The Rose Award For 8-24-2006.
roseco...@aol.com
four-for-four with four RBI and scored one run in a 11-2 win over the
Baltimore Orioles.
Joe Mauer had three hits and also drove in four runs.
Brian J
Are you claiming that Cuddyer and Mauer bet on baseball??? Because I
had not heard that accusation. I think that would be hard to believe
because I believe they care about the game as something larger and more
important than themselves.
Brian Jones
Realto Margarino
> roseco...@aol.com wrote:
> > The Rose Award goes to Michael Cuddyer of the Minnesota Twins,
> > who went four-for-four with four RBI and scored one run in a
> > 11-2 win over the Baltimore Orioles.
> Are you claiming that Cuddyer and Mauer bet on baseball???
No. You would have to be really stupid to infer that.
> Because I had not heard that accusation.
Perhaps nobody else has heard that accusation either, noob.
> I think that would be hard to believe because I believe they care
> about the game as something larger and more important than
> themselves.
You mean their pay cheques?
> Brian Jones
Didn't you drown in a swimming pool or something?
cordially, as always,
rm
Brian J
Realto Margarino wrote:
> Brian J <firs...@turtlecreek.net> trolled:
> > roseco...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > The Rose Award goes to Michael Cuddyer of the Minnesota Twins,
> > > who went four-for-four with four RBI and scored one run in a
> > > 11-2 win over the Baltimore Orioles.
>
> > Are you claiming that Cuddyer and Mauer bet on baseball???
>
> No. You would have to be really stupid to infer that.
OK. But whom do you suppose this Rose Award is named after? Rose
Kennedy?
>
> > Because I had not heard that accusation.
>
> Perhaps nobody else has heard that accusation either, noob.
Good.
>
> > I think that would be hard to believe because I believe they care
> > about the game as something larger and more important than
> > themselves.
>
> You mean their pay cheques?
Maybe.
>
> > Brian Jones
>
> Didn't you drown in a swimming pool or something?
Not yet, at least as far as I know.
> cordially, as always,
>
> rm
Realto Margarino
> Realto Margarino wrote:
> > No. You would have to be really stupid to infer that.
> OK. But whom do you suppose this Rose Award is named after? Rose
> Kennedy?
It's named after the game's greatest hitter. By definition.
cordially, as always,
rm
Brian J
Oh. Well, that makes sense. I was just kidding about Rose Kennedy.
But answer me this: why in heck would you name an award in Ty Cobb's
honor the Rose award? Because there's no question that some people
(like me) will think that it is named after Pete Rose, that guy who was
thrown out of baseball.
Brian Jones
>
> cordially, as always,
>
> rm
Realto Margarino
> Realto Margarino wrote:
> > It's named after the game's greatest hitter. By definition.
> Oh. Well, that makes sense. I was just kidding about Rose
> Kennedy. But answer me this: why in heck would you name an award
> in Ty Cobb's honor the Rose award? Because there's no question
> that some people (like me) will think that it is named after Pete
> Rose, that guy who was thrown out of baseball.
Some people (like you) don't know much about the game. Perhaps
that's why you thought that Cobb was the game's greatest hitter.
But Pete Rose passed Ty Cobb. That makes Pete Rose the game's
greatest hitter, by definition and without qualification. And we
name awards after people like Pete Rose so that people like you, who
admittedly, doesn't know much about the game, will be educated.
Oh, and BTW: Pete Rose was never thrown out of baseball. He turned
his back on baseball. He quit. And he did it after his magnificent
playing career was over.
You should do a google search on the great players - Rose, Aaron,
Stieb, Clemens, etc., etc...
cordially, as always,
rm
lowdes
<roseco...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1156541935.5...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
powrwrap
> Realto Margarino wrote:
> That makes Pete Rose the game's
> greatest hitter, by definition and without qualification.
Rose looks at dealer's face card. It's an eight. Rose holds a six, with
a seven in the hole.
"Hit me."
John Poutre
news:voXHg.306837$Em2.2...@fe10.news.easynews.com...
The Cobb award?
John Poutre
> Brian J <firs...@turtlecreek.net> trolled:
>> Realto Margarino wrote:
>
>> > It's named after the game's greatest hitter. By definition.
>
>> Oh. Well, that makes sense. I was just kidding about Rose
>> Kennedy. But answer me this: why in heck would you name an award
>> in Ty Cobb's honor the Rose award? Because there's no question
>> that some people (like me) will think that it is named after Pete
>> Rose, that guy who was thrown out of baseball.
>
> Some people (like you) don't know much about the game. Perhaps
> that's why you thought that Cobb was the game's greatest hitter.
> But Pete Rose passed Ty Cobb. That makes Pete Rose the game's
> greatest hitter, by definition and without qualification. And we
> name awards after people like Pete Rose so that people like you, who
> admittedly, doesn't know much about the game, will be educated.
>
Wow, how little you know. Hey, how many more ab's did it take Rose?
Ouch...
Realto Margarino
> Wow, how little you know. Hey, how many more ab's did it take
> Rose? Ouch...
That makes no difference at all. Cobb couldn't even play the modern
game. Rose excelled at it. He had the greatest number of hits,
therefore he was the game's greatest hitter. There is no argument
unless you want to change the meaning of the words.
cordially, as always,
rm
powrwrap
> Realto Margarino wrote:
> Rose..had the greatest number of hits,
> therefore he was the game's greatest hitter. There is no argument
> unless you want to change the meaning of the words.
The greatest hitter was Mickey Mantle. He hit the ball the greatest.
The greatest hit in a Major League Game is 193 meters (634 ft) by
Mickey Mantle (USA), when playing for the New York Yankees against the
Detroit Tigers at Briggs Stadium, Detroit, Michigan, USA, on September
10, 1960. --Guiness Book of World Records.
Realto Margarino
> The greatest hitter was Mickey Mantle. He hit the ball the greatest.
Greatest what?
> The greatest hit in a Major League Game is 193 meters (634 ft) by
> Mickey Mantle (USA), when playing for the New York Yankees against the
> Detroit Tigers at Briggs Stadium, Detroit, Michigan, USA, on September
> 10, 1960. --Guiness Book of World Records.
All homeruns are equal in any meaningful sense. The greatest
homerun hitter was Henry Aaron. But the greatest hitter was Pete
Rose.
You can look it up.
cordially, as always,
rm
Richard Hommel
"Realto Margarino" <r...@youasked.org> wrote
<snip>
> You can look it up.
For the heck of it I did (Google) and got Ted Williams. Now that made me
laugh.
roseco...@aol.com
Who *knows what players *really do off the field? ;-)
John Poutre
listening to you is like listening to someone who didn't bring a sandwich to
a picnic. Makes no difference. LOL. Yeah right. Rose could not hold
Cobb's jockstrap.
Cobb was even more of an A$$ than Rose too...
John Poutre
news:1156628468.4...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Well, we know Rose bet on baseball, that's for sure.
Realto Margarino
> "Realto Margarino" <r...@youasked.org> wrote
> <snip>
Some people think Williams was the best hitter, but their opinions
are subjective. If you look at the stats you will see that Pete
Rose had the greatest number of hits. And that makes him the
greatest hitter of all time, by definition and without
qualification.
