PDA

View Full Version : Rose named Reds' Hometown Hero



Gallen5862
09-27-2006, 11:25 PM
http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/content/printer_friendly/cin/y2006/m09/d27/c1685863.jsp
Rose named Reds' Hometown Hero
09/27/2006 11:01 PM ET
By Mark Sheldon / MLB.com

MIAMI -- Pete Rose's exile from baseball for gambling has been a divisive hot-button issue among fans for almost two decades.
But a majority of Reds fans this summer have answered one big debate by selecting Rose as the greatest player from baseball's oldest professional franchise.

The game's all-time hits leader, Rose was named winner of the Reds' Hometown Heroes Award, presented by DHL. On Wednesday, his selection was announced as part of a 10-player group featured during the second show of a three-part series that aired on ESPN.

Each of the 30 Major League clubs had a special ballot of five players. From July 18 through Sept. 17, nearly 17 million votes were cast at ballparks, online at MLB.com and at DHL shipping centers.

Besides Rose, baseball greats Johnny Bench, Tony Perez, Joe Morgan and Frank Robinson were part of the Reds' ballot.

A 17-time All-Star, Rose collected 4,256 hits during a 24-season career that spanned from 1963-86. The Cincinnati native had two tours with his hometown team -- from 1963-78 and from 1984-86 when he returned as the player-manager.

On Sept. 11, 1985, Rose passed Ty Cobb as the all-time "hit king," when he notched hit No. 4,192 off the Padres' Eric Show at Riverfront Stadium.

Affectionately known as "Charlie Hustle" for his tenacious, all-out effort on the field, Rose was the 1963 National League Rookie of the Year, the 1973 NL Most Valuable Player and a two-time Gold Glove winner. He's also the Major League all-time leader with 3,562 games played.

In 1989, Rose agreed to a lifetime ban from the game issued by then-Commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti for betting on baseball. Rose, now 65, remains ineligible for selection to the Hall of Fame.

This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.

Shaknb8k
09-27-2006, 11:28 PM
I sat here and watched this Phillies and Nationals game waiting for it to end so i could catch it on ESPN and now its not coming on. Did i miss something or did they play it on another channel? It was supposed to come on ESPN at 10 tonight but the Phi. game went into extra innings.

Cyclone792
09-27-2006, 11:29 PM
Pete Rose was a great player for the Reds, and he's probably among the top 30-40 players in the history of the game.

But Frank Robinson, Joe Morgan and Johnny Bench were all greater players than Rose was.

dougflynn23
09-27-2006, 11:38 PM
Pete Rose was a great player for the Reds, and he's probably among the top 30-40 players in the history of the game.

But Frank Robinson, Joe Morgan and Johnny Bench were all greater players than Rose was.
:confused: Yet the award is Hometown Hero, not greatest player. Pete Rose represents Cincinnati. Joe Morgan was only here for 7 years, and Johnny Bench made the mistake of daring to challenge Pete, so he wasn't going to win. I'm not a Pete Rose apologist, but this vote was never in doubt.

Cyclone792
09-27-2006, 11:44 PM
:confused: Yet the award is Hometown Hero, not greatest player. Pete Rose represents Cincinnati. Joe Morgan was only here for 7 years, and Johnny Bench made the mistake of daring to challenge Pete, so he wasn't going to win. I'm not a Pete Rose apologist, but this vote was never in doubt.

Sorry, but heroes don't commit baseball's worst crime, and Rose did commit baseball's worst crime.

Morgan, Robinson and Bench were all greater players than Rose throughout their careers. Morgan is arguably the greatest second baseman ever, and Bench is arguably the greatest catcher ever. If the debate is centered around how much of a career was spent in a Reds uniform, then Bench still trumps Rose because Bench's entire career was in a Reds uniform.

It'll be interesting to see who the Chicago White Sox vote as their Hometown Hero, and I'm betting (no pun intended) that it isn't Joe Jackson.

dougflynn23
09-27-2006, 11:57 PM
Sorry, but heroes don't commit baseball's worst crime, and Rose did commit baseball's worst crime.

Morgan, Robinson and Bench were all greater players than Rose throughout their careers. Morgan is arguably the greatest second baseman ever, and Bench is arguably the greatest catcher ever. If the debate is centered around how much of a career was spent in a Reds uniform, then Bench still trumps Rose because Bench's entire career was in a Reds uniform.

