Another Opinion
Will in New Haven
opinion, of all time. Here is the list:
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/legendary/lited20.shtml
Obviously, he meant best batters and not greatest hitters as that is
an objective question with an easy answer. However, it could form the
basis for a best batters discussion.
--
Will in New Haven
Pete Rose, the greatest hitter ever because he had the most Hits, will
not be admitted to the Hall of Fame while he is alive.
Will in New Haven
> I suspect that Ialdabaoth created Imperfection so that on this day Sun, 6 Dec
> 2009 15:08:40 -0800 (PST), one purporting to be Will in New Haven
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> could write :
>
> >Ted Williams, in 1994, listed the twenty greatest hitters, in his
> >opinion, of all time. Here is the list:
>
> >http://www.baseball-almanac.com/legendary/lited20.shtml
>
> >Obviously, he meant best batters and not greatest hitters as that is
> >an objective question with an easy answer. However, it could form the
> >basis for a best batters discussion.
>
Ted once characterized Pete as a "banjo hitter." I have never seen
this used as a term of admiration.
weheardthenews
wrote:
Willy, did you really say that you're immune to identity theft,
because no one would ever want to be you? Makes sense.
Will in New Haven
Did you really say "I have no arguments, no logic, no brains, all I
have to offer are insults. Please put Pete in the Hall or I will wave
my private parts at your auntie. and taunt you again."
Ted Williams really called Pete Rose a banjo hitter. I didn't make
that up. He said some good thing about him also but "banjo hitter" and
the kind of all-time great player you say you think Pete Rose is don't
fit together very well.
And it doesn't matter. If Pete Rose really were an all-time top-twenty-
five great baseball player it would not get him into the HoF. His
baseball career, even though it was not as good as you make it out to
be, was _obviously_ good enough to get him into the Hall.
He isn't in because he _agreed_ to a lifetime ban for doing intensely
stupid things. Then the lifetime ban was connected to his eligibility
for the Hall, which it shouldn't have been. However, he has said he
won't _accept_ nomination to the Hall as long as he is banned, so
removing the Pete Rose rule would do no good. The lifetime ban has a
finite liffe. He will get in when he is dead.
You have no answer to this. And you will prove it by being insulting
once again.
--
Will in New Haven
Pete Rose, the greatest hitter because he has the most Hits, will not
get into the Hall of Fame while he's alive.
Lew Pitcher
Right. And Ted, without a single ring, played his entire career in
Fenway...
cordially, as always,
rm
weheardthenews
That simply indicates that Ted Williams was a walking contradiction.
>
> And it doesn't matter. If Pete Rose really were an all-time top-twenty-
> five great baseball player it would not get him into the HoF. His
> baseball career, even though it was not as good as you make it out to
> be, was _obviously_ good enough to get him into the Hall.
>
> He isn't in because he _agreed_ to a lifetime ban for doing intensely
> stupid things. Then the lifetime ban was connected to his eligibility
> for the Hall, which it shouldn't have been. However, he has said he
> won't _accept_ nomination to the Hall as long as he is banned, so
> removing the Pete Rose rule would do no good. The lifetime ban has a
> finite liffe. He will get in when he is dead.
>
> You have no answer to this. And you will prove it by being insulting
> once again.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
> Pete Rose, the greatest hitter because he has the most Hits, will not
> get into the Hall of Fame while he's alive.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Willy, did you really say that Marie Osmond and Osama bin Laden should
get it on together? We suppose you'd want to join in and make it a
threesome. Forget it, you'd just make a mess of everything.
Will in New Haven
> Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> trolled:
And he's still, without a single ring, one of many players who were
better than Pete Rose.
Because, at no point in his career, had their careers been at the same
time, would a sane manager think "I would rather have Pete Rose."
By definition and without contradiction.
Lew Pitcher
> better than Pete Rose.
Better? Well "better" is only a matter of opinion, by definition.
> Because, at no point in his career, had their careers been at the
> same time, would a sane manager think "I would rather have Pete
> Rose." By definition and without contradiction.
Right. You tried that with Frank Robinson, remember?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We got news for you sweets, Ted Williams would never have been Ted
Williams if there had been no Fenway. In fact, since he wasn't good
enough to play LF in any other park, and there was no DH, Ted
Williams might never have existed. (Well, maybe 1st base...)
cordially, even to the uninformed,
rm
Will in New Haven
> Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> trolled:
Williams played LF in other ballparks half the time. He was good
enough that it didn't cost the Red Sox very many runs. When he was
young, as he admitted himself with regret, he was very careless in his
outfield play. And he played a lot of Right Field in his first couple
of years. His carelessness was a shame as he had a good arm and he was
very fast as a kid but he filled out and bulked up and became the
older, heavier player remembered from the Fifties and Sixties. I saw
him play both in Fenway and in the Mistake by the Lake in Cleveland
when he was older and he was no disaster. If he had been they
certainly would have moved him to First Base, because they rarely had
a great-hitting First Baseman in his years, after Foxx left. They
would play guys like Billy Gardner at the position. .
It is doubtful that Fenway helped him much offensively, although it
could have if he weren't so insistent on pulling the ball.
And he was a much better fighter pilot than Pete Rose.
