Santa Claus Sez
Will in New Haven
Pete Rose, who is known as the greatest hitter in history, but only
because he has the most Hits, will never get into the Hall of Fame
while he is alive
--
Will in New Haven
Pete Rose, who is known as the greatest hitter in history, but only
because he has the most Hits, will never get into the Hall of Fame
while he is alive
Steve Cutchen
<807c9409-b35c-402e...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
I fixed your post for you...
> HO HO HO and
>
> Pete Rose, who is the most prolific hitter in history,
> because he has the most Hits,
Call it what it is. Most prolific is not a synonym of greatest. The
accomplishment is worthy of praise. Let Rose bask in the glow of what
he actually accomplished. Don't belittle it by misnomer.
> will never get into the Hall of Fame because he is listed
> on Baseball's permanently ineligible list for violating
> one of the most sacred rules for maintaining the
> integrity of the game
Major League Rule 21, posted in the clubhouse of every major-league
team is straightforward. As is Rose's self-acknowledged violation of
it:
21(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club 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.
-30-
Will in New Haven
> In article
> <807c9409-b35c-402e-bf9f-ce4b2c553...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
> Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> I fixed your post for you...
>
> > HO HO HO and
>
> > Pete Rose, who is the most prolific hitter in history,
> > because he has the most Hits,
>
> Call it what it is. Most prolific is not a synonym of greatest. The
> accomplishment is worthy of praise. Let Rose bask in the glow of what
> he actually accomplished. Don't belittle it by misnomer.
I finally gave up on arguing the point. Conceding the definition while
pointing out its limited scope and meaning seems to work fine.
>
> > will never get into the Hall of Fame because he is listed
> > on Baseball's permanently ineligible list for violating
> > one of the most sacred rules for maintaining the
> > integrity of the game
>
> Major League Rule 21, posted in the clubhouse of every major-league
> team is straightforward. As is Rose's self-acknowledged violation of
> it:
>
> 21(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club 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.
>
> -30-
Remember, however, that before the Pete Rose rule, ineligibility for
employment was not officially connected to getting into the Hall. No
ineligible player had been elected but there was no rule against it.
It is my understanding that Pete has said he doesn't _want_ to be
eligible for the Hall without being reinstated into Organized
Baseball. If that is the case, he can't get in the Hall until he is
dead.
Lew Pitcher
> Call it what it is. Most prolific is not a synonym of greatest.
?!? The most prolific hitter is the hitter with the greatest number
of hits. By definition and without qualification.
> The accomplishment is worthy of praise. Let Rose bask in the glow
> of what he actually accomplished. Don't belittle it by misnomer.
Pete Rose's actual accomplishment is that he remains the game's
greatest hitter, by definition and without qualification.
Now if you want to redefine "greatest number of hits" to mean
something other than "the largest number of hits" then go right
ahead but you will have to qualify your definition.
> Major League Rule 21, posted in the clubhouse of every major-league
> team is straightforward. As is Rose's self-acknowledged violation of
> it:
>
> 21(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club 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.
That's nice. And kind of silly in retrospect. There are lots of
old laws on lots of books. There is one state where it is legal to
beat your wife, as long as you don't use a switch larger than the
thickness of your thumb.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with betting on your own team to
win and nobody has ever accused Rose of betting on anyone, other
than his own team.
I guess the problem is that if you bet on your own team to win, you
will try extra hard to win and this wouldn't be fair to everyone
else, especially the fans, who are used to watching their teams
simply go through the motions.
The fucker Pete Rose! Ban him from the game!
Why?
The fucker actually tried to win!
cordially, as always,
rm
Will in New Haven
Actually, he's been _accused_ of throwing games but I don't think the
accusers are credible. The problems with betting on your team for some
games and not for others are often discussed but I never saw him do
anything out of line. I don't think the fact that he bet on games
caused his teams any problems at all.
>
> I guess the problem is that if you bet on your own team to win, you
> will try extra hard to win and this wouldn't be fair to everyone
> else, especially the fans, who are used to watching their teams
> simply go through the motions.
The problem is, as you well know, that it is against the rules to bet
on games in which you are involved. That's it. Case closed.
Steve Cutchen
<5f0b9a4a-0a08-4cc5...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 12:00�pm, Steve Cutchen <max...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <807c9409-b35c-402e-bf9f-ce4b2c553...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
> > Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> >
> > I fixed your post for you...