We try to be objective when possible.
cordially, as always,
rm
Realto Margarino
> > That makes no difference at all. Cobb couldn't even play the modern
> > game. Rose excelled at it. He had the greatest number of hits,
> > therefore he was the game's greatest hitter. There is no argument
> > unless you want to change the meaning of the words.
> listening to you is like listening to someone who didn't bring a
> sandwich to a picnic.
Sure. We would just take your sandwich away from you. Then you
would be the one at the picnic without a sandwich.
> Rose could not hold Cobb's jockstrap.
We doubt they even had jockstraps when Cobb played.
> Cobb was even more of an A$$ than Rose too...
Irrelevant.
Pete Rose was the game's greatest hitter, by definition and without
qualification. The only way you can make a case against Rose is to
give words different meanings.
cordially, as always,
rm
Brian J
Realto Margarino wrote:
> John Poutre <mehat...@gmail.com> trolled:
> > "Realto Margarino" <r...@youasked.org> wrote in message
> > > John Poutre <mehat...@gmail.com> trolled:
>
> > > That makes no difference at all. Cobb couldn't even play the modern
> > > game. Rose excelled at it. He had the greatest number of hits,
> > > therefore he was the game's greatest hitter. There is no argument
> > > unless you want to change the meaning of the words.
>
> > listening to you is like listening to someone who didn't bring a
> > sandwich to a picnic.
>
> Sure. We would just take your sandwich away from you. Then you
> would be the one at the picnic without a sandwich.
>
> > Rose could not hold Cobb's jockstrap.
>
> We doubt they even had jockstraps when Cobb played.
>
> > Cobb was even more of an A$$ than Rose too...
>
> Irrelevant.
>
> Pete Rose was the game's greatest hitter, by definition and without
> qualification.
You like to say that. But it isn't true. The qualification is that
you are talking about getting the gretest number of hits per major
league career. It has been pointed out to you that Mick hit the one
hit of the greatest distance and that Cobb had (the greates number of
hits per AB. Now it is surely true that if you define "greatest
hitter" as guy with the most hits in a MLB career, then Rose is your
man. But we don't all do that.
Let me give you a fer instance. Let's say that a player came along and
hit 4256 hits in 4256 ABs. By your definition, that person is no
greater hitter than Rose, who did it in 14,053 ABs. Right? To me that
sounds absurd. I think it would to you too, if you could see things
objectively.
I understand that you will probably not be persuaded. I also
understand that you will think you have to have the last word, so have
at it.
The only way you can make a case against Rose is to
> give words different meanings.
>
That's not true either. See above.
> cordially, as always,
That isn't true, in my opinion.
>
> rm
Realto Margarino
> > Pete Rose was the game's greatest hitter, by definition and without
> > qualification.
> You like to say that. But it isn't true. The qualification is that
> you are talking about getting the gretest number of hits per major
> league career.
That's not a qualification. Rose is the greatest hitter because he
had the greatest number of hits.
> It has been pointed out to you that Mick hit the one hit of the
> greatest distance and that Cobb had (the greates number of hits
> per AB. Now it is surely true that if you define "greatest
> hitter" as guy with the most hits in a MLB career, then Rose is
> your man. But we don't all do that.
Then you are changing the meaning of the world "greatest." Or at
least using a definition that is irrelevant. The greatest HR was
Hank Aaron.
> Let me give you a fer instance. Let's say that a player came
> along and hit 4256 hits in 4256 ABs. By your definition, that
> person is no greater hitter than Rose, who did it in 14,053 ABs.
> Right? To me that sounds absurd. I think it would to you too, if
> you could see things objectively.
They would be tied for having the greatest number of hits. They
would be tied for being the greatest hitter.
> I understand that you will probably not be persuaded. I also
> understand that you will think you have to have the last word, so
> have at it.
Being the most efficient hitter is not the same thing as being the
greatest hitter. And again, being the best hitter is purely
subjective. If you want to say that Mickey Mantle was the greatest
hitter then you are using the word "greatest" in a subjective sense.
And subjective measurements, as you know, are less than
satisfactory.
cordially, as always,
rm
Josh Rosenbluth
> Brian J <firs...@turtlecreek.net> trolled:
>
>
>>>Pete Rose was the game's greatest hitter, by definition and without
>>>qualification.
>
>
>>You like to say that. But it isn't true. The qualification is that
>>you are talking about getting the gretest number of hits per major
>>league career.
>
>
> That's not a qualification. Rose is the greatest hitter because he
> had the greatest number of hits.
Who was the greatest National League relief pitcher, by definition and
without qualification?
Josh Rosenbluth
John Poutre
LOL, you are stupid beyond words.
Bob Roman
> LOL, you are stupid beyond words.
He would be if he believed any of what he writes. But as a troll...
--
Bob Roman
Steve Grant
Terry Forster?
John Poutre
news:12f3jdj...@news.supernews.com...
> "John Poutre" <mehat...@gmail.com> wrote...
>> LOL, you are stupid beyond words.
>
> He would be if he believed any of what he writes. But as a troll...
>
>
Yeah, you are correct. I get sucked into these sometimes, my bad...
The Enigmatic One
r...@youasked.org says...
You really are amazingly stupid.
-Tim
The Enigmatic One
firs...@turtlecreek.net says...
>greater hitter than Rose, who did it in 14,053 ABs. Right? To me that
>sounds absurd. I think it would to you too, if you could see things
>objectively.
Of course he couldn't.
He's a shitsucking moron.
-Tim
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>You should do a google search on the great players - Rose, Aaron,
>Stieb, Clemens, etc., etc...
One of these things is different from the others...
--
"Chances are you're playing with fire
I thought by now you'd learned
You're gonna get your fingers burned."
Alan Parsons & Eric Woolfson
Realto Margarino
> Who was the greatest National League relief pitcher, by definition and
> without qualification?
The one with the most saves.
Obviously. You can look it up.
cordially, as always,
rm
jrose...@comcast.net
Realto Margarino wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth <jrose...@gotcha.comcast.net> trolled:
>
> > Who was the greatest National League relief pitcher, by definition and
> > without qualification?
>
> The one with the most saves.
If the greatest hitter is the player with the most career hits (by
definition and without qualification), why isn't the greatest NL relief
pitcher the NL player with the most career relief pitches (by
definition and without qualifiication).
Josh Rosenbluth
TheDave©
I guess Ted Williams lost out on a chance to be the "greatest home run
hitter" (at the time) simply because he spent many years in military
service, and not because of anything that happened or didn't happen on
the field.
(No guarantee he would have passed Ruth, but it is plausable.)
Realto Margarino
Because the basic measure of a relief pitcher is saves, just as the
basic measure of a hitter is hits.
Isn't that kind of obvious?
cordially, as always,
rm
jrose...@comcast.net
No, not at all. What logic leads you to conclude that the "basic
measure" of a relief pitcher is saves while the "basic measure" of a
hitter is hits?
Josh Rosenbluth
Chris Cathcart
Realto Margarino, a troll, wrote:
> Some people (like you) don't know much about the game. Perhaps
> that's why you thought that Cobb was the game's greatest hitter.
In trollspeak, not knowing about a fucked-up semantical position is the
same as not knowing much about the game of baseball.