It'll be interesting to see who the Chicago White Sox vote as their Hometown Hero, and I'm betting (no pun intended) that it isn't Joe Jackson. :devil: Obviously, the vote is a shot across the bow at MLB and Bud Selig. If MLB didn't wan't the controversey, they'd have not included Roseon the ballot. BTW...I voted for Johnny Bench.

Cyclone792
09-28-2006, 12:05 AM
I also voted for Bench.

crazybob60
09-28-2006, 12:20 AM
I sat here and watched this Phillies and Nationals game waiting for it to end so i could catch it on ESPN and now its not coming on. Did i miss something or did they play it on another channel? It was supposed to come on ESPN at 10 tonight but the Phi. game went into extra innings.

I did the same exact thing as you and nothing. The announcers during the game nor the little (and sometimes annoying) scroll thing at the bottom of the screen said nothing about this. I would think they would have at least mentioned it or said they were moving the time or whatever they are doing with it, even cancelling it considering it was made into somewhat of a big deal like it was and it is being stretch over three nights like it is. I am still just very disappointed in having to sit through almost half a game like that only to not get to watch the Heroes program. I caught last night's and thought it was actually pretty good and will watch tomorrow (hopefully the same thing doesn't occur) as well. Maybe they are going to play it after Sportscenter airs or maybe they will play it before tomorrow evening's timeslot? Or we could get lucky and they could play all three simultaneously like on Saturday or something....sorry for being longwinded but I just a little tad bit frustrated with the whole thing right now!!!!!!!!!

Cedric
09-28-2006, 12:33 AM
Sorry, but heroes don't commit baseball's worst crime, and Rose did commit baseball's worst crime.

Morgan, Robinson and Bench were all greater players than Rose throughout their careers. Morgan is arguably the greatest second baseman ever, and Bench is arguably the greatest catcher ever. If the debate is centered around how much of a career was spent in a Reds uniform, then Bench still trumps Rose because Bench's entire career was in a Reds uniform.

It'll be interesting to see who the Chicago White Sox vote as their Hometown Hero, and I'm betting (no pun intended) that it isn't Joe Jackson.

Hogwash. By what standard are these players better than Rose? I know you only care about statistics, but I care about a whole hell of a lot more. Having an opinion is one thing, to clearly state they are better is rich.

He's a hero to me for how he played the game. I couldn't care less about the idiocy of the "baseball's worst crime."

There is nothing worse than the HGH and steroid users of today. They are not only ruining the integrity of the game, they are a horrible influence on every young athlete.

SeeinRed
09-28-2006, 01:15 AM
Hogwash. By what standard are these players better than Rose? I know you only care about statistics, but I care about a whole hell of a lot more. Having an opinion is one thing, to clearly state they are better is rich.

He's a hero to me for how he played the game. I couldn't care less about the idiocy of the "baseball's worst crime."

There is nothing worse than the HGH and steroid users of today. They are not only ruining the integrity of the game, they are a horrible influence on every young athlete.


Definately agree. Purposely trying to change the outcome of a game through cheating is far worse than betting on an the outcome of a game IMO. Yes, steroids are used to change the outcome. Betting did not make Rose a better player/manager, just a worse person. There is no proof that Rose threw a game or anything of that nature, and quite honestly, Rose strikes me as the kind of player that would not let money get in the way of his winning. Baseball's worst crime is not betting, baseball's worst crime is a player using substances to give him abilities that he would not otherwise achieve so he can change the outcome of a game. When your actions give you an unfair edge over another player who plays the game honestly, that is when the integrity of the game is truly attacked.

You still can't tell me that betting is any worse than drug abuse or steroids. Like drugs, addiction to gambling is in a lot of ways a disease. Sure it shouldn't have happened in the first place, he made a bad decision. We all make mistakes sometimes. His mistake turned into an addiction. The guy needed help, not shunned from baseball. You lie to cover your addiction, and before you know it, you lose control and the situation grows beyond your control. It happens. Drug addicts get a second chance, why shouldn't gambling addicts.

