so
happens to be the all-time hitmaker.
And Pete Rose is, by definition and without any qualification
whatsoever, the greatest hitter of all time. And by a huge margin.
The only player who was close to Rose played in an all-white league
a hundred years ago. Ty Cobb would be hard-pressed to excel at AA
ball by today's standards.
Pete Rose was, is, and always will be, the real deal.
Again, because you're thick: Pete Rose remains, by definition and
without qualification, the greatest hitter of all time.
All time greatest hitter.
By definition.
> Just as an example, it was very late in Mantle's career and after many
> injuries that he was not a MUCH better base-stealer than Rose ever
> was. But you can't tell it by the totals.
Mantle? Mantle was maybe in the top 10. And that is the top 10
NYY, not all major league players.
LewPi...@LewPitcher.ca
--
Official Website -->> http://lewpitcher.ca/
Something to look at: -->> http://www.emusclemag.com/
Lonely in Brampton? -->> http://gaypros.meetup.com/cities/ca/on/brampton/
Peel HIV/AIDS Network -->> http://www.phan.ca/home.html
Lew Pitcher
>> On Nov 28, 4:02?pm, DG <nos...@nospam.nospammmm> wrote:
>>
>> Pete Rose
>> Times On Base
>> Career--5929--1st
>>
>
>
> Actually, he reached 5,958 times. The only reason why it is remarkable
> is because of Pete's longevity at the game. His career OBA is .375,
> good for 212th place all time. Big deal.
Big deal?
Pete Rose had the very highest OBP of all players with more than
4,000 hits who played competitive baseball.
Of course Rose was the only player who had 4,000 hits who played in
the modern major leagues. But then, that only makes the point,
doesn't it doofus?
Will in New Haven
> Lew Pitcher wrote:
>
> >In rec.sport.baseball Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> >> Rose made the most Outs in history, both needless and unavoidable.
>
> >So this bait is still effective, eh?
>
> >> All the Rose-sniffers want is for him to be evaluated by his
> >> impressive positive totals, ignoring the costs to his teams. They
> >> say those Outs are just a side-effect of all the Plate Appearances
> >> he got and, except for the Caught Stealing, they are. But so are
> >> all those Hits.
>
> >But the only reason he got all of those "negatives" is because he
> >had so many positives.
>
> >You don't keep around the all-time out-maker, unless he just so
> >happens to be the all-time hitmaker.
>
> >And Pete Rose is, by definition and without any qualification
> >whatsoever, the greatest hitter of all time. And by a huge margin.
> >The only player who was close to Rose played in an all-white league
> >a hundred years ago. Ty Cobb would be hard-pressed to excel at AA
> >ball by today's standards.
>
> >Pete Rose was, is, and always will be, the real deal.
>
> >Again, because you're thick: Pete Rose remains, by definition and
> >without qualification, the greatest hitter of all time.
>
> >All time greatest hitter.
>
> >By definition.
>
> he was #1 all time in "caught stealing".
>
> I do find it amazing that he constantly bangs his head into the wall.
> Watching ignorant people on display is entertaining.
Henderson was great primarily because of how often he got on base. He
was also underrated as a Left Fielder and he stole a lot of bases. But
it is his onbase percentage that is the first thing that stands out.
That and the number of Runs that he scored.
You play one baseball game at a time, one season at a time. You WATCH
one game at a time. Lifetime statistics are dry numbers in a book.
Anyone who ranks Rose below "great" is an idiot. Anyone who says that
he is the greatest or best of all time is a moron.
No manager in his day would have started Rose over, for example, Frank
Robinson. That's simply a fact. Pete isn't getting into the Hall of
Fame while he is alive. That is simply another fact. You lot can froth
at the mouth all you want.
Will in New Haven
> assimilate that information. What is wrong with you?
I haven't been schooled. I've been told, by people with no
understanding of how teams win ballgames, that this Hits record is the
only thing that matters. There was much more to Pete Rose's career but
that is all you guys think about. Being yelled at by morons isn't
being schooled.
>
> >No manager in his day would have started Rose over, for example, Frank
> >Robinson. That's simply a fact.
>
> No, that's a fantasy world that you live in. No manager has that
> choice.
So what? How else do you compare players? By simply _asserting_ over
and over again how great Pete was? No one fucking CARES about the Hits
record.