Maynard is not educating anyone about the game of baseball; he's
"educating" folks about his semantic silliness.
David M. Nieporent
> Realto Margarino <r...@youasked.org> wrote:
>> You should do a google search on the great players - Rose, Aaron,
>> Stieb, Clemens, etc., etc...
> One of these things is different from the others...
Yes; Pete Rose is a disgraced joke, whereas the others aren't.
--
David Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Steve Grant
Logic? You're asking Maynard for LOGIC??
You're new here, aren't you?
Don McC
>
> Realto Margarino <r...@youasked.org> wrote:
>
>>You should do a google search on the great players
>> - Rose, Aaron, Stieb, Clemens, etc., etc...
>
> One of these things is different from the others...
One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?
All, except Aaron, are spelled using an "s" and an "e"? ;-)
--
Don
Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are much more pliable.
~ Mark Twain
Realto Margarino
This is simply fundamental to baseball. The greatest hitter is the
hitter with the greatest number of hits. And the greatest relief
pitcher is the relief pitcher with the greatest number of saves.
Perhaps you would prefer that the greatest relief pitcher be the one
with the greatest ERA?
Perhaps we should rename "closers" to "saviours." Then we could say
that the greatest saviours are the ones with the greatest number of
saves. But seeing as how there are so many baseball fans, yourself
included, who believe that the Saviour has yet to arrive, it would
be politically incorrect, and perhaps somewhat distasteful, to call
closers, "saviours" even though the word "saviour" more accurately
describes the closer's function than the word "closer" does.
If you like, we can call the greatest closer, the closer who closes
the greatest number of games, but that is a stat that nobody keeps
track of. Relief appearances is close, but not quite. So we're
going to have to go with saves, and out of consideration for a
number of fans, like yourself, we're just going to have to hold on
to the name "closer."
Or perhaps we could say that the greatest relief pitcher is the
relief pitcher who makes the greatest number of relief appearances.
But that pitcher would almost certainly be the top closer, don't you
think? Relief appearances is analogous to plate appearances while
saves is analogous to basehits. We don't usually think of the
greatest hitter as having the most atbats, even though, as a matter
of fact, the greatest hitter did have the most atbats.
HTH.
cordially, as always,
rm
Realto Margarino
> Realto Margarino, a troll, wrote:
> > Some people (like you) don't know much about the game. Perhaps
> > that's why you thought that Cobb was the game's greatest hitter.
> In trollspeak, not knowing about a fucked-up semantical position is the
> same as not knowing much about the game of baseball.
Now, now. We all know that "trollspeak" refers to the outlandish
position that Baby Bonds has been clean all along.
> Maynard is not educating anyone about the game of baseball; he's
> "educating" folks about his semantic silliness.
Who? Our name is Margarino. You don't get any points for accusing
us of being someone else.
cordially, as always,
rm
Realto Margarino
> >> You should do a google search on the great players - Rose, Aaron,
> >> Stieb, Clemens, etc., etc...
> > One of these things is different from the others...
> Yes; Pete Rose is a disgraced joke, whereas the others aren't.
How did you do on the LSAT? We scored in the 92th percentile.
cordially, as always,
rm
jrose...@comcast.net
Realto Margarino wrote:
> jrose...@comcast.net trolled:
> > Realto Margarino wrote:
>
> > > Because the basic measure of a relief pitcher is saves, just as
> > > the basic measure of a hitter is hits.
>
> > > Isn't that kind of obvious?
>
> > No, not at all. What logic leads you to conclude that the "basic
> > measure" of a relief pitcher is saves while the "basic measure" of
> > a hitter is hits?
>
> This is simply fundamental to baseball.
That is not a logical argument. Why is it "simply fundamental to
baseball"?
> The greatest hitter is the
> hitter with the greatest number of hits. And the greatest relief
> pitcher is the relief pitcher with the greatest number of saves.
You have yet to present any logic to support these conclusions.
Josh Rosenbluth
Realto Margarino
> Realto Margarino wrote:
> > > No, not at all. What logic leads you to conclude that the "basic
> > > measure" of a relief pitcher is saves while the "basic measure" of
> > > a hitter is hits?
> >
> > This is simply fundamental to baseball.
> That is not a logical argument. Why is it "simply fundamental to
> baseball"?
This was answered, clearly, in the part of the post that you clipped
away. Why did you clip away the important part of the post. We
were just setting up the argument, with the statement above. We
made the argument and you clipped it away.
That means that you're a troll. You are arguing in bad faith. You
can't keep up so you edit files, shove your head in the sand, and
hope nobody notices.
> > The greatest hitter is the hitter with the greatest number of
> > hits. And the greatest relief pitcher is the relief pitcher
> > with the greatest number of saves.
> You have yet to present any logic to support these conclusions.
You clipped it away. We presented all kinds of logical support.
If you want to critique our logic, that is one thing. But you just
clipped our logic away and are now pretending it never existed.
Shame on you. This is the kind of thing that Chris Cathcart does.
cordially, as always,
rm
Chris Cathcart
Realto Margarino wrote:
> jrose...@comcast.net trolled:
> > Realto Margarino wrote:
>
> > > Because the basic measure of a relief pitcher is saves, just as
> > > the basic measure of a hitter is hits.
>
> > > Isn't that kind of obvious?
>
> > No, not at all. What logic leads you to conclude that the "basic
> > measure" of a relief pitcher is saves while the "basic measure" of
> > a hitter is hits?
>
> This is simply fundamental to baseball.
Horseshit. The only thing it's fundamental to is troll semantics.
What does all of this semantic masturbation have to do with the game of
baseball? What true fan of the game would give a shit about the
poster's semantics?
Chris Cathcart
Realto Margarino, troll, wrote:
92th?
John Gregory
> Or perhaps we could say that the greatest relief pitcher is the
> relief pitcher who makes the greatest number of relief appearances.
> But that pitcher would almost certainly be the top closer, don't you
> think?
Yet further evidence that Maynard doesn't pay any attention to baseball
as it is actually played in the majors. Let's see, Tom Gordon led the
Yankees in appearances last year, he collected a whopping 2 saves. The
legendary Scott Schoeneweis led the 2005 Blue Jays in games pitched, and
he got 1 save; same story for Todd Williams on the Orioles. White Sox
had 4 guys who pitched in more games than saves leader Dustin Hermanson.
Cleveland, Minnesota, Detroit, LA of Anaheim, Seattle, none of their
save leaders led in games.
Ooo, look, Danys Baez did manage to lead the Devil Rays in both games
and saves. Mike MacDougal did it for the Royals. Francisco Cordero
for Texas. Huston Street tied for the lead in games in Oakland.
There was a similar pattern for the 2005 NL teams too. I'll leave it
to you to check the details.
"Almost certainly"? More-than-almost certainly not a safe principle
to go by if evaluating pitchers.
It's not so much the things Maynard doesn't know that bother us.
It's the things he does know, with certainty, that simply are WRONG.
--
John Gregory ashbury at skypoint.com http://www.skypoint.com/ tilde ashbury
Thought for the moment:
Opportunity always knocks at the least opportune moment. -- Ducharme
Realto Margarino
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Realto Margarino wrote:
> Yet further evidence that Maynard doesn't pay any attention to baseball
Who the fuck is "Maynard?"