To this day, nobody has given what I believe to be a good enough excuse as to why Rose shouldn't at least be in the Hall of Fame. Its always something like "He broke the Cardinal Rule of Baseball." My question is why is that "the Cardinal Rule of Baseball." Shouldn't the "Cardinal Rule" be something more like no player shall partake in illegal activities that can change the outcome of a game? Steroids are illegal along with fixing an event so that it benifits you finacially. Rose did neither.

More over, the Hall of Fame isn't exactly filled with saints. A lot of them had their own character issues. Womanizers, Drug abusers, alcoholics, and so forth. Its the Baseball Hall of Fame, not the Hall of model citizens. If you base a players performance on his character, then you would have a very empty building in Cooperstown.

RedsBaron
09-28-2006, 01:48 AM
I am not in the least surprised by this vote.

RANDY IN INDY
09-28-2006, 06:50 AM
There was a generation of Reds fans that grew up worshiping the way that Pete Rose played baseball. They still want to believe in what he did on the baseball field. The vote does not surprise me, either.

Heath
09-28-2006, 07:04 AM
I voted for Bench because he had opportunties to leave Cincinnati and did not plus he was the greatest catcher to play the game.

Rose was my second choice - but he was one of the first "true" Cincinnatians to play for the Reds (Sorry Herm Wehmeier) who became a star with his play and attitude. I can see why he won.

Highlifeman21
09-28-2006, 07:13 AM
Hogwash. By what standard are these players better than Rose? I know you only care about statistics, but I care about a whole hell of a lot more. Having an opinion is one thing, to clearly state they are better is rich.

He's a hero to me for how he played the game. I couldn't care less about the idiocy of the "baseball's worst crime."

There is nothing worse than the HGH and steroid users of today. They are not only ruining the integrity of the game, they are a horrible influence on every young athlete.


Definately agree. Purposely trying to change the outcome of a game through cheating is far worse than betting on an the outcome of a game IMO. Yes, steroids are used to change the outcome. Betting did not make Rose a better player/manager, just a worse person. There is no proof that Rose threw a game or anything of that nature, and quite honestly, Rose strikes me as the kind of player that would not let money get in the way of his winning. Baseball's worst crime is not betting, baseball's worst crime is a player using substances to give him abilities that he would not otherwise achieve so he can change the outcome of a game. When your actions give you an unfair edge over another player who plays the game honestly, that is when the integrity of the game is truly attacked.

You still can't tell me that betting is any worse than drug abuse or steroids. Like drugs, addiction to gambling is in a lot of ways a disease. Sure it shouldn't have happened in the first place, he made a bad decision. We all make mistakes sometimes. His mistake turned into an addiction. The guy needed help, not shunned from baseball. You lie to cover your addiction, and before you know it, you lose control and the situation grows beyond your control. It happens. Drug addicts get a second chance, why shouldn't gambling addicts.

To this day, nobody has given what I believe to be a good enough excuse as to why Rose shouldn't at least be in the Hall of Fame. Its always something like "He broke the Cardinal Rule of Baseball." My question is why is that "the Cardinal Rule of Baseball." Shouldn't the "Cardinal Rule" be something more like no player shall partake in illegal activities that can change the outcome of a game? Steroids are illegal along with fixing an event so that it benifits you finacially. Rose did neither.

More over, the Hall of Fame isn't exactly filled with saints. A lot of them had their own character issues. Womanizers, Drug abusers, alcoholics, and so forth. Its the Baseball Hall of Fame, not the Hall of model citizens. If you base a players performance on his character, then you would have a very empty building in Cooperstown.

Oh boy, here we go again. If it isn't the assembling masses against Adam Dunn, it's the ignorant Pete Rose defense attorneys.

The only reason Pete Rose is the record holder for most hits is because he played 23 years. He averaged 194 H/162. There's the secret to why Pete Rose has 4256. While Rose had a respectable .375 OBP for his career, and a career BA of .303, it doesn't change the fact his lifetime OPS is .784, which is very pedestrian. Rose was never even mentioned in the same breath of "best at his position", whereas Morgan and Bench are often mention in that same breath of "best at his position". Bench quite possibly could be the best catcher of all time, he's definitely put together a body of work to deserve such merit, but it's not all stat derived. With both Morgan and Bench, there are defensive metrics to consider as well. Pete Rose was never going to fool anyone with his defense, nor was he ever going to change the outcome of a game by good defense. Morgan and Bench both had the ability to positively impact the outcome of a ballgame with their defensive abilities.