Lew Pitcher
> when he was older and he was no disaster. If he had been they
> certainly would have moved him to First Base, because they rarely
> had a great-hitting First Baseman in his years, after Foxx left.
> They would play guys like Billy Gardner at the position. .
Well, no, "they" wouldn't have been moving Ted Williams to first
unless it was his idea. Nobody ever accused Teddy Ballgame of being
a team player.
> It is doubtful that Fenway helped him much offensively, although it
> could have if he weren't so insistent on pulling the ball.
He could not have played every day LF in any other park in the
league, not if they expected to win.
Oh, wait. They didn't win.
> And he was a much better fighter pilot than Pete Rose.
Yes, perhaps, but in a just plain fight, we would take Rose
everytime.
> Will in New Haven
Is there an Old Haven?
cordially, as always,
rm
Will in New Haven
> Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> trolled:
>
> > when he was older and he was no disaster. If he had been they
> > certainly would have moved him to First Base, because they rarely
> > had a great-hitting First Baseman in his years, after Foxx left.
> > They would play guys like Billy Gardner at the position. .
>
> Well, no, "they" wouldn't have been moving Ted Williams to first
> unless it was his idea. Nobody ever accused Teddy Ballgame of being
> a team player.
>
> > It is doubtful that Fenway helped him much offensively, although it
> > could have if he weren't so insistent on pulling the ball.
>
> He could not have played every day LF in any other park in the
> league, not if they expected to win.
Bullshit. Who you have (defensively) in Left Field matters much less
than his offensive output. In a few ballparks in those days, Left was
a huge area to cover. One of the teams that played in one of those
ballparks, the Yankees, wanted Williams pretty badly on several
occasions and the deal was nearly made. They would have won with him,
just as they did without him.
> Oh, wait. They didn't win.
>
> > And he was a much better fighter pilot than Pete Rose.
>
> Yes, perhaps, but in a just plain fight, we would take Rose
> everytime.
Rose didn't fight Bubba much when he was behing bars but maybe he
liked Bubba.
>
> > Will in New Haven
>
> Is there an Old Haven?
Actually, there was a port city called Haven, or The Haven in England.
New Haven may have been named after that one or simply named New Haven
because it was a new port and Haven was a term for a port. Which would
make it the same as Newport, Rhode Island, although not as wealthy.
With all due respect
Hank Gillette
<ef4e94c3-a5e8-4a5c...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> It is doubtful that Fenway helped him [Ted Williams] much offensively, although it
> could have if he weren't so insistent on pulling the ball.
Au contraire, other than home runs, Fenway helped Williams quite a bit.
For his career, Williams hit .361 at home, .328 away. He also hit 319
doubles at Fenway, 206 on the road. Two other Boston left-handed
hitters, Carl Yastrzemski and Fred Lynn, had similar home and road
splits for average and doubles. Yaz and Lynn hit over .300 at home and
in the .260s at home.
For left-handed hitters, Fenway depresses home runs, but increases
batting average and doubles.
>
> And he was a much better fighter pilot than Pete Rose.
Williams served as John Glenn's wingman in Korea. According to John
McCain, "John Glenn said he was the best natural pilot he ever flew
with."
Williams was a much better baseball player than Rose, too. But he
probably wasn't as good on the trifecta.
--
Hank Gillette
"Years ago, I asked my dad for a boob job and he said it would cheapen
my image" -- Paris Hilton
Will in New Haven
> In article
> <ef4e94c3-a5e8-4a5c-9e2d-7fb1d1d51...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> > It is doubtful that Fenway helped him [Ted Williams] much offensively, although it
> > could have if he weren't so insistent on pulling the ball.
>
> Au contraire, other than home runs, Fenway helped Williams quite a bit.
> For his career, Williams hit .361 at home, .328 away. He also hit 319
> doubles at Fenway, 206 on the road. Two other Boston left-handed
> hitters, Carl Yastrzemski and Fred Lynn, had similar home and road
> splits for average and doubles. Yaz and Lynn hit over .300 at home and
> in the .260s at home.
>
> For left-handed hitters, Fenway depresses home runs, but increases
> batting average and doubles.
Thank you for that. I knew Fenway helped other lefties but I figured
Williams was an exception.
> > And he was a much better fighter pilot than Pete Rose.
>
> Williams served as John Glenn's wingman in Korea. According to John
> McCain, "John Glenn said he was the best natural pilot he ever flew
> with."
He also said he dreaded the possibility of Williams being injured
because "then I could never go to Massachussetts."
>
> Williams was a much better baseball player than Rose, too. But he
> probably wasn't as good on the trifecta.
People whose gambling habit gets really bad probably aren't very
_good_ gamblers. It is possible to be a good horse handicapper but I
doubt that Pete Rose would have the patience.
I don't think Rose was anywhere near Williams's class as a fly
fisherman either. But give him a couple of sticks of dynamite and a
quiet spot along the Ohio...
Lew Pitcher
> than his offensive output. In a few ballparks in those days, Left was
> a huge area to cover. One of the teams that played in one of those
> ballparks, the Yankees, wanted Williams pretty badly on several
> occasions and the deal was nearly made. They would have won with him,
> just as they did without him.
No. If the NYY was able to land Williams, it would only be to have
him sit on the bench because the only interest NYY had in Williams
was to keep him out of Boston's lineup.
cordially, as always,
rm
Lew Pitcher
Ah, Mr. Gillette, who goes on to show us yet again that despite his
name, he is none too sharp!