> >Pete isn't getting into the Hall of
> >Fame while he is alive. That is simply another fact. You lot can froth
> >at the mouth all you want.
>
> I don't care what sports writers say.
> Rose was a great player.
> Bonds was a great player.
> HOF be damned.-
As I said in the post you just answered, Pete was great. The assertion
I disagree with is that he was the best of all time. It is pretty easy
to name twenty better players, leaving Pitchers out of it. Maybe you
didn't say that but it has been claimed in this thread. I'm glad you
way about the Hall because he isn't going in until he's dead.
Will in New Haven
> Will in New Haven wrote:
>
> I'll repeat something said in this thread for emphasis:
> "Again, because you're thick: Pete Rose remains, by definition and
> without qualification, the greatest hitter of all time."
>
> I agree with all of it... You are thick and Pete Rose is the greatest
> hitter of all time.
No one actually connected with baseball thinks that. You don't send a
batter to the plate to set a Hits record or achieve a Batting Average.
You send him to the plate to make Runs for your team and to cost you
the fewest Outs that he can while he does it. You only have so many
Outs to spend to make your Runs and win ballgames. All the offensive
numbers boil down to that. All the verbiage you come up with means
nothing. He was a very good hitter for a very long time. Anyone who
had the choice would take at least twenty hitters over him. Only his
longevity keeps it at twenty.
And he isn't getting into the Hall before he dies. And it's an
injustice but people like _you_ make me feel good about it.
weheardthenews
>
> - Show quoted text -
Willy, is it true that you once offered to shine Mantle's bat, and
when he handed it to you, you said, "Wow, you really are all of 10
inches!" ?
weheardthenews
It's still even money that you'll die before Pete. And that's sweet
justice, and we feel good about it.
Will in New Haven
What a brilliant article for Pete Rose's greatness. The Rose
supporters can come up with nothing better than insults in the "is it
true" format, no less.
You fucking half-wit. You and Pete, the liar, thief, druggie, con-man
and jackass, deserve one another.
Lew Pitcher
>> No, that's a fantasy world that you live in. ?No manager has that
>> choice. ?
>
> So what? How else do you compare players? By simply _asserting_ over
> and over again how great Pete was? No one fucking CARES about the Hits
> record.
Hey, moron, Cincinnati replaced Frank Robinson with Pete Rose, you
stupid fuck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pete Rose beat Frank Robinson out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And with Rose, the team was far, far, far, better than it was with
Robinson.
You stupid, stupid, fuck!
cordially, as always,
rm
Will in New Haven
> In rec.sport.baseball Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> >> No, that's a fantasy world that you live in. ?No manager has that
> >> choice. ?
>
> > So what? How else do you compare players? By simply _asserting_ over
> > and over again how great Pete was? No one fucking CARES about the Hits
> > record.
>
> Hey, moron, Cincinnati replaced Frank Robinson with Pete Rose, you
> stupid fuck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Pete Rose beat Frank Robinson out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> And with Rose, the team was far, far, far, better than it was with
> Robinson.
>
> You stupid, stupid, fuck!
Welcome back, you old whore.
They were so much "better off" that the GM has been bitterly
criticized for getting rid of Robinson ever since. Of course, they
could have easily had them both and used them both. Which would have
been due to Rose's versatility, I admit.
--
Will in New Haven
Pete Rose will not go into the Hall of Fame alive
brianj
>
> - Show quoted text -
Will, I don't know how closely you have followed this Rose committee
(as if there is a committee) stuff before, but, just so you know, you
are wasting your time. It doesn't matter that you are sensible and
display an understanding of baseball and history. It doesn't matter
that you are not claiming Pete was a no-talent bum, but a very good
player. It doesn't matter that you say things over and over and the
best response that can be mustered is an insult. There is none so
blind as he who won't see, they say. The Rose committee proves that
one, over and over again. Either he/she thinks he/she is funny (seems
unlikely) or he/she is just blinded by his/her love of Pete Rose, or,
maybe more likely, life is just easier when all life's questions have
simple answers. That way he/she doesn't have to think, and he/she
doesn't have to listen to anyone because. . . well, because he/she
already has the answers.