> as it is actually played in the majors. Let's see, Tom Gordon led the
> Yankees in appearances last year, he collected a whopping 2 saves. The
> legendary Scott Schoeneweis led the 2005 Blue Jays in games pitched, and
> he got 1 save; same story for Todd Williams on the Orioles.
You're not talking about the game as it is played. You are talking
about stats. And the fact that you know stats better than we do is
a source of pride for us, expecially since we know that our
knowledge of the _game_ greatly exceeds your own.
All you can talk about is stats. When somebody makes a great
defensive play, you check the stats to see if he was out of
position. When a player walks to first, leaving the winning run on
third, and when the next player hits into a double play, you are
smacking your lips over the guy who walked because his OPS just went
up. The fact that the team lost because that asshole couldn't drive
in a run means little to you because baseball, the game itself,
holds no interest for you. You are only interested in the
efficiency of individual players, and to that end, you think it is a
_good_ thing to break the game down so that it is no longer
anal-yzed as a team sport, but as an individual sport, played
preferably by robots programmed by Bill James.
You have a lot of balls criticizing us. You know jackshit about
baseball, bub. Knowing the stats is a very poor substitute but,
since you can't see anymore to the game, you arrogantly assume that
there is nothing more.
You're pathetic. Now, please, bugger off.
You're no longer wanted here.
cordially, as always,
rm
Realto Margarino
[Gregory's noises, deleted]
1. Jesse Orosco* 1252
2. John Franco* 1119
3. Dennis Eckersley+ 1071
4. Hoyt Wilhelm+ 1070
5. Dan Plesac* 1064
6. Kent Tekulve 1050
7. Mike Stanton*(38) 1027
8. Lee Smith 1022
9. Mike Jackson (40) 1005
10. Rich Gossage 1002
11. Lindy McDaniel 987
12. Rollie Fingers+ 944
13. Gene Garber 931
14. Cy Young+ 906
15. Sparky Lyle* 899
16. Jim Kaat* 898
17. Mike Timlin (39) 893
18. Roberto Hernandez (40) 892
19. Jose Mesa (39) 887
20. Paul Assenmacher* 884
The list speaks for itself.
cordially, as always,
rm
sli...@slidge.com
> subjective. If you look at the stats you will see that Pete Rose had
> the greatest number of hits.
Absolutely not true. If you look at the stats, you see that the Beatles
had the greatest number of hits, followed by Elvis Presley and Mariah
Carey.
Chris Cathcart
Realto Margarino wrote:
> John Gregory <ash...@skypoint.com> trolled:
> > On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Realto Margarino wrote:
>
> > Yet further evidence that Maynard doesn't pay any attention to baseball
>
> Who the fuck is "Maynard?"
Perhaps they meant to say "Ronald Matthews," a Nazi sympathizer and
felon who most likely lives a very sick and twisted private life. You
wouldn't happen to know him, would you?
jrose...@comcast.net
Realto Margarino wrote:
> jrose...@comcast.net trolled:
> > Realto Margarino wrote:
>
> > > > No, not at all. What logic leads you to conclude that the "basic
> > > > measure" of a relief pitcher is saves while the "basic measure" of
> > > > a hitter is hits?
> > >
> > > This is simply fundamental to baseball.
>
> > That is not a logical argument. Why is it "simply fundamental to
> > baseball"?
>
> This was answered, clearly, in the part of the post that you clipped
> away. Why did you clip away the important part of the post. We
> were just setting up the argument, with the statement above. We
> made the argument and you clipped it away.
Below is your entire post restored. I do not see anything which
provides logic to support your answer that it is "simply fundamental
baseball" that the "basic measure" of a relief pitcher is saves while
at the same time the "basic measure" of a hitter is hits. Please point
out the logic from the restored post.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is simply fundamental to baseball. The greatest hitter is the
hitter with the greatest number of hits. And the greatest relief
pitcher is the relief pitcher with the greatest number of saves.
Perhaps you would prefer that the greatest relief pitcher be the one
with the greatest ERA?"
"Perhaps we should rename "closers" to "saviours." Then we could say
that the greatest saviours are the ones with the greatest number of
saves. But seeing as how there are so many baseball fans, yourself
included, who believe that the Saviour has yet to arrive, it would
be politically incorrect, and perhaps somewhat distasteful, to call
closers, "saviours" even though the word "saviour" more accurately
describes the closer's function than the word "closer" does."
"If you like, we can call the greatest closer, the closer who closes
the greatest number of games, but that is a stat that nobody keeps
track of. Relief appearances is close, but not quite. So we're
going to have to go with saves, and out of consideration for a
number of fans, like yourself, we're just going to have to hold on
to the name "closer.""
"Or perhaps we could say that the greatest relief pitcher is the
relief pitcher who makes the greatest number of relief appearances.
But that pitcher would almost certainly be the top closer, don't you
think? Relief appearances is analogous to plate appearances while
saves is analogous to basehits. We don't usually think of the
greatest hitter as having the most atbats, even though, as a matter
of fact, the greatest hitter did have the most atbats."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > The greatest hitter is the hitter with the greatest number of
> > > hits. And the greatest relief pitcher is the relief pitcher
> > > with the greatest number of saves.
>
> > You have yet to present any logic to support these conclusions.
>
> You clipped it away. We presented all kinds of logical support.
>
> If you want to critique our logic, that is one thing. But you just
> clipped our logic away and are now pretending it never existed.
As above, my critique is you presented no supporting logic.
Josh Rosenbluth
Realto Margarino
Pete Rose had more hits than all of these combined. Thousands more.
Killfiled for 28 days.
cordially, as always,
rm
Realto Margarino
> As above, my critique is you presented no supporting logic.
The greatest hitter is the hitter with the greatest number of hits,
by definition and without qualification.
By definition. Unassailable logic.
The top relief pitchers would be better known as "saviours."
Saviours better describe their function. The top relief pitchers
are inserted into games to save them. Now, when we refer to
saviours in baseball, you know to whom we are referring.
The greatest saviour is the saviour with the greatest number of
saves, by definition and without qualification.
Unassailable.
And you clipped it away.
G'nite Wilma,
cordially, as always,
rm
powrwrap
Reality Marginal wrote:
> 1. Jesse Orosco* 1252
> 2. John Franco* 1119
> 3. Dennis Eckersley+ 1071
> 4. Hoyt Wilhelm+ 1070
> 5. Dan Plesac* 1064
> 6. Kent Tekulve 1050
> 7. Mike Stanton*(38) 1027
> 8. Lee Smith 1022
> 9. Mike Jackson (40) 1005
> 10. Rich Gossage 1002
> 11. Lindy McDaniel 987
> 12. Rollie Fingers+ 944
> 13. Gene Garber 931
> 14. Cy Young+ 906
> 15. Sparky Lyle* 899
> 16. Jim Kaat* 898
> 17. Mike Timlin (39) 893
> 18. Roberto Hernandez (40) 892
> 19. Jose Mesa (39) 887
> 20. Paul Assenmacher* 884
>
> The list speaks for itself.