> Au contraire, other than home runs, Fenway helped Williams quite a
> bit. For his career, Williams hit .361 at home, .328 away. He
> also hit 319 doubles at Fenway, 206 on the road. Two other Boston
> left-handed hitters, Carl Yastrzemski and Fred Lynn, had similar
> home and road splits for average and doubles. Yaz and Lynn hit
> over .300 at home and in the .260s at home.
> For left-handed hitters, Fenway depresses home runs, but increases
> batting average and doubles.
Don't try to fool these guys with facts. They only want to
establish their opinions.
> Williams served as John Glenn's wingman in Korea. According to John
> McCain, "John Glenn said he was the best natural pilot he ever flew
> with."
Williams had extraordinary vision and hand eye coordination and that
is the reason why such a statement was made. But don't forget that
Brigadier General Jimmy Stewart was a hell of a pilot as well. He
picked up the necessary skills when he played pitcher Monte Stratton
in the movie.
> Williams was a much better baseball player than Rose, too.
More undocumented opinion. You were doing so well, up to now.
Williams accomplished little of note during his time in the majors.
Pete Rose remains the game's greatest hitter, by definition and
without qualification.
cordially, as always,
rm
Will in New Haven
> Hank Gillette <hankgille...@yahoo.com> trolled:
As long as the definition remains "had the most Hits" and counts
Singles equally with Doubles, Triples and Home Runs and ignores Bases
on Balls. As long as "greatest hitter" refers to a counting statistic
that has more to do with longevity than ability. Let's adopt that
definition.
And then realize that "best hitter" is a very minor accomplishment.
Especially when accomplished by a banjo hitter who didn't walk much
and whose Caught Stealing numbers were appalling.
There are many worse players than Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame. There
are many better players in the Hall and a few who aren't even in the
Hall.
--
Will in New Haven
Pete Rose, who is the greatest hitter of all time by virtue of having
the most Hits, but nothing else, will never get into the Hall of Fame
whiile he is alive.
Lew Pitcher
> As long as the definition remains "had the most Hits" and counts
> Singles equally with Doubles, Triples and Home Runs and ignores Bases
> on Balls. As long as "greatest hitter" refers to a counting statistic
> that has more to do with longevity than ability. Let's adopt that
> definition.
Well, we didn't cook that record up. It happens to be recognized
and held in high regard by all professional players and MLB itself.
> And then realize that "best hitter" is a very minor accomplishment.
Best hitter? What does that mean? Nobody knows who the "best
hitter" is until you give the term some definition.
> Especially when accomplished by a banjo hitter who didn't walk much
> and whose Caught Stealing numbers were appalling.
The "banjo hitter" finished 23rd overall in career extra-base hits.
Your problem is that you don't know the game. You don't its
players. All you know is second, third, and even fourth-hand,
hearsay opinion that doesn't mean a damn thing.
Again, the "banjo-hitter" finished 23rd overall in career,
extra-base hits.
Sammy Sosa was 25th. Frank Thomas finished 26th. Mike Schmidt?
28th. Oh, and Teddy Ballgame, playing his whole career in Fenway?
He finished with only 76 extra base hits more than the banjo-hitter.
That's less than one season's worth.
Moreover, the banjo-hitter, as you call him, finished 2nd overall in
career doubles! Yes! And since the guy who finished first was Tris
Speaker, who couldn't even play at the AA level in today's game, you
might just as well say that Pete Rose was the game's greatest
doubles hitter, by definition and with only one, very small,
qualification.
Want some more?
Pete led the league in doubles 5 times! And the "banjo-hitter"
finished with 160 homeruns, including 8 seasons where he was in
double figures. Just think of how well he would have done batting
from both sides in Fenway?
And that doesn't include any of his playoffs. How did Teddy do in
the playoffs?
Oh, right.
> There are many worse players than Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame.
> There are many better players in the Hall and a few who aren't
> even in the Hall.
You think? Far more words have been spent talking about Pete and
the HoF than any other player and the HoF!
Of course, this will, possibly, be eclipsed by Baby Bonds, but
we'll have to wait and see.
Bugger off in New Haven,
cordially, as always,
rm
Will in New Haven
> Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> trolled:
If you really believe that, please go get some help about your lack of
baseball knowledge. If you don't believe it, you continue to build
your reputation as a lying sack of shit.
In fact, this is one of the dumbest things anyone ever posted on this
newsgroup, even for you a new high in stupidity.
Will in New Haven
> Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> trolled:
It is certainly hyperbole to call him a banjo hitter. Something I
never would have done if people weren't using just as much hyperbole
about his greatness. He's an obvious Hall of Fame player. Saying he
was as good as, for instance, Mike Schmidt is nonsense.
Fenway would have made Rose's numbers better. It would probably have
made Frank fucking Howard a Hall of Famer had he played their instead
of the cavernous parks in LA and Washington.
--
Will in New Haven
Pete Rose, who is the greatest hitter in MLB history because he had
the most Hits, will not get into the Hall of Fame while he is alive
Lew Pitcher
>> No. ?If the NYY was able to land Williams, it would only be to
>> have him sit on the bench because the only interest NYY had in
>> Williams was to keep him out of Boston's lineup.