Maybe I'm too young to have been fed the Pete Rose hype, and subsequently gotten caught up in the hoopla, but while I believe he put together a marginal HOF bid on counting stats alone, he was not a complete player. He got on base largely due to BA, and had an adequate amount of career walks to bring his career OBP to a respectable .375. That's it. He had no power. Only 25% of his career hits were XBH, so there's his low career SLG. He wasn't the fleetest of foot either. 198 career SB vs. 149 career CS. Not good numbers.

Am I trying to say Pete Rose wasn't a good player? No. Do I believe he should be in the HOF had he not committed the worst offense in baseball? Yes. Have we historically had better players on the Reds than Pete Rose? You betcha. Bench and Morgan are just two to top that list.

As for the betting on baseball is worse than illegal substances argument, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree, because where I'm sitting, degrading the integrity of such a great game is a far worse crime than ingesting supplements in an attempt to enhance performance.

elfmanvt07
09-28-2006, 07:15 AM
He's a hero to me for how he played the game.

That's why he's still my all time favorite ballplayer. Bud Selig thought this wouldn't be controversial. He just got a wake up call.

elfmanvt07
09-28-2006, 07:25 AM
The only reason Pete Rose is the record holder for most hits is because he played 23 years.

Cobb played 24.

Highlifeman21
09-28-2006, 07:35 AM
Cobb played 24.

Cobb also played in a tougher/better era of baseball.

Cobb's lifetime H/162 = 224.

Rose's lifetime H/162 = 194.

Cobb's lifetime OBP = .424

Rose's lifetime OBP = .375

Cobb's G = 3035

Rose's G = 3562



Cobb may have played 1 more season, but he played in 527 less games, which by today's standards of 162 G/season means Cobb played in 3.25 less seasons than Rose.

Is this going to turn into who was better, Ty Cobb or Pete Rose?

Ltlabner
09-28-2006, 07:38 AM
Oh boy, here we go again. If it isn't the assembling masses against Adam Dunn, it's the ignorant Pete Rose defense attorneys.

Maybe I'm too young to have been fed the Pete Rose hype, and subsequently gotten caught up in the hoopla,

Am I trying to say Pete Rose wasn't a good player? No. Do I believe he should be in the HOF had he not committed the worst offense in baseball? Yes. Have we historically had better players on the Reds than Pete Rose? You betcha. Bench and Morgan are just two to top that list.

As for the betting on baseball is worse than illegal substances argument, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree, because where I'm sitting, degrading the integrity of such a great game is a far worse crime than ingesting supplements in an attempt to enhance performance.


So if someone's opinion on Rose differs from yours, they are "ignorant" ? Sorry man, but calling people ignorant because they dissagree doesn't seem kosher to me.

I find it amusing that you first admit that you were to young to experience the Reds in the 1970's but then turn around and dismiss any admiration of Rose as "hype" and "hoopla". If you weren't there I don't think it makes much sense to comment on what it was like at the time or why people grew to adore Pete.

The 3para makes your best case and it's one I agree with. But as someone else pointed out it was "Hometown Heros" not "Best Baseball Players". To deny that Rose is adored (which is frankly beyond me) in Cincinnati is to deny reality. People here love him for the way he played the game, not that his OBP and OPS were in a certian range.

I don't care for Pete and with each passing year he confirms my distaste for his poor personal choices. But I do admire how he approached the game. Most people who go to the ballpark just want to be entertained. They want to see someone who obsentivley cares about playing hard. He showed that and won people over.

As far as betting on baseball vs steroids I think it's pretty simple. They are both bad for the game.

MrCinatit
09-28-2006, 07:39 AM
Cobb also played in a tougher/better era of baseball.

Actually, that is very debatable. Cobb played only against white players - and, yes, that does make a huge difference.

RedFanAlways1966
09-28-2006, 07:55 AM
How about this... no comment! :p:

This is getting too political. Not for me.

Cyclone792
09-28-2006, 08:01 AM
Hogwash. By what standard are these players better than Rose? I know you only care about statistics, but I care about a whole hell of a lot more. Having an opinion is one thing, to clearly state they are better is rich.

He's a hero to me for how he played the game. I couldn't care less about the idiocy of the "baseball's worst crime."