Maybe you knew all this about the Rose committee before. And maybe
you don't mind the whole thing. I was just starting to feel sorry for
your gallant, but ultimately futile, effort.
brianj
Josh Rosenbluth
> stupid fuck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, he didn't Rose was a starter before and after Robinson.
> Pete Rose beat Frank Robinson out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> And with Rose, the team was far, far, far, better than it was with
> Robinson.
The Reds did worse in 1966-69 without Robinson than they did prior to
that (while the Orioles became great starting in 1966). It wasn't
until 1970, 1972-76 that the Reds became great (while the Orioles were
great through 1971 - Robinson left the team in 1972).
Josh Rosenbluth
Lew Pitcher
The point being, they didn't need them both, they kept Rose and with
him, and not Frank, became known as The Big Red Machine, one of the
greatest baseball teams of all time.
The Big Red Machine became the Big Red Machine only after they kept
Rose and dumped Frank Robinson.
You can look it up.
cordially, as always,
rm
Lew Pitcher
Your problem with Rose is sourced in the fact that after you winked
at him and wiggled your ass as you walked away, Pete called out to
you that he doesn't pack fudge.
Your feelings were hurt.
cordially, as always,
rm
Lew Pitcher
This carefully worded silliness is what happens when you cherry-pick
statistics.
The fact remains that Frank Robinson was still playing baseball
during both years of the Big Red Machine. It's just that he wasn't
playing baseball in Cincinnati. Now you can twist the facts all you
want but while Pete was one of the most prominent players of one of
the greatest teams of all time, Frank Robinson was playing baseball
elsewhere and it wasn't his choice.
In other words, bugger off.
cordially, as always,
rm
Lew Pitcher
And once again, if you want to criticize Rose for gambling, go
ahead. But don't _ever_ pretend that he was anything other than the
greatest hitter of all time, by definition and without
qualification.
Pete Rose has the stat to prove it.
Pete Rose remains the greatest hitter in the history of baseball, by
definition and without qualification. Live with it. Choke on it.
Do whatever you want.
But don't do it here.
cordially, as always,
rm
Will in New Haven
The only stat you ever think means anything and it's practically
meaningless.
Pete Rose is never getting into the Hall of Fame alive.
Choke on THAT, because it is 100% true
And do NOT tell other people they can't post on this newsgroup. You
Rose-suckers have made a good job of killing it but maybe someone but
you guys will post here once in awhile.
weheardthenews
>
> - Show quoted text -
What took you so long to feel sorry? Willy the kid was dead months
ago.
weheardthenews
Willy, chew on this. It's still even money that you'll die before
Pete. Every time we think about that our appetite becomes voracious.
Btw, Willy, do you still plan to shove an atomic bomb up your ass?
Don't you know that Preparation H works just as well, without all the
noise?
>
> And do NOT tell other people they can't post on this newsgroup. You
> Rose-suckers have made a good job of killing it but maybe someone but
> you guys will post here once in awhile.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -
Lew Pitcher
> meaningless.
He has the greatest number of hits; ergo, he is the greatest hitter.
Now, if you don't care who the greatest hitter is, then you don't
really have any business in this thread, do you?
> Pete Rose is never getting into the Hall of Fame alive.
That may be true. How about Baby Bonds? How about Mark McGwire?
How about you?
> Choke on THAT, because it is 100% true
A HoF that doesn't include the game's greatest hitter is certainly
diminished, isn't it?
But the fact is that more people will remember and talk about the
game's greatest hitter, if he is left out, rather than left in. You
don't see huge threads about Ty Cobb, do you, chump?
> And do NOT tell other people they can't post on this newsgroup. You
> Rose-suckers have made a good job of killing it but maybe someone but
> you guys will post here once in awhile.
What on earth are you talking about now? This newsgroup used to be
about the greatness of Baby Bonds. Most of the trash posting here
declared Baby Bonds innocent of doping. Baby Bonds was busted and
now the Baby Bonds supporters no longer post because they hide in
shame.
In shame.
Now, bugger off. But before you do, consider this: Pete Rose
remains the game's greatest hitter, by definition and without
qualification.
Now choke on it.
cordially, as always,
rm
powrwrap
> He has the greatest number of hits; ergo, he is the greatest hitter.