> If you really believe that, please go get some help about your
> lack of baseball knowledge. If you don't believe it, you continue
> to build your reputation as a lying sack of shit.
Lying? We post only facts, or at least opinon that is so strongly
supported by fact, that it just might as well be fact.
> In fact, this is one of the dumbest things anyone ever posted on
> this newsgroup, even for you a new high in stupidity.
When you look up how many WS the NYY won when Williams was _not_ in
their lineup and only an idiot would think there would be any point
in adding him. The only reason the NYY did not acquire Williams is
because they knew he wasn't a team player - he, like Ty Cobb, was a
"cooler."
With Williams in their lineup the NYY could not have possibly done
any better, while the facts show us clearly that they would have
been unlikely to do as well with him as they did without him.
You can look it up.
After you call us some more names, of course.
cordially, as always,
rm
Will in New Haven
> Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> trolled:
I have, although it was years ago, talked to people involved with the
Yankees in those days. You are correct, in a broad sense, that they
could not have done any better because their record during those years
would be hard to improve on. However, if you put him in Left in 1954,
when the team already won 103 games, they might beat out the Indians.
They finished far enough out that they might not have but they would
have scored quite a few more Runs, so maybe they would have.
Stengel would certainly have played him. He had his Pitchers throw
_very_ carefully to him in Yankee Stadium, even though Boston usually
had someone formidable, if not an all-time great, hitting behind him.
His comments about Williams went well beyond the usual politely
respectful things that managers say about the stars of other teams.
Stengel might have been _wrong_ to play him but I will back his
judgement over yours.
--
Will in New Haven
Pete Rose, who is the greatest hitter in history, by virtue of having
the most Hits, will not enter the Hall of Fame while he is alive
Richard R. Hershberger
I come to come to rsb, a largely dead group, from time to time looking
for signs of life. So I see what looks like an actual discussion
going on. Yipee. It is a grave disappointment to discover it is an
argument with Maynard about Pete Rose. The old lady appeare to show
signs of life, but it turned out to be merely the gassy product of
decay. Alas.
Will in New Haven
So start a thread about something else. I will do so in the near
future and ignore the anguished cries of the Rose-suckers when I do.
Lew Pitcher
Are you the Jew? Or are you the other guy?
> I come to come to rsb, a largely dead group, from time to time
> looking for signs of life. So I see what looks like an actual
> discussion going on. Yipee. It is a grave disappointment to
> discover it is an argument with Maynard about Pete Rose.
Nonetheless, you felt compelled to get in on the ground floor,
right?
And who the fuck is Manyard, anyway?
> The old lady appeare to show signs of life, but it turned out to
> be merely the gassy product of decay. Alas.
But those bleating, squeezed out stinkers all seem to be coming from
your terminal. Why is that?
Are you really Manyard?
Never mind. All that really matters is that Pete Rose remains the
game's greatest hitter, by definition and without qualification.
cordially, as always,
rm
Will in New Haven
>
> Never mind. All that really matters is that Pete Rose remains the
> game's greatest hitter, by definition and without qualification.
Since this only means that he has the Most Hits and as everyone
already knew that, conceding it is true costs nothing and gives Rose's
career, which was certainly of Hall of Fame caliber, no extra luster.
As long as we realize that, and realize that this means nothing
_resembling_ "best hitter" or "most effective batter" it becomes
simply a different way to phrase a trivia question.
--
Pete Rose, who is defined as the greatest hitter simply by virtue of
having the most Hits, and nothing more, will not get into the Hall of
Fame while he lives.
Lew Pitcher
>> Never mind. ?All that really matters is that Pete Rose remains the
>> game's greatest hitter, by definition and without qualification.
> Since this only means that he has the Most Hits and as everyone
> already knew that, conceding it is true costs nothing and gives
> Rose's career, which was certainly of Hall of Fame caliber, no
> extra luster.
Luster? That would be lustre in English. Why do Americans think
that it is important to mispell trivial words?
> As long as we realize that, and realize that this means nothing
> _resembling_ "best hitter" or "most effective batter" it becomes
> simply a different way to phrase a trivia question.
The problem being that there is no such thing as a "best hitter" by
your definition. "Best" is entirely subjective, and as such is
essentially meaningless to serious analysis. Calling someone the
"best player" is uninteresting because such a definition is
impossible to prove. Telling us who you think is the "best player"
is akin to you telling us your favourite colour. (to use correct
spelling) It is meaningless information and belongs in the "who
cares?" bin.
The only time the word "best" has any value is when it is defined in
an objective manner.
For example, Pete Rose remains the game's best hitter where "best"
is defined as "greatest."
But it is much easier to simply say that Pete Rose remains the
game's greatest hitter by definition and without qualification.
You see how easy it is to get there, once you know where you are
going? The key is understanding the structure and boundaries of the
English language. Until you master this essential skill, most of
what you say will not hold up to even rudimentary inspection.
cordially, as always, even to the small fry,
rm
weheardthenews
>
> - Show quoted text -
Willy, do you really plan to post a 'Kick An Erin Nordegren Day' on
Facebook?
E.F. Hokie
> But it is much easier to simply say that Pete Rose remains the
> game's greatest hitter by definition and without qualification.