There is nothing worse than the HGH and steroid users of today. They are not only ruining the integrity of the game, they are a horrible influence on every young athlete.

This post doesn't even deserve a response. You don't have one clue what I care about, and don't pretend that you do.

BTW, gambling is far worse a crime than steroids, but that's been rehashed over and over.

Highlifeman21
09-28-2006, 08:01 AM
So if someone's opinion on Rose differs from yours, they are "ignorant" ? Sorry man, but calling people ignorant because they dissagree doesn't seem kosher to me.

I find it amusing that you first admit that you were to young to experience the Reds in the 1970's but then turn around and dismiss any admiration of Rose as "hype" and "hoopla". If you weren't there I don't think it makes much sense to comment on what it was like at the time or why people grew to adore Pete.

The 3para makes your best case and it's one I agree with. But as someone else pointed out it was "Hometown Heros" not "Best Baseball Players". To deny that Rose is adored (which is frankly beyond me) in Cincinnati is to deny reality. People here love him for the way he played the game, not that his OBP and OPS were in a certian range.

I don't care for Pete and with each passing year he confirms my distaste for his poor personal choices. But I do admire how he approached the game. Most people who go to the ballpark just want to be entertained. They want to see someone who obsentivley cares about playing hard. He showed that and won people over.

As far as betting on baseball vs steroids I think it's pretty simple. They are both bad for the game.

I used the word ignorant because of the Rose faithful that fail to see him from all sides. As I previously stated, I firmly believe Rose put together a HOF body of work as a player. Unfortunately, he made choices to get himself banned for life. Because of those choices, I don't think he should ever be allowed into the Hall of Fame. I'm not saying those that disagree with my opinion are ignorant, as I love to view a multitude of opinions on this board, but rather that to look at Pete Rose so one sided is IMO completely ignorant. For what it's worth, I don't care much for Joe Morgan as a person or an announcer now, but what he did as a player we can't change and he should be heralded for those accomplishments. The difference between Morgan and Rose is that Rose made poor choices. Morgan didn't, that we know of.

The reason I labeled the Rose mystique as hype and hoopla is from conversations I've had with people that were around to experience the Rose circus in both Cincy and Philly. Pete Rose accomplished more with so little than anyone in baseball. He became Charlie Hustle because he honestly didn't have outstanding natural ability, but was a great competitor and truly did give maximum effort on the diamond. For that, he should be applauded, and I can understand why some people would give him hero status, but to me, he's still someone who violated the integrity of baseball. I wasn't around to see Rose run around the diamond, dive into bases, or plow into people. I'm just going off the word of mouth of those I respect, as well as what I've read. I'd love to be able to go back in time and see him for myself, but I have a lingering feeling that my opinion of him wouldn't change.

KittyDuran
09-28-2006, 08:14 AM
:confused: Yet the award is Hometown Hero, not greatest player. Pete Rose represents Cincinnati. Joe Morgan was only here for 7 years, and Johnny Bench made the mistake of daring to challenge Pete, so he wasn't going to win. I'm not a Pete Rose apologist, but this vote was never in doubt.Totally agree... that's why I didn't vote, I knew Pete would win it...hands down and not just for the fact that he is a "hometown" guy but there are Reds fans who would love to stick it to Bud. Now, the big question is who would have won if Rose wasn't included?

Ltlabner
09-28-2006, 08:14 AM
Pete Rose accomplished more with so little than anyone in baseball.

Totally agree there!

We sorta have a (much) smaller scale situation today. If you took a survey of Cincinnati and asked "who's the heart of this team, Adam Dunn or Ryan Freel", I'd be willing to bet money that Freel would win by a landslide.

I'm not knocking Freel in any way but we all know who has done the heavy lifting in terms of offense (year ending slump or no). But people respond to players that they judge to "care" and "play hard". Ryan makes some spectacular catchs, is agressive on the base paths and never has a clean uniform. To the casual fan that means he cares desipite what the numbers show.

Ask the same casual fan what OBP or OPS means and you'll probably be told it's a new rap group.

Pete's natural drive and ambition to play harder was just his way of competing. But to the fans that meant he cared and wasn't just another overpaid, crybaby ballpayer (except for Dick Wagoner on the "overpaid" part...). For that he will be adored despite his personal short commings.