What, that Jesse Orosco was the greatest relief pitcher ever? By
definition and without qualification? Like Rose, an average player that
racked up the most in a statistical category by being healthy and
playing 25 years or more.
byrdman
byrdman
This "average player" had 10 seasons of 200+ hits.
byrdman
powrwrap
> byrdman wrote:
> This "average player" had 10 seasons of 200+ hits.
Yes, "average" is a bit too harsh. He was a prolific singles hitter
that played healthy for 24 seasons. Even with all those hits he only
led the league in BA twice. He didn't hit for power. He was a lousy
base stealer.
He was a prolific singles hitter that played healthy for 24 seasons.
jrose...@comcast.net
With hitters, you went directly from "greatest hitter" to the
definition. But, with relief pitchers, you did not go directly from
"greatest relief pitcher" to a definition. You instead converted
"greatest relief pitcher" into "greatest saviour" - by applying logic
that the relief pitcher's function is best described as saviour.
Why the inconsistency? Shouldn't the same logic be used in both cases.
Either:
1) the "greatest hitter" by definition is the player with the greatest
number of hits and the "greatest relief pitcher" is the player with the
greatest number of relief pitches.
2) a relief pitcher's function is best descirbed as saviour and the
greatest relief pitcher is the greatest saviour, who is the player with
the greatest number of saves. Similarly a hitter's function is best
described as "???" and the greatest hitter is the greatest "???", who
is the player with the greatest number of "???".
If you chose #2, then you need to fill in the ??? - what a hitter's
function is best described as.
Josh Rosenbluth
jrose...@comcast.net
He won an MVP, finished in the top 5 four other times, and the top 10
four more times. He was in the top 5 in Win Shares in the NL six times
(*).
He had line-drive power, took plenty of walks in his prime (amongst the
leaders in OBP) and was regularly amongst the league leaders in runs
scored. His position versatility help the Reds put their best lineup
on the field. He was in his prime, a great player.
(*) Win Shares overrates durability, a Rose strength. But, it doesn't
overrate it by enough to dismiss Rose's best years as anything but
great.
Josh Rosenbluth
Roger Moore
>I guess Ted Williams lost out on a chance to be the "greatest home run
>hitter" (at the time) simply because he spent many years in military
>service, and not because of anything that happened or didn't happen on
>the field.
>(No guarantee he would have passed Ruth, but it is plausable.)
I'd classify it as possible but highly unlikely. Williams retired
while trailing Ruth by 193 HR, and he missed less than 5 seasons to
military service. That means that he would have needed to average
over 40 HR/season in the time he missed to pass the Babe. That seems
like a serious stretch considering that reached 40 HR exactly once in
his career. He might have gotten enough to get him close to Ruth and
then decided to hang around for another year to try to pass him, but
that's highly speculative.
How many HR he would have hit also depends on exactly what alternative
history you choose when projecting his totals. If you assume that he
held onto his draft deferment and kept playing in the face of public
opinion, he would have gotten to face war-depleted pitching in
1943-45, but he also would have had to contend with the dead wartime
baseballs, which probably would have cost him at least 10 HR a season
relative to his peacetime totals in 1944 and 1945. If you choose an
alternate history in which WWII never happened- that Hitler didn't
recover from being gassed in WWI and go on to found the Nazi party,
for instance- then he wouldn't have been able to benefit from depleted
pitching. Either way, it's hard to project a big enough jump in his
HR rate to give him the lead over Ruth just on the basis of missed
time.
--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (r...@alumni.caltech.edu)
There's no point in questioning authority if you don't listen to the answers.
TheDave©
I was going more on the "what if" the war had never happened. You're
right in the sense that you can never "know" how it would have played
out in a different scenario, but I was pointing out that there are
sometimes other factors that most certainly have an effect, and that
merely adding up career totals to assign "greatest" is a ridiculous
assumption.
FWIW, I agree that Williams probably would not have passed Ruth, but it
would have been within the realm of possibility... and ya never know.
Realto Margarino
> Reality Marginal wrote:
> > 1. Jesse Orosco* 1252
> > 2. John Franco* 1119
> > 3. Dennis Eckersley+ 1071
> > 4. Hoyt Wilhelm+ 1070
> > 5. Dan Plesac* 1064
> > 6. Kent Tekulve 1050
> > 7. Mike Stanton*(38) 1027
> > 8. Lee Smith 1022
> > 9. Mike Jackson (40) 1005
> > 10. Rich Gossage 1002
> > 11. Lindy McDaniel 987
> > 12. Rollie Fingers+ 944
> > 13. Gene Garber 931
> > 14. Cy Young+ 906
> > 15. Sparky Lyle* 899
> > 16. Jim Kaat* 898
> > 17. Mike Timlin (39) 893
> > 18. Roberto Hernandez (40) 892
> > 19. Jose Mesa (39) 887
> > 20. Paul Assenmacher* 884
> >
> > The list speaks for itself.
> What, that Jesse Orosco was the greatest relief pitcher ever?
He must have been. He got the ball more often than any other
pitcher in history.
cordially, even to the challenged,
rm
Realto Margarino
> > byrdman wrote:
> > This "average player" had 10 seasons of 200+ hits.
> Yes, "average" is a bit too harsh. He was a prolific singles hitter
> that played healthy for 24 seasons. Even with all those hits he only
> led the league in BA twice.
Three times.
> He didn't hit for power. He was a lousy base stealer.
An outstanding base runner.
> He was a prolific singles hitter that played healthy for 24
> seasons.
And he was good enough defensively to make the all-star team 17
times at an unheard of _five_ different positions.
Hate him or love him, Rose has to be respected as the greatest
hitter of all time, by definition and without qualification.
cordially, as always,
rm
Realto Margarino
> With hitters, you went directly from "greatest hitter" to the
> definition. But, with relief pitchers, you did not go directly from
> "greatest relief pitcher" to a definition. You instead converted
> "greatest relief pitcher" into "greatest saviour"
That's because "relief pitcher" does not describe what the player is
trying to do. The premier relief pitcher is trying to save the
game. That is his function. So, the greatest relief pitcher is the
pitcher who fulfils his function the greatest number of times. By
definition and without qualification.
> Why the inconsistency? Shouldn't the same logic be used in both cases.
> Either:
No, because hitter describes one player's function - the context
that we are interested in is hitting. Likewise, the context that we
are interested in, in this case, is saves. And that is because the
save is the primary function of the premier closer.
> 1) the "greatest hitter" by definition is the player with the
> greatest number of hits and the "greatest relief pitcher" is the
> player with the greatest number of relief pitches.
Hardly. None of the pitchers are trying to have the greatest number
of relief pitches. That's not their function.
It just so happens that the name "hitter" describes the person whose
primary function is to hit.
This is why we should rename the premier relief pitchers,
"saviours." Since "saviours" better describes the function of the
premier relievers, we're sure that you wouldn't object to their
being so named?
> 2) a relief pitcher's function is best descirbed as saviour and the
> greatest relief pitcher is the greatest saviour, who is the player with
> the greatest number of saves. Similarly a hitter's function is best
> described as "???" and the greatest hitter is the greatest "???", who
> is the player with the greatest number of "???".
The hitter's function is best described as hitting. It is not
logically inconsistent that the one player (the hitter) is named
after his most important function, while the other player (the
relief pitcher) is not named after his most important function.