The problem with that is that in your dishonesty you use 'greatest' in
an ambiguous way, where it's only correct to describe quantity, while
most people use the term to describe quality. You are dishonest.
--
E.F. Hokie
"To those who have fought for it,
freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
Will in New Haven
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 03:59:47 +0000, Lew Pitcher wrote...
> > But it is much easier to simply say that Pete Rose remains the
> > game's greatest hitter by definition and without qualification.
>
> The problem with that is that in your dishonesty you use 'greatest' in
> an ambiguous way, where it's only correct to describe quantity, while
> most people use the term to describe quality. You are dishonest.
Not only is he dishonest but he's wrong. "Best hitter" is indeed
subjective and open to debate. If people who follow the game seriously
get together there will be many names mentioned as candidates for the
title. However, there is a telling point that Lew doesn't want to
admit. Very few of them would mention Pete Rose. There are dozens of
players in the history of the game who would be considered ahead of
Rose in this category. He just wasn't as good a hitter as, among
others, Morgan or Schmidt They got on base more consistently and hit
the ball harder.
He is right about one thing. My spell-checker, which prefers "luster,"
is nuts. "Lustre" is correct, as far as I am concerned. .
Lew Pitcher
> subjective and open to debate. If people who follow the game seriously
> get together there will be many names mentioned as candidates for the
> title. However, there is a telling point that Lew doesn't want to
> admit. Very few of them would mention Pete Rose. There are dozens of
> players in the history of the game who would be considered ahead of
> Rose in this category. He just wasn't as good a hitter as, among
> others, Morgan or Schmidt They got on base more consistently and hit
> the ball harder.
Getting on base consistently is not part of hitting. Of course
hitting certainly is a part of getting on base consistently. But
only a part.
Your problem is that you are one of these clowns who think that
lists of players ranked by OBP or SA, or even more laughably, OPS,
tells you anything useful about a player.
These lists tell you nothing that is useful about a baseball player.
Nothing.
These lists don't tell you which player can move another player into
scoring position.
These lists don't tell you which player can score a player from
third on a sacrifice.
These lists tell you nothing about a "banjo-hitter" who regularly
and effectively achieves an extra base hit by stealing his way into
scoring position from first base.
These lists don't tell you which players take a walk to first while
there is one two out and a runner at third trying to score the
winning run.
These lists do not in any detailed way tell you which player you
want hitting at which place in the batting order. In fact, these
stats won't even tell you which player you want at any position.
And if your evaluation of a player doesn't include any of this info,
what use is it?
There is no single "Best Hitter", moron. There are probably hitters
who have performed better in certain situations than others, but
those situations are so particular that comparisons are worthless.
As others have shown, Ted Williams wouldn't have been "Ted Williams"
if he hadn't played in Fenway. And yet you are willing to call him
the "best" hitter, aren't you? What kind of numbers would Willie
Mays or ARod have put up, if they had played in Fenway?
The notion of "best player" or hitter, in a team sport especially,
is entirely nebulous. Entirely.
And that's why there is no category of ranked and oreder "Best
Hitters" in baseball.
In any case, Pete Rose remains the game's greatest hitter, by
definition and without qualification.
cordially, as always,
rm
E.F. Hokie
> In any case, Pete Rose remains the game's greatest hitter, by
> definition and without qualification.
False.
Lew Pitcher
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 02:41:08 +0000, Lew Pitcher wrote...
>> In any case, Pete Rose remains the game's greatest hitter, by
>> definition and without qualification.
> False.
This would be almost interesting if you could at least try to
demonstrate the falsity.
cordially, even to the smallfry,
rm
E.F. Hokie
> E.F. Hokie <efh...@nah.nope> trolled:
> > On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 02:41:08 +0000, Lew Pitcher wrote...
>
> >> In any case, Pete Rose remains the game's greatest hitter, by
> >> definition and without qualification.
>
> > False.
>
> This would be almost interesting if you could at least try to
> demonstrate the falsity.
It's been done repeatedly. You're a serial liar. Run along, now.
Lew Pitcher
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:38:53 +0000, Lew Pitcher wrote...
>
>> E.F. Hokie <efh...@nah.nope> trolled:
>> > On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 02:41:08 +0000, Lew Pitcher wrote...
>>
>> >> In any case, Pete Rose remains the game's greatest hitter, by
>> >> definition and without qualification.
>>
>> > False.
>>
>> This would be almost interesting if you could at least try to
>> demonstrate the falsity.
>
> It's been done repeatedly. You're a serial liar. Run along, now.
Well, no, it hasn't. And the onus is on you to prove it, and, since
you can't prove it, and you're too stupid to have anything new to
add, you are now killfiled.
For 30 days. You will get another chance and if you still don't get
it, you will be killfiled permanently. And when we killfile sombody
permanently, they are dead to the entire world. Nobody will be able
to read what you say because nobody will see it.
It's up to you.
cordially, as always,
rm
Rowena Magdalena
> Well, no, it hasn't. And the onus is on you to prove it, and, since
> you can't prove it, and you're too stupid to have anything new to
> add, you are now killfiled.
>
> For 30 days. You will get another chance and if you still don't get
> it, you will be killfiled permanently. And when we killfile sombody
> permanently, they are dead to the entire world. Nobody will be able
> to read what you say because nobody will see it.