REDREAD
09-28-2006, 08:27 AM
:confused: Yet the award is Hometown Hero, not greatest player. Pete Rose represents Cincinnati. Joe Morgan was only here for 7 years, and Johnny Bench made the mistake of daring to challenge Pete, so he wasn't going to win. I'm not a Pete Rose apologist, but this vote was never in doubt.

I agree that it was easy to see Pete would win any kind of voting thing.. it's all a popularity contest, and Pete has rabid fans.

Still, considering this is supposed to be a "hero" award, why not nominate players that actually contributed to society, did charity work, etc.

It looks like they just tried to pull out 5 big names for the ballot. I mean, Pete was a good player, but a hero, come on. Maybe Bench and Morgan do some things for the community that I don't know about, but I really wouldn't call them heroes either.

Cedric
09-28-2006, 08:52 AM
This post doesn't even deserve a response. You don't have one clue what I care about, and don't pretend that you do.

BTW, gambling is far worse a crime than steroids, but that's been rehashed over and over.


Your own words said it, not mine.

You are the one throwing out absolutes on who is clearly better. And the only way you could be doing that is stats considering you never saw any of these guys play.

You have no idea how important Pete Rose to this city and to the team. He was the sparkplug. You see where he is listed all times on the doubles list? He wasn't some punch and judy hitter. He was the absolute key to the rest of the lineup.

oneupper
09-28-2006, 08:56 AM
Another gambling vs. steriods thread. :rolleyes:
Wasn't there a poll on this?

Heath
09-28-2006, 09:00 AM
Another gambling vs. steriods thread. :rolleyes:
Wasn't there a poll on this?

Yes, but don't blame me. I voted for Nixon.

Otis Nixon.





:D

Jefferson24
09-28-2006, 09:01 AM
I voted for Bench. IMO he was the best catcher to have played the game. I didn't feel like I could say the same for the other choices. He stayed in Cincy his whole career and didn't chase the almighty dollar and jump from club to club.
When your the best at what you do and your loyal to your team what more could a fan base ask for?

Cyclone792
09-28-2006, 09:03 AM
Your own words said it, not mine.

You are the one throwing out absolutes on who is clearly better. And the only way you could be doing that is stats considering you never saw any of these guys play.

You have no idea how important Pete Rose to this city and to the team. He was the sparkplug. You see where he is listed all times on the doubles list? He wasn't some punch and judy hitter. He was the absolute key to the rest of the lineup.

Absolutely funny how you're claiming I'm only using statistics and then see you refer to a statistic yourself to back up your argument that Rose was the sparkplug.

pot.kettle.black.

Heck, I've already told everyone that I voted for Johnny Bench, and if I was only using statistics as you claim, then I actually wouldn't have voted for Johnny Bench.

Ironic how that works.

Cedric
09-28-2006, 09:06 AM
Absolutely funny how you're claiming I'm only using statistics and then see you refer to a statistic yourself to back up your argument that Rose was the sparkplug.

pot.kettle.black.

Heck, I've already told everyone that I voted for Johnny Bench, and if I was only using statistics as you claim, then I actually wouldn't have voted for Johnny Bench.

Ironic how that works.

You are totally missing my arguement then. Of course I feel that stats have an important part in any baseball debate, but it should be just a part.

Using stats as absolutes was the only thing I was debating in your post. Using them inside the framework of a debate is another thing.

By the way, I would have voted for Bench also. But I don't think the voting was absurd.

Phhhl
09-28-2006, 09:22 AM
Pete was not the only worthy recipient of this. But, he's certainly worthy. Why split hairs? If Cincinnatians want to employ overkill to express their appreciation of Pete, it is only because the rest of the world seems to employ overkill to villify him. The man hit leadoff for the greatest offensive ballclub of the modern era, switched positions multiple times to accomidate teammates and collected more hits than anyone who has ever played the game. Those are OUTSTANDING credintials. You may prefer Bench for this honor, but there is no wrong answer.

Pete has the numbers for the stat guys, and he has the guts for the old schoolers too. Excellent choice. Let's see what baseball does to honor these hometown heroes.