However, if you really want to be picky about it, consider the
closer. It can be argued that the greatest closer is the closer who
closes the greatest number of games. And given that the closer is
almost always the best relief pitcher, it can be argued that the
greatest relief pitcher is the closer who closes the most games.
> If you chose #2, then you need to fill in the ??? - what a
> hitter's function is best described as.
Hardly. We don't have to do anything. You remind us of The
Nieporent, about 15 years ago.
cordially, as always,
rm
jrose...@comcast.net
I disagree. IMO, the hitter's function is best described as "creating
runs".
> It is not logically inconsistent that the one player (the hitter) is named
> after his most important function, while the other player (the
> relief pitcher) is not named after his most important function.
That's true, but IMO you have come to the wrong conclusion about what
the hitter's most important function is.
Josh Rosenbluth
Realto Margarino
> > The hitter's function is best described as hitting.
> I disagree. IMO, the hitter's function is best described as "creating
> runs".
No, run producing would refer to run producers. We are talking
about hitting, not run producing, which is something much different.
Creating runs goes beyond hitting. It includes base running, base
stealing, moving players along, sacrifices, etc. Run producing
refers to much more than hitting.
If you want to find out which players are the top run producers all
you have to do is add rbi + runs scored - home runs.
> > It is not logically inconsistent that the one player (the
> > hitter) is named after his most important function, while the
> > other player (the relief pitcher) is not named after his most
> > important function.
> That's true, but IMO you have come to the wrong conclusion about
> what the hitter's most important function is.
The hitter's most important function is hitting when you are talking
about which players are the greatest hitters.
And we are talking about which players are the greatest hitters, not
the greatest run producers.
cordially, as always,
rm
jrose...@comcast.net
Realto Margarino wrote:
> jrose...@comcast.net trolled:
>
> > > The hitter's function is best described as hitting.
>
> > I disagree. IMO, the hitter's function is best described as "creating
> > runs".
>
> No, run producing would refer to run producers. We are talking
> about hitting, not run producing, which is something much different.
> Creating runs goes beyond hitting. It includes base running, base
> stealing, moving players along, sacrifices, etc. Run producing
> refers to much more than hitting.
It is not logically inconsistent to have both hitting and running
contribute to creating runs, while at the same time the the hitter's
(and the base runner's/stealer's) function is best described as
creating runs.
As long as the team which scores more runs is declared the winner -
rather than the team which gets more hits - IMO the hitter's (and base
runner's/stealer's) function is best described as creating runs.
Josh Rosenbluth
powrwrap
> Realto Margarino wrote:
> It just so happens that the name "hitter" describes the person whose
> primary function is to hit.
>
> This is why we should rename the premier relief pitchers,
> "saviours." Since "saviours" better describes the function of the
> premier relievers, we're sure that you wouldn't object to their
> being so named?
Well, you would. Earlier in this thread you complained, regarding the
'greatest hitter':
"There is no argument unless you want to change the meaning of the
words."
Steve Grant
Is it this guy? http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bondsba01.shtml
Or this guy? http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/ryanno01.shtml
Maybe this guy? http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/coopewa01.shtml
This guy? http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/walkela01.shtml
(... who is, after all, doubly Canadian.)
If you adjust for park and era, maybe it should be this guy
http://www.baseball-reference.com/n/nixontr01.shtml
This guy still hasn't used up his rookie eligibility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Nizhegorodov
Brian J
Steve Grant wrote:
> So who's the greatest walker of all time?
>
> Is it this guy? http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bondsba01.shtml
by definition and without qualification.
>
> Or this guy? http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/ryanno01.shtml
by definition and without qualification.
>
> Maybe this guy? http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/coopewa01.shtml
by definition and without qualification.
>
> This guy? http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/walkela01.shtml
>by definition and without qualification.
> (... who is, after all, doubly Canadian.)
>
> If you adjust for park and era, maybe it should be this guy
> http://www.baseball-reference.com/n/nixontr01.shtml
I will balk at this one. I don't thik trot and walk are the same. If
they were, he woudl be your man, by definition and without
qualification.
>
> This guy still hasn't used up his rookie eligibility
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Nizhegorodov
Oh, by definition and without qualification.
Brian Jones
Mitch Edelman
I sincerely doubt that given the choice between Rose or Ted Williams,
many folk would prefer Rose on their teams. Nor would they choose
Rose over Cobb, Sisler, Ruth, Musial, or Mays, for that matter.
"greatest hitter" is somewhat subjective. The usual sobriquet is
"hits for average and power". Rose was somewhat deficient in the power
category. And while I can't prove it, I would suspect that at least
a few players have projected hits/162 game season numbers in excess
of Rose's.
As for making all star appearances, there is a tendency to vote
in the usual suspects. Ripken was elected many more times than
his record alone would have justified, for instance.
I don't recall and dont have the time to check the number of
gold gloves Rose earned (and after seeing the way Bordick was
jobbed for a gold glove a few years back, I don't think it's
a meaningful award).
It's pretty clear that you like Rose. That's fine. He was a
great player, but nowhere near the top of my list.
Cheers,
Mitch Edelman
Realto Margarino
> I sincerely doubt that given the choice between Rose or Ted
> Williams, many folk would prefer Rose on their teams. Nor would
> they choose Rose over Cobb, Sisler, Ruth, Musial, or Mays, for
> that matter.
Rose comes with 3 rings. Williams has 0.
We'll take Rose and the rings.
> "greatest hitter" is somewhat subjective.
It is if you want it to be.
But we'll take objective definitions every time.
> The usual sobriquet is "hits for average and power". Rose was
> somewhat deficient in the power category. And while I can't prove
> it, I would suspect that at least a few players have projected
> hits/162 game season numbers in excess of Rose's.
None of this changes the fact that Rose had more hits than anyone
else in the history of baseball. You can diminish Rose's feat all
you want, but it does not change the fact that Rose was MLB's
greatest hitter, by definition and without qualification.
> As for making all star appearances, there is a tendency to vote in
> the usual suspects. Ripken was elected many more times than his
> record alone would have justified, for instance.
Ripken's all star record is irrelevant to Pete Rose's.
> I don't recall and dont have the time to check the number of
> gold gloves Rose earned (and after seeing the way Bordick was
> jobbed for a gold glove a few years back, I don't think it's
> a meaningful award).
> It's pretty clear that you like Rose. That's fine. He was a
> great player, but nowhere near the top of my list.
Sure, you've got Bordick.
cordially, as always,
rm
Chris Cathcart
Realto Margarino wrote:
> jrose...@comcast.net trolled:
>
> > With hitters, you went directly from "greatest hitter" to the
> > definition. But, with relief pitchers, you did not go directly from
> > "greatest relief pitcher" to a definition. You instead converted
> > "greatest relief pitcher" into "greatest saviour"
>
> That's because "relief pitcher" does not describe what the player is
> trying to do. The premier relief pitcher is trying to save the
> game. That is his function. So, the greatest relief pitcher is the
> pitcher who fulfils his function the greatest number of times. By
> definition and without qualification.
By troll standards, this logic is impeccable. He can still maintain
that "fulfulling his function the greatest number of times" applies to
Pete Rose -- technically. It's all a matter of maintaining the
technicalities. (Then again, isn't it really Rickey Henderson who
"fulfilled his function" -- crossing the plate -- more than anyone?