You are one seriously boring troll, Maynard.
Repeating your lies over and over and over again doesn't make them true,
yet you persist and have done so for many years now.
Ah well, at least keeping you here on Usenet protects those around you
in the outside world from having to deal with you. Those people ought
to be paying a quality of life subsidy to the members of RSB.
Will in New Haven
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:38:53 +0000, Lew Pitcher wrote...
> > > On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 02:41:08 +0000, Lew Pitcher wrote...
>
> > >> In any case, Pete Rose remains the game's greatest hitter, by
> > >> definition and without qualification.
>
> > > False.
>
> > This would be almost interesting if you could at least try to
> > demonstrate the falsity.
>
> It's been done repeatedly. You're a serial liar. Run along, now.
>
I would say that it is true, in a sense, but it is meaningless the way
he uses it. It is the answer to the trivia question "who has the most
Hits." In itself, it does not make Rose a more useful player
offensively than Mickey Rivers (though he was) let alone Mickey
Mantle. Obviously, he was not close to being the offensive player or
all-around player Mantle was. Admitting that he was "the greatest
hitter because he had the most Hits" doesn't change that.
His definition of "hitting," by his own definition, is that it is
_part_ of getting on base consistently. Obviously, it is also part of
hitting the ball hard. So his definition of hitting is that it is a
fraction of a player's value at the plate. He goes on to deny that you
can TELL who is a better batter and wants to render that discussion
meaningless. Which, of course, would make Rose look a lot better
because he would be very far down any such list.
Well, you CAN tell. At worst, you can make an approximation of the top
thirty or so batters in history and Rose isn't there. He had the most
HIts; you have to give him that. He was a very good player for a very
long time and he certainly meets the requirements for admission to the
Hall of Fame. He would not be on the first or second team if an all-
time all-start team were put together.
Give him the title of "greatest hitter" but make sure the reader knows
you are talking about the answer to a trivia question, not an
evaluation of Rose as an all-time great.
--
Will in New Haven
Pete Rose, defined as baseball's greatest hitter, but only because he
got the most Hits, is not going to get into the Hall of Fame while he
is alive.
weheardthenews
Rowena, are you really a transsexual? Does this mean that you fight
like a woman but your anger is like that of a man's? Or is it the
other way around?
Shit, life use to be so simple, 'til you and Willy and Hokie and other
nutless wonders came along.
Will in New Haven
No, you and your supporters used to be so simple. Still ARE so simple.
Who you calling nutless, you piece of anonymous shit? You'd fucking
faint if you saw a dead man.
Lew Pitcher
> You are one seriously boring troll, Manyard.
Who?
> Repeating your lies over and over and over again doesn't make them
> true, yet you persist and have done so for many years now.
And calling us names doesn't in any way refute what we proclaim.
> Ah well, at least keeping you here on Usenet protects those around
> you in the outside world from having to deal with you. Those
> people ought to be paying a quality of life subsidy to the members
> of RSB.
The folks in the real world know better than to call us names.
cordially, as always,
Lew Pitcher
Lew Pitcher
> he uses it. It is the answer to the trivia question "who has the most
> Hits." In itself, it does not make Rose a more useful player
> offensively than Mickey Rivers (though he was)
When was Mickey Rivers ever considered the greatest at anything?
> let alone Mickey Mantle. Obviously, he was not close to being the
> offensive player or all-around player Mantle was. Admitting that
> he was "the greatest hitter because he had the most Hits" doesn't
> change that.
Are you nuts? Rose is the definition of the ultimate "all-around
player." In the modern era, the entire second half of Mantle's
career would have been as a DH, sadly because of his injuries, but
it is a fact, nonetheless. Mantle would have been held to the same
level of hero-worship as the Candy Bar if he had been a DH.
> His definition of "hitting," by his own definition, is that it is
> _part_ of getting on base consistently.
Yeah. Certainly the most important part, by a good margin, of
getting on base. So?
Getting on base is in and of itself a quite useless statistic.
> Obviously, it is also part of
> hitting the ball hard.
What? No, good hitting is hitting the ball where the other guys
can't reach it. Hard or soft, it doesn't matter at all.
> So his definition of hitting is that it is a fraction of a
> player's value at the plate.
Actually the "best" measures of a player's value at the plate are
runs scored and rbi. Hank Aaron, and closely behind, Babe Ruth, are
the greatest run producers, by definition and without qualification.
> He goes on to deny that you can TELL who is a better batter and
> wants to render that discussion meaningless. Which, of course,
> would make Rose look a lot better because he would be very far
> down any such list.
Although we can say that Rose was the greatest hitter, we can also
say that Hank Aaron was the greatest offensive force, by definition
and without qualification.
How does that sound? Or do you have an agenda against Aaron as
well? Aaron never got the recognition he deserved, nor did Mays,
because they were the first great black players. Moreover, Aaron
always played in smaller markets on lesser teams.
But if pressed to it, we are prepared to call Hank Aaron the
greatest offensive force by definition and without qualification.
But if neither Aaron nor Rose is your personal favourite, you are
going to go on arguing that we are wrong. And the arguments you
offer, beyond the name-calling, are nothing more than subjective
evaluation and second-hand hearsay and anecdotal opinion, stolen
from newspaper columnists and television colour commentators.