I don't know about that. You've got the greatest number of posts about
Pete Rose and you're not the greatest poster about Pete Rose.
Choke on that.
Lew Pitcher
Unfortunately your lack of objectivity disqualifies you from being
anything like an official scorer.
But we think it clear that our postings have garnered more response,
even if only from trash like you, and that would allow us to make the claim,
that yes indeedy, we are the greatest Pete Rose poster.
Take some water with that.
Oh, and still using usenet to advertise your failed product, eh?
cordially, as always,
rm
Josh
Robinson was one of the most prominent players of one of the greatest
teams of all time (1966-1971 Orioles).
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh
>
> He has the greatest number of hits; ergo, he is the greatest hitter.
Is the guy with greatest number of pitches the greatest pitcher? The
guy with the greatest number of catches the greatest catcher?
Josh Rosenbluth
weheardthenews
powrwrap, we heard that your mama killed the most Nazis before,
during, and after WW2. That makes her the greatest Nazi killer of all
time.
Btw, powrwrap, do you secretly have a desire to be in a Japanese porn
movie?
Lew Pitcher
> Lew Pitcher wrote:
>> He has the greatest number of hits; ergo, he is the greatest hitter.
> Is the guy with greatest number of pitches the greatest pitcher?
Hardly. That would be like arguing that the player who took the
most swings was the greatest hitter.
> The guy with the greatest number of catches the greatest catcher?
Har. Sorry sweets, throwing a pitch or catching a pitch is
analogous to swinging the bat. Throwing and catching are expected
and are nothing special.
On the other hand, the pitcher who prevented the most hits would be
the greatest hit preventer. And this is just as the hitter who had
the most hits is the greatest hitter.
But you're starting to think and that is good. The problem that you
are trying to get around is that you can't really change the
meaning of great unless you change the context. But since
""greatest" number of hits and "greatest" hitter are being used in
the same sentence, it's pretty hard to legitimately change the
meaning of the words by shifting the context. At least it is pretty
hard unless you want to look like a moron.
Now you could try to say that the "best" hitter is not necessarily
the greatest hitter. But the word "best" is purely subjective and
you are using it to reject the objective observation that the
greatest hitter is the hitter who had the greatest number of hits.
We're being objective and we are trying to see the truth without bias.
You, on the other hand are seeking to deny objective truth with
subjective evaluations that are lacking in weight for two reasons;
one, you have an obvious and transparent agenda (you hate Pete Rose,
presumably for gambling), and two, you know nothing at all about
baseball. Hence, your subjective opinions are worthless.
With your obvious agenda, and your equally obvious lack of baseball
knowledge, you are buried before you start. You have no objective
arguments and your subjective arguments are worthless.
There just isn't a lot you can do.
You could talk about the hit on Fosse during the All-Star game. You
could talk about Pete's haircut. You could talk about Pete's skill
as a radio talk show host.
So why don't you leave the evaluation of Pete as the ballplayer for
those of us best equipped to make the evaluations. I actually saw
Pete. on TV of course, so I had the best seat in the house. Pete
was a hell of a player and was second only to the Candy Bar amongst
Baseball Royalty in the Margarino household.
cordially, as always,
LewPi...@LewPitcher.ca
--
Official Website -->> http://lewpitcher.ca/
Something to look at: -->> http://www.emusclemag.com/
Lonely in Brampton? -->> http://gaypros.meetup.com/cities/ca/on/brampton/
Peel HIV/AIDS Network -->> http://www.phan.ca/home.html
Josh
> In rec.sport.baseball Josh <us...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Lew Pitcher wrote:
>
>>> He has the greatest number of hits; ergo, he is the greatest hitter.
>
>> Is the guy with greatest number of pitches the greatest pitcher?
>
> Hardly. That would be like arguing that the player who took the
> most swings was the greatest hitter.
Speaking strictly objectively (we don't want any bias), the guy with the
greatest number of swings would be the greatest swinger. The whole
point of your objective standard is that the guy with the greatest
number of Xs would be the greatest Xer.
You make a good argument that this objective standard (the guy with
greatest number of Xs is the greatest Xer) is nonsense in the case of
pitches/pitcher and catches/catcher. So, why does it make sense for
hits/hitter? How do *objectively* distinguish between valid and invalid
applications of your standard.