JEA
09-28-2006, 09:41 AM
For what it's worth:

"Nominees selected to appear on the ballot were chosen for their contributions to their franchise's history using the Hometown Heroes selection criteria of on-field performance, leadership quality and character value." (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060717&content_id=1561624&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb)

And perhaps Bud was right...


"Over the course of baseball's history, certain players have become synonymous with the cities and franchises they have represented," Commissioner Bud Selig said in making the announcement. "Through this program, and thanks to the support of DHL, we will celebrate the contributions of some of baseball's greatest players and the rich history that belongs to each Major League franchise.

"One of the aspects about this program that I am particularly excited about is the healthy debate and discussion that it will provoke. This kind of spirited debate is so closely associated with the history of the national pastime, and it will be fun to hear the debates that takes place in the coming months."

Unassisted
09-28-2006, 09:45 AM
:devil: Obviously, the vote is a shot across the bow at MLB and Bud Selig.

I was thinking the vote was a thumb that was being shoved in Bud's eye. Maybe it's actually a mettwurst? ;)

Danny Serafini
09-28-2006, 10:06 AM
Rose was never even mentioned in the same breath of "best at his position", whereas Morgan and Bench are often mention in that same breath of "best at his position".

When you play 6 different spots instead of spending your entire career in 1 position you don't typically get on those "best at position" lists. It's not comparable. You could just as easily flip it around and say Morgan and Bench weren't as versatile as Rose and therefore weren't as complete a ballplayer. I'm not going to actually make that argument, but it shows the fallacy of using the "best at position" argument here.

NJReds
09-28-2006, 10:22 AM
I grew up in Yankees/Mets territory.

However, it was Pete Rose, and what little that I could see of him on This Week in Baseball, that made me a Reds fan and a baseball fan. It's why I wore #14 in little league, when everyone wanted #44 (Reggie).

I have no problem with him winning this made for TV honor.

guttle11
09-28-2006, 10:31 AM
I'm too young to have watched Pete Rose play, but I hate this outcome. Pete Rose was a pretty good player that is only HOF material because of how long he played. If he played the normal 12-14 years, he's very pedestrian.

Not to mention the embarrassment he became. I can't believe this many Reds fans still care about the guy, and want him to represent their team and town like this.

I don't get it.

Danny Serafini
09-28-2006, 10:38 AM
If he played the normal 12-14 years, he's very pedestrian.

But he didn't. He was good enough to play for 23 years. I don't understand this argument of penalizing him for his longevity. It's like saying Hank Aaron only hit all of those HRs because he played for 23 years. Guess what, he hit them because he was still good enough to hit them. And Rose got all of those hits because he was still good enough to hit.

texasdave
09-28-2006, 10:40 AM
On a side note: I personally thought Barry Larkin should have been one of the five nominees. But there is no real argument with the five they chose.

guttle11
09-28-2006, 10:41 AM
But he didn't. He was good enough to play for 23 years. I don't understand this argument of penalizing him for his longevity.


No he's praised for it.

But look at what Highlifeman posted earlier in the thread. Looking at his yearly averages, he's pretty good, but not great. It's the accumulation of those 23 years that made his numbers add up.

There is something to be said about longevity, that for sure. But playing for a long time doesn't make you an all-time great, it makes you durable and fortunate.


It's like saying Hank Aaron only hit all of those HRs because he played for 23 years. Guess what, he hit them because he was still good enough to hit them. And Rose got all of those hits because he was still good enough to hit.

Well that a whole different arguement. Until the steroids stuff came to light, I would have been willing to make a similar arguement for Aaron. But now, hitting that many home runs for that long, and be clean the whole time, is amazing. And that doesn't mention the mental anguish and racism that Aaron had to endure.

HRs>Hustle and singles, BTW.

Heath
09-28-2006, 10:42 AM
I'm too young to have watched Pete Rose play, but I hate this outcome. Pete Rose was a pretty good player that is only HOF material because of how long he played. If he played the normal 12-14 years, he's very pedestrian.

Not to mention the embarrassment he became. I can't believe this many Reds fans still care about the guy, and want him to represent their team and town like this.

I don't get it.

Cincinnati-style chili, Hudepohl-Schoenling, Porkopolis, Proctor & Gamble, Opening Day, Tall Stacks, Labor Day Fireworks.

When Cincinnati takes a-liking to its own, it's hard to relinquish and easy to ignore the blemishes.