> >
> > > HO HO HO and
> >
> > > Pete Rose, who is the most prolific hitter in history,
> > > because he has the most Hits,
> >
> > Call it what it is. �Most prolific is not a synonym of greatest. The
> > accomplishment is worthy of praise. �Let Rose bask in the glow of what
> > he actually accomplished. Don't belittle it by misnomer.
>
> I finally gave up on arguing the point. Conceding the definition while
> pointing out its limited scope and meaning seems to work fine.
I understand. It will get you or your mother childishly insulted.
<sigh>
I don't think death is a valid basis for being removed from the
ineligible list. Jackson is still banned.
Will in New Haven
> Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 18, 12:00 pm, Steve Cutchen <max...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <807c9409-b35c-402e-bf9f-ce4b2c553...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> > > I fixed your post for you...
>
> > > > HO HO HO and
>
> > > > Pete Rose, who is the most prolific hitter in history,
> > > > because he has the most Hits,
>
> > > Call it what it is. Most prolific is not a synonym of greatest. The
> > > accomplishment is worthy of praise. Let Rose bask in the glow of what
> > > he actually accomplished. Don't belittle it by misnomer.
>
> > I finally gave up on arguing the point. Conceding the definition while
> > pointing out its limited scope and meaning seems to work fine.
>
> I understand. It will get you or your mother childishly insulted.
> <sigh>
There's more to it than that. His definition of "greatest hitter" is
fine, if one doesnt think "greatest hitter" says anything about
usefulness or value. If you accept it, and treat it as making Pete the
answer to a trivia question, it negates one of the things the guy
rants about. So he has to rant about other things.
The voters could have voted Joe Jackson in at any time prior to the
Pete Rose rule. Pete won't accept eligibility for the Hall without
reinstatement, or so I have heard. After he is dead what he will
accept will no longer matter.
weheardthenews
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Willy, it's still even money that you'll die before Rose. So your
observations, as far as your concerned, will no longer matter.
Willy, are you really against charity? Someone said you started a Web
site called 'openyourassandgivefreely.com'.
Steve Cutchen
> Steve Cutchen <max...@earthlink.net> trolled:
>
> > Call it what it is. Most prolific is not a synonym of greatest.
>
> ?!? The most prolific hitter is the hitter with the greatest number
> of hits. By definition and without qualification.
Yes, Roger! You're getting it...
> > The accomplishment is worthy of praise. Let Rose bask in the glow
> > of what he actually accomplished. Don't belittle it by misnomer.
>
> Pete Rose's actual accomplishment is that he remains the game's
> greatest hitter, by definition and without qualification.
Dang. See, now you redefined yourself.
When you said prolific is the same as greatest number... that's fine.
But then you dropped "number" That's redefined. Rose's accomplishment
is correctly described by your first statement, not your second.
Pete Rose's actual accomplishment is that he remains the game's batter
with the most base hits, precisely and without ambiguity.
> Now if you want to redefine "greatest number of hits" to mean
> something other than "the largest number of hits" then go right
> ahead but you will have to qualify your definition.
Nope. Either of those is fine. Just make sure that from now on you
continue to go with your first declaration and use "greatest" as an
adjective to describe "number of hits" and not "hitter." By golly, I
think you're finally coming around! I'm glad we have consensus on this
now.
My work here is done.
> > Major League Rule 21, posted in the clubhouse of every major-league
> > team is straightforward. As is Rose's self-acknowledged violation of
> > it:
> >
> > 21(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club 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.
>
> That's nice. And kind of silly in retrospect.
That you would find this rule silly casts all of your opinions in their
proper light. I just don't need to add anything to that.
But it is an opinion, so I won't dwell on it.
> There are lots of old laws on lots of books.
And this is not one of them.
This is a current rule that is currently enforced by definition and
without qualification.
Steve Cutchen
<74e537bf-ebcb-416e...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> The voters could have voted Joe Jackson in at any time prior to the
> Pete Rose rule. Pete won't accept eligibility for the Hall without
> reinstatement, or so I have heard. After he is dead what he will
> accept will no longer matter.
But he will remain ineligible even as worm food, because, as he admits,
he violated 21(b) by betting on his own team, by definition and without
qualification.
Steve Cutchen
> Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> > pointing out its limited scope and meaning seems to work fine.
>
> I understand. It will get you or your mother childishly insulted.
> <sigh>
Then...
weheardthenews <weheard...@aol.com> wrote:
> Willy, are you really against charity? Someone said you started a Web
> site called 'openyourassandgivefreely.com'.
Ecce Signum.
<SIGH>