>> The guy with the greatest number of catches the greatest catcher?
>
> Har. Sorry sweets, throwing a pitch or catching a pitch is
> analogous to swinging the bat. Throwing and catching are expected
> and are nothing special.
>
> On the other hand, the pitcher who prevented the most hits would be
> the greatest hit preventer. And this is just as the hitter who had
> the most hits is the greatest hitter.
>
> But you're starting to think and that is good. The problem that you
> are trying to get around is that you can't really change the
> meaning of great unless you change the context. But since
> ""greatest" number of hits and "greatest" hitter are being used in
> the same sentence, it's pretty hard to legitimately change the
> meaning of the words by shifting the context. At least it is pretty
> hard unless you want to look like a moron.
>
> Now you could try to say that the "best" hitter is not necessarily
> the greatest hitter. But the word "best" is purely subjective and
> you are using it to reject the objective observation that the
> greatest hitter is the hitter who had the greatest number of hits.
The common use of "greatest hitter" is a synonym to "best hitter".
Knowing this fact, you use your objective standard (the guy with
greatest number of Xs is the greatest Xer) to give the impression that
Rose is the "best hitter".
Josh Rosenbluth
Will in New Haven
Note that this is the only stat he will ever acknowledge as having any
major importance and, as is obvious to everyone but him, it is not a
very important stat. Your player's lifetime Hit totals will not help
you win a game or a pennant. Your player's lifetime Hit totals are
only important as they reflect on his overall performance. For a
singles hitter with little speed and only a fair throwing arm, Rose
was a great player, probably the greatest player of that type who ever
played the game. However, that type of player is not as valuable as a
guy who walks and hits home runs. Rose, being the greatest of that
type, was a better player than _most_ of the power hitters in history
but the best of them were simply more valuable than he was.
brianj
> --
> Official Website -->>http://lewpitcher.ca/
> Something to look at: -->>http://www.emusclemag.com/
> Lonely in Brampton? -->>http://gaypros.meetup.com/cities/ca/on/brampton/
> Peel HIV/AIDS Network -->>http://www.phan.ca/home.html
Your use of the word "greatest" borders on the absurd, so instead of
my trying to be ligical with you, I will suggest you go to Webster's
dictionary, where the word great is defined, in the first instance, as
follows:
Pronunciation: \ˈgrāt, Southern also ˈgre(ə)t\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English grete, from Old English grēat; akin to Old
High German grōz large
Date: before 12th century
1 a : notably large in size : huge b : of a kind characterized by
relative largeness —used in plant and animal names c : elaborate,
ample <great detail>
So there goes your argument that PR is the greatest, by definition and
without qualification. According to this definition, the Babe would
be a greater hitter. So would Boog Powell and Kent Hrbek for that
matter, and any number of other fatties.
They were all hitters, but PR was less great than all of them,
according to Webster. Want to choose a different word?
How about this: Pete Rose got more hits than anyone else who ever
played MLB? Would that not be true by definition and without
qualification? And wouldn't you feel better about yourself if you
didn't have to try to defend an indefensible position every time you
wanted to talk about your hero?
brianj
Will in New Haven
Frank Howard, even without being fat, was an extremely great hitter by
that standard.
--
Will in New Haven
>
> They were all hitters, but PR was less great than all of them,
> according to Webster. Want to choose a different word?
>
> How about this: Pete Rose got more hits than anyone else who ever
> played MLB? Would that not be true by definition and without
> qualification? And wouldn't you feel better about yourself if you
> didn't have to try to defend an indefensible position every time you
> wanted to talk about your hero?
>
> brianj- Hide quoted text -
brianj
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
And the winner is: Jon Rauch, currently in the Twins bullpen, but at
6' 11" and 290 pounds (which I don't believe to be accurate, that is,
sufficient), he has 21 lifetime at bats, and 2 hits. But he is, by
(Webster's) definition, the greatest hitter currently in the game, and
maybe ever. Anybody know of a batter who is greater than Jon Rauch?
brianj
hlwdjsd
How about letting us know YOUR definition of greatest hitter of all
time, since nobody else seems to use the same definition.
Can't have a proper discussion without the definitions in place.
brianj
>
> - Show quoted text -
Let me predict. He/she doesn't agree with Webster!
brianj