All Rose did was get on base more than anyone, but just couldn't get
the job done. But nevermind, Maynard can whittle it down further to
"doing the job as hitter, which is to get hits." If need be, things
can be whittled down even further and further until you're left with
some empty tautology.)
Gotta hand it to Maynard, he knows how to weasel amongst the best of
'em. (Of course, on the occasions he's clearly cornered, his best
tactic remaining is to ignore it and keep silent.) He's just bitter
and envious towards the lawyers because he didn't have what it takes to
turn it into a lucrative profession.
Chris Cathcart
Realto Margarino wrote:
> It just so happens that the name "hitter" describes the person whose
> primary function is to hit.
Semantically speaking, there is an identity here: the name "hitter"
describes the person whose primary function is not to get out. At
this, Pete Rose failed more times than any other player in history. In
his role as hitter, Rose is the greatest failure of all time, by
definition and without qualification.
The semantics necessitate this conclusion.
jrose...@comcast.net
Realto Margarino wrote:
> Mitch Edelman <ede...@umbc.edu> trolled:
>
> > The usual sobriquet is "hits for average and power". Rose was
> > somewhat deficient in the power category. And while I can't prove
> > it, I would suspect that at least a few players have projected
> > hits/162 game season numbers in excess of Rose's.
>
> None of this changes the fact that Rose had more hits than anyone
> else in the history of baseball. You can diminish Rose's feat all
> you want, but it does not change the fact that Rose was MLB's
> greatest hitter, by definition and without qualification.
As we debated elsewhere in this thread, your conclusion that Rose was
MLB's greatest hitter is not by definition and without qualification,
but rather a matter of opinion based on an assumption that a hitter's
function is best described as hitting.
Josh Rosenbluth
Mitch Edelman
Again, it is pretty clear that you are a Pete Rose fan, and that's
fine; no matter what you think of his off-the-field conduct, he
was a great player.
I also think that your being so ardent a fan of his has
allowed you to take a single statistic, career number of hits, and
to conflate that into "greatest hitter". Rose has the most career
hits. He doesnt have the highest career OPS, the career BA, the
career HR, RBI, or slugging percentage. All of these are aspects
of hitting.
Let me put it a different way: Ichiro has the all time record for
number of hits in a season, having broken Sisler's long-enduring
record. In the year that he set the record of 257 hits, Sisler
hit .407, drove in 122 runs, and had an OPS of 1.081 (this in
a 154 game season in the dead ball era, too). Your definition of
"greatest hitter" would have Ichiro's year (.372, 60 RBI, and
.869 OPS) being a better one than Sisler's.
Cheers,
Mitch Edelman
Realto Margarino
> Gotta hand it to Maynard,
Who is "Manyard?"
> he knows how to weasel amongst the best of 'em. (Of course, on
> the occasions he's clearly cornered, his best tactic remaining is
> to ignore it and keep silent.) He's just bitter and envious
> towards the lawyers because he didn't have what it takes to turn
> it into a lucrative profession.
Har. We never even looked for an articling job.
We remember speaking out, in first year Contracts, "Why would anyone
want to spend the rest of their lives worrying about other people's
money?" We were regarded as being a bit strange after that.
cordially, as always,
rm
Realto Margarino
> Realto Margarino wrote:
> > It just so happens that the name "hitter" describes the person whose
> > primary function is to hit.
> Semantically speaking, there is an identity here: the name "hitter"
> describes the person whose primary function is not to get out.
Now, now. You know that's not true.
> At this, Pete Rose failed more times than any other player in
> history. In his role as hitter, Rose is the greatest failure of
> all time, by definition and without qualification.
> The semantics necessitate this conclusion.
You're in over your head, as usual.
cordially, as always,
rm
Realto Margarino
> As we debated elsewhere in this thread, your conclusion that Rose was
> MLB's greatest hitter is not by definition and without qualification,
> but rather a matter of opinion based on an assumption that a hitter's
> function is best described as hitting.
A hitter's function is hitting. By definition and without
qualification.
We sense you're getting tired.
cordially, as always,
rm
grossman
Realto Margarino wrote:
> jrose...@comcast.net trolled:
>
> > As we debated elsewhere in this thread, your conclusion that Rose was
> > MLB's greatest hitter is not by definition and without qualification,
> > but rather a matter of opinion based on an assumption that a hitter's
> > function is best described as hitting.
>
> A hitter's function is hitting. By definition and without
> qualification.
So you'd rather have the hitter hit (the ball) and make an out than to
not hit (the ball) and draw a walk?
jrose...@comcast.net
Realto Margarino wrote:
> jrose...@comcast.net trolled:
>
> > As we debated elsewhere in this thread, your conclusion that Rose was
> > MLB's greatest hitter is not by definition and without qualification,
> > but rather a matter of opinion based on an assumption that a hitter's
> > function is best described as hitting.
>
> A hitter's function is hitting. By definition and without qualification.
No, that is a matter of opinion. IMO, a hitter's function is best
described as creating runs. Of course, you may disagree - but you are
wrong when you state your opinion as if it is fact.
Josh Rosenbluth
Realto Margarino
> I also think that your being so ardent a fan of his has
> allowed you to take a single statistic, career number of hits, and
> to conflate that into "greatest hitter". Rose has the most career
> hits. He doesnt have the highest career OPS, the career BA, the
> career HR, RBI, or slugging percentage. All of these are aspects
> of hitting.
OPS does not measure a baseball skill, especially hitting. The
others you mention are all aspects of hitting that require
qualification and definition. We're hardly trying to conflate
anything. We simply say that without definition and qualification,
the greatest hitter is the one with the greatest number of hits. It
is you who wish to expand "hitting" to mean something beyond simply
hitting.
If you wish, you can say that others were more efficient hitters,
or greater power hitters, but in doing so, you are qualifying the
term "hitting." If you wish to say that someone was a better hitter
because he had a higher OPS or OBP then you are redefining hitting
to include walks. A walk is not a hit and no measurement of hitting
includes walks.
Or you can simply say that someone was the "best" hitter. But then
you are only being subjective.
Prima facie, however, Pete Rose was the game's greatest hitter,
simply because he had the game's greatest number of hits.
cordially, as always,
rm
David M. Nieporent
ede...@umbc.edu (Mitch Edelman) wrote:
>Realto Margarino <r...@youasked.org> wrote:
>>cordially, as always,
>>rm
>Again, it is pretty clear that you are a Pete Rose fan,
No, he's not. He's a troll. If everyone around here praised Pete Rose,
Maynard would be condemning him.
jrose...@comcast.net
Realto Margarino wrote:
>
> OPS does not measure a baseball skill, especially hitting. The
> others you mention are all aspects of hitting that require
> qualification and definition. We're hardly trying to conflate
> anything. We simply say that without definition and qualification,
> the greatest hitter is the one with the greatest number of hits. It
> is you who wish to expand "hitting" to mean something beyond simply
> hitting.
You are again being inconsistent. You already expanded "relief
pitching" to mean something beyond simply relief pitching (namely,
saviour). Once you do that, you cannot claim that hitting must not be
expanded.
Josh Rosenbluth
The Enigmatic One
jrose...@comcast.net says...