In other words, you're an empty, pathetic little man with nothing
original to offer.
Fortunately none of this makes even the slightest ding in the truth
that Pete Rose remains the game's greatest hitter, by definition and
without qualification.
End of story. Now, please, bugger off, until you have something new
to contribute.
cordially, as always,
rm
Lew Pitcher
> On Dec 13, 5:24?am, Rowena Magdalena <p...@licker.com> wrote:
>> Ah well, at least keeping you here on Usenet protects those
>> around you in the outside world from having to deal with you.
>> ?Those people ought to be paying a quality of life subsidy to the
>> members of RSB.
> Rowena, are you really a transsexual? Does this mean that you
> fight like a woman but your anger is like that of a man's? Or is
> it the other way around? Shit, life use to be so simple, 'til you
> and Willy and Hokie and other nutless wonders came along.
We can always use them to guard our harems.
cordially, as always,
rm
Lew Pitcher
> simple. Who you calling nutless, you piece of anonymous shit?
> You'd fucking faint if you saw a dead man.
Eunuch applicants to the left for verification. Pete Rose, personally,
will be conducting visual inspections.
Order! Order! Take it easy, girls! You'll all get your chance.
cordially, as always,
rm
Richard R. Hershberger
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
I tried that last May, posting a review of a new biography of
Alexander Cartwright. It got one reply.
What most gets me about this Pete Rose thread is that it is exactly
like every other Pete Rose thread on rsb for the past several years.
No one has anything new to say. No one is going to persuade anyone
else. Maynard isn't going to get his head out from his ass. So
what's the point?
Richard R. Hershberger
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> He is right about one thing. My spell-checker, which prefers "luster,"
> is nuts. "Lustre" is correct, as far as I am concerned. .
Seriously? As I recall, Maynard is Canadian. Canadian English mixes
British and American forms, so he may come by "lustre" honestly. But
in American English "luster" is the rock-solid standard spelling. Do
you favor "centre fielder" too?
Richard R. Hershberger
Will in New Haven
No and I resent all the extra letters, usually U, that the Brits try
to sneak into our words. However, I am quite Jeffersonian about
spelling. When he was a young man people spelled words the way they
heard them and there was no such subject as spelling. This is how it
works in Spanish today, with very few problems. However, in English
everyone seems to hear the same words differently and along came the
dictionary-makers and they created correct spelling. Jefferson didn't
like this and neither do I.
Luster (if you will) is not a word I would use very often and I really
think the alternative spelling looks better.
weheardthenews
>
> - Show quoted text -
Willy, if the Cincinnati Bengals don't win the Super Bowl this year,
did you really say that their WR Ochocinco should then change his name
to Assholestinko?
Why don't you keep your crappy ignoramus thoughts to yourself? Idiot.
weheardthenews
wrote:
Went to the theatre the other day. Saw "The Shit Side" starring
Sandra Bollocks and Willy in New Haven.
Will in New Haven
Hey, asshole, tell me where YOU live. Have the balls you are always
talking about.
Gerry Myerson
<64482139-0192-4458...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Centre Fieldre, actually.
> Richard R. Hershberger
Shouldn't that be Hreshbregre?
--
Gerry Myerson (ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
weheardthenews
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 4:04�pm, weheardthenews <weheardthen...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 14, 10:37 am, "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrhe...@acme.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 12, 7:14 pm, Will in New Haven
>
> > > <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > > > He is right about one thing. My spell-checker, which prefers "luster,"
> > > > is nuts. "Lustre" is correct, as far as I am concerned. .
>
> > > Seriously? As I recall, Maynard is Canadian. Canadian English mixes
> > > British and American forms, so he may come by "lustre" honestly. But
> > > in American English "luster" is the rock-solid standard spelling. Do
> > > you favor "centre fielder" too?
>
> > > Richard R. Hershberger
>
> > Went to the theatre the other day. �Saw "The Shit Side" starring
> > Sandra Bollocks and Willy in New Haven.
>
> Hey, asshole, tell me where YOU live. Have the balls you are always
> talking about.
>
> --
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey asshole, The Rose Committee is everywhere. Including New Haven.
We're watching you, Willy.
Lew Pitcher
> On Dec 12, 7:14?pm, Will in New Haven
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
>> He is right about one thing. My spell-checker, which prefers
>> "luster," is nuts. "Lustre" is correct, as far as I am concerned.
> mixes British and American forms, so he may come by "lustre"
> honestly. But
No. Canadian English is simply English.
> in American English "luster" is the rock-solid standard spelling.
> Do you favor "centre fielder" too?
American English is an oxymoron. Or you could simply say that
Americans are morons. Whichever.
> Richard R. Hershberger
Which one are you again? The Kraut or the Kyke?
cordially, in spite of more and more trash invading this ng,
rm
Will in New Haven
> Richard R. Hershberger <rrhe...@acme.com> trolled:
>
> > On Dec 12, 7:14?pm, Will in New Haven
> > <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> >> He is right about one thing. My spell-checker, which prefers
> >> "luster," is nuts. "Lustre" is correct, as far as I am concerned.
> > Seriously? As I recall, Maynard is Canadian. Canadian English
> > mixes British and American forms, so he may come by "lustre"
> > honestly. But
>
> No. Canadian English is simply English.
>
> > in American English "luster" is the rock-solid standard spelling.
> > Do you favor "centre fielder" too?
>
> American English is an oxymoron. Or you could simply say that
> Americans are morons. Whichever.
You could but you'd be an imbecile. Nothing new about that, though.
>
> > Richard R. Hershberger
>
> Which one are you again? The Kraut or the Kyke?
>
> cordially, in spite of more and more trash invading this ng,
In spite of people who actually want to talk about baseball, instead
of sucking Pete Rose's asshole, invading his private newsgroup. Was it
an insane asylum or a prison not letting you post for that long period
of time? Inquiring minds want to know.
weheardthenews
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 12:34�am, Lew Pitcher <LPitc...@techsavvy.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Richard R. Hershberger <rrhe...@acme.com> trolled:
>
> > > On Dec 12, 7:14?pm, Will in New Haven
> > > <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> > >> He is right about one thing. My spell-checker, which prefers
> > >> "luster," is nuts. "Lustre" is correct, as far as I am concerned.
> > > Seriously? �As I recall, Maynard is Canadian. �Canadian English
> > > mixes British and American forms, so he may come by "lustre"
> > > honestly. �But
>
> > No. �Canadian English is simply English.
>
> > > in American English "luster" is the rock-solid standard spelling.
> > > Do you favor "centre fielder" too?
>
> > American English is an oxymoron. �Or you could simply say that
> > Americans are morons. �Whichever.
>
> You could but you'd be an imbecile. Nothing new about that, though.
>
>
>
> > > Richard R. Hershberger
>
> > Which one are you again? �The Kraut or the Kyke?
>
> > cordially, in spite of more and more trash invading this ng,
>
> In spite of people who actually want to talk about baseball, instead
> of sucking Pete Rose's asshole, invading his private newsgroup. Was it
> an insane asylum or a prison not letting you post for that long period
> of time? Inquiring minds want to know.
>
> --
>
> - Show quoted text -
Willy, is it true that while you were in basic training, the drill
instructor ordered you to strip down, and when you did, he almost died
laughing?
Will in New Haven
Why are you one of the least talented insulters on UseNet when you get
so much practice?
Often these questions you ask aren't even insulting and don't even
seem intended that way.
And some of those are quite amusing. But when you do try to insult,
you are about as bad
at that as your mom says you were in bed before your, um, accident.
--
Will in New Haven
Pete Rose, who is the greatest hitter in history, but only because he
got the most Hits, will not get into the Hall of Fame while he is
alive.
E.F. Hokie
> > Willy, is it true that while you were in basic training, the drill
> > instructor ordered you to strip down, and when you did, he almost died
> > laughing?
>
> Why are you one of the least talented insulters on UseNet when you get
> so much practice?
There are days that I really wonder if Jon Esquivel (the person behind
'weheardthenews', 'Merry McGrath', etc, among others) is actually a man
who is suffering from a severe mental disorders. His/her/its attempts
at insult are so pointlessly weak as to induce pity. If in his/her/its
mind these jibes are actually stinging, well... that's just sad, y'know?
Will in New Haven
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:30:23 -0800 (PST), Will in New Haven wrote...
>
> > > Willy, is it true that while you were in basic training, the drill
> > > instructor ordered you to strip down, and when you did, he almost died
> > > laughing?
>
> > Why are you one of the least talented insulters on UseNet when you get
> > so much practice?
>
> There are days that I really wonder if Jon Esquivel (the person behind
> 'weheardthenews', 'Merry McGrath', etc, among others) is actually a man
> who is suffering from a severe mental disorders. His/her/its attempts
> at insult are so pointlessly weak as to induce pity. If in his/her/its
> mind these jibes are actually stinging, well... that's just sad, y'know?
The ones that don't even seem _intended_ to be insulting can sometimes
be quite amusing. But he and the rest of the Rose-humpers are already
such a sad bunch and so doomed to disappointment that it just adds to
their aura of futility.
weheardthenews
Willy, in other words, you have no come-back. You say the ammo from
The Rose Committee is weak, but it was strong enough to get a rise out
of you. So kindly accept defeat with a bit of class.
Willy, is it true that when someone asked you if you had ever seen a
naked woman, you replied, "No, but I once saw my dad miss the toilet
when he was taking a dump" ? Did you help him clean it up?
E.F. Hokie
> Willy, in other words, you have no come-back. You say the ammo from
> The Rose Committee is weak, but it was strong enough to get a rise out
> of you. So kindly accept defeat with a bit of class.
In other words, you admit to being a troll.
Will in New Haven
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:51:51 -0800 (PST), weheardthenews wrote...
> > Willy, in other words, you have no come-back. You say the ammo from
> > The Rose Committee is weak, but it was strong enough to get a rise out
> > of you. So kindly accept defeat with a bit of class.
>
> In other words, you admit to being a troll.
He also thinks I get upset about his insipid insults. Did you see
Lew's admission that his idea of a great player _isn't_ primarily
about doing things to win ballgames?
weheardthenews
The Rose Committee will do no such thing, unless you admit to being an
asshole.
Btw, does the E.F. stand for Eunuchs Forever?
weheardthenews
Willy, did you really say that the world consists of two things,
laundered money and the breaking of wind? And you admitted to being
the latter?