>As we debated elsewhere in this thread, your conclusion that Rose was
>MLB's greatest hitter is not by definition and without qualification,
>but rather a matter of opinion based on an assumption that a hitter's
>function is best described as hitting.
Wha?
Even that gives him way too much credit.
-Tim
The Enigmatic One
>Again, it is pretty clear that you are a Pete Rose fan, and that's
>fine; no matter what you think of his off-the-field conduct, he
>was a great player.
Give it up.
You're dealing with a racist insane troll.
Insult him freely, but don't try reason.
-Tim
PaulMofAtl
wrote:
>Brian J <firs...@turtlecreek.net> trolled:
>> Realto Margarino wrote:
>
>> > It's named after the game's greatest hitter. By definition.
>
>> Oh. Well, that makes sense. I was just kidding about Rose
>> Kennedy. But answer me this: why in heck would you name an award
>> in Ty Cobb's honor the Rose award? Because there's no question
>> that some people (like me) will think that it is named after Pete
>> Rose, that guy who was thrown out of baseball.
>
>Some people (like you) don't know much about the game. Perhaps
>that's why you thought that Cobb was the game's greatest hitter.
>But Pete Rose passed Ty Cobb. That makes Pete Rose the game's
>greatest hitter, by definition and without qualification. And we
>name awards after people like Pete Rose so that people like you, who
>admittedly, doesn't know much about the game, will be educated.
>
>Oh, and BTW: Pete Rose was never thrown out of baseball. He turned
>his back on baseball. He quit. And he did it after his magnificent
>playing career was over.
>
>You should do a google search on the great players - Rose, Aaron,
>Stieb, Clemens, etc., etc...
>
>cordially, as always,
>
>rm
Steib?
Don't forget about Lloyd Moseby and Barry Bonnell.
Steve Grant
<paulmo...@charter.net> wrote:
>Don't forget about Lloyd Moseby and Barry Bonnell.
... and Luis Sojo, whose career was 25% greater than Derek Jeter's.
powrwrap
> Realto Margarino wrote:
> We simply say that without definition and qualification,
> the greatest hitter is the one with the greatest number of hits. It
> is you who wish to expand "hitting" to mean something beyond simply
> hitting.
No, you are. Pete Rose has the most hits in baseball history. Most does
not equal greatest. Greatest, by definition, means more than numerical
superiority.
Just leave it at that--Pete Rose has the most hits in baseball history.
TheDave©
> > Realto Margarino wrote:
> > We simply say that without definition and qualification,
> > the greatest hitter is the one with the greatest number of hits. It
> > is you who wish to expand "hitting" to mean something beyond simply
> > hitting.
>
>
> No, you are. Pete Rose has the most hits in baseball history. Most
> does not equal greatest. Greatest, by definition, means more than
> numerical superiority.
I guess the greatest player in history is the one who played in the
most games, eh?
T-Bone
I'll never figure that one out!
"TheDave©" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
news:iClJg.182$Xi7...@newsfe16.phx...
Realto Margarino
> > A hitter's function is hitting. By definition and without
> > qualification.
> So you'd rather have the hitter hit (the ball) and make an out
> than to not hit (the ball) and draw a walk?
If the hitter makes an out, then he never got a hit.
Pretty slow, even for the middle of the week.
cordially, as always,
rm
Realto Margarino
> Realto Margarino wrote:
> > A hitter's function is hitting. By definition and without
> > qualification.
> No, that is a matter of opinion. IMO, a hitter's function is best
> described as creating runs. Of course, you may disagree - but you are
> wrong when you state your opinion as if it is fact.
A hitter's job is to get a hit, unless of course, you want to
change the definition of the word "hit."
Creating runs includes all kinds of stuff that is not hitting. In
fact, you can help create runs even if you never had an atbat.
cordially, as always,
rm
Realto Margarino
> >Again, it is pretty clear that you are a Pete Rose fan,
> No, he's not. He's a troll. If everyone around here praised Pete
> Rose, Maynard would be condemning him.
That reminds us of the time during the 22 minute standing ovation
for Cal Ripken, you ran around the stadium screaming, "The streak
hurt the team!"
Nice try, but we know who the real troll is.
cordially, as always,
rm
Brian J
Realto Margarino wrote:
> John Poutre <mehat...@gmail.com> trolled:
>
> > Wow, how little you know. Hey, how many more ab's did it take
> > Rose? Ouch...
>
> That makes no difference at all. Cobb couldn't even play the modern
> game. Rose excelled at it. He had the greatest number of hits,
> therefore he was the game's greatest hitter. There is no argument
> unless you want to change the meaning of the words.
>
> cordially, as always,
>
> rm
OK, if this guy:
http://www.funfry.com/data/509/thumbs/giants_giant_fat_player_funny_pictures_funfry_resize.jpg
were holding a bat, could he be the greatest hitter?
He is obviously greatere than Rose. You can tell from the picture.
Brian Jones
Realto Margarino
> Realto Margarino wrote:
> > OPS does not measure a baseball skill, especially hitting. The
> > others you mention are all aspects of hitting that require
> > qualification and definition. We're hardly trying to conflate
> > anything. We simply say that without definition and qualification,
> > the greatest hitter is the one with the greatest number of hits. It
> > is you who wish to expand "hitting" to mean something beyond simply
> > hitting.
> You are again being inconsistent.
Again? You have yet to establish any inconsistency on our part.
> You already expanded "relief pitching" to mean something beyond
> simply relief pitching (namely, saviour). Once you do that, you
> cannot claim that hitting must not be expanded.
Hitting has nothing to do with pitching. It is just coincidental
that hitters are named after what they are trying to accomplish,
while relief pitchers are not. The greatest relief pitchers are the
pitchers who register the greatest number of saves. This is
commonly acknowledged amongst baseball persons. You can say that
this is a matter of opinion, but it is a matter of expert opinion.
And the definition of all words is, after all, a matter of expert
opinion.
Having said that, nobody is going to complain if you tell us that,
in your opinion, the greatest relief pitcher is the one with the
greatest ERA, or number of losses, or blown saves, or any other
criteria that you deem to be more representative of greatness than
saves. (How about the greatest number of wild pitches?)
cordially, as always,
rm
Realto Margarino
> >Again, it is pretty clear that you are a Pete Rose fan, and that's
> >fine; no matter what you think of his off-the-field conduct, he
> >was a great player.
> Give it up.
> You're dealing with a racist insane troll.
Racist? Don't you think that kind of smear demands some evidence?
Even a tiny bit?
cordially, as always,
rm
Realto Margarino
> >You should do a google search on the great players - Rose, Aaron,
> >Stieb, Clemens, etc., etc...
> >
> >cordially, as always,
> >
> >rm
> Steib?
> Don't forget about Lloyd Moseby and Barry Bonnell.
We remember Moseby and Bonnell. But who was Steib?
cordially, as always,
rm
Realto Margarino
> No, you are. Pete Rose has the most hits in baseball history. Most
> does not equal greatest. Greatest, by definition, means more than
> numerical superiority.
"Greatest", by definition, means precisely numerical superiority.
> Just leave it at that--Pete Rose has the most hits in baseball
> history.
When we say that Rose was the greatest hitter in MLB history, we
mean precisely that.
cordially, as always,
rm