You could take a straw poll of Cincinnatians and I would say that the poll would show that 60% of the people think that Pete should be in the HOF right now - increased to about 80-90% in the older neighborhoods of Western Hills.

Cyclone792
09-28-2006, 11:06 AM
You are totally missing my arguement then. Of course I feel that stats have an important part in any baseball debate, but it should be just a part.

Using stats as absolutes was the only thing I was debating in your post. Using them inside the framework of a debate is another thing.

By the way, I would have voted for Bench also. But I don't think the voting was absurd.

Statistics do play an incredibly vital role in determining the greatness, whether it's player greatness, team greatness, you name it. They are an important matter of record of the recorded events in each game, each season.

Do statistics tell the full 100 percent tale of the story? Of course not, and while they do tell a very large portion of the story, they won't tell the complete story.

One of my favorite examples of this is Lefty Grove and his workload, specifically from 1929-1931. Grove is arguably one of the greatest pitchers ever, and he was a beast during those three seasons. However, Grove only pitched 72 innings against the Yankees during those three seasons combined, and the Yankees were one of the league's most powerful offenses that included both Ruth and Gehrig. During those same three seasons, Grove pitched at least 100 innings against every other team in the American League, including more than 140 innings total against both Boston and Cleveland.

It's possible that Grove pitched fewer innings against the Yankees because Grove simply didn't want to, or it's possible that Mack made the decision himself. Regardless, Grove pitched far fewer innings against the Yankees while his teammates, including Wes Ferrell, picked up the slack.

This is one of probably thousands of cases that should be considered, but the problem is sometimes they're known and sometimes they just aren't. Even knowing what we know about Grove, he was still an utterly dominant pitcher for his time and still one of the best pitchers the game has ever seen. He maybe shouldn't be considered the greatest ever, but the statistics, the matter of record, show that he was still a dominant pitcher.

IowaRed
09-28-2006, 11:15 AM
Pete Rose was named the "Hometown Hero" by fan voting, not greatest player, or anything statistically determined. Pete was very good at what he did for a long time and deserves to be in the HOF based on it. He also played with an all-out abandon that fans loved and still love. He was inspiring to kids who grew up during that time, he played for several pennant winners and world champions. Let's keep this in it's proper context, it's fans voting for their favorite.

johngalt
09-28-2006, 11:30 AM
No he's praised for it.

But look at what Highlifeman posted earlier in the thread. Looking at his yearly averages, he's pretty good, but not great. It's the accumulation of those 23 years that made his numbers add up.

There is something to be said about longevity, that for sure. But playing for a long time doesn't make you an all-time great, it makes you durable and fortunate.

He should be praised for it. Do you realize just how difficult it is to play 23 seasons, let alone play 23 seasons and be very good almost the entire span? That's not just longevity. It's a whole other level of accomplishment. Yes, there is a bit of luck involved, but it also takes a great deal of skill, hard work and dedication. Sounds kind of heroic to me.



Well that a whole different arguement. Until the steroids stuff came to light, I would have been willing to make a similar arguement for Aaron. But now, hitting that many home runs for that long, and be clean the whole time, is amazing. And that doesn't mention the mental anguish and racism that Aaron had to endure.


Why is it a whole different argument?

Aaron produced his career home run record based on a long career of very good home run production. If he had played "just" 12-14 years as was said about Pete, he'd have been nowhere near the HR record.

Chip R
09-28-2006, 11:43 AM
Yes, but don't blame me. I voted for Nixon.

Otis Nixon.





:D

For best looking player, no doubt.

MartyFan
09-28-2006, 12:03 PM
Pete Rose is absolutely no hero.

westofyou
09-28-2006, 12:12 PM
I voted for Ethan Allen... but I'm an eastside guy when it comes to Cincinnati.

KittyDuran
09-28-2006, 12:19 PM
Pete Rose is absolutely no hero.I wouldn't call this guy a hero either... but the Tiger fans voted him in:

09/27/2006 11:00 PM ET
Cobb voted Detroit's Hometown Hero
Hall of Famer's .367 average still highest career mark
By Jason Back / MLB.com

DETROIT -- Ty Cobb was honored Wednesday night as the Tigers' winner in the Major League Baseball Hometown Heroes program, as selected by fan balloting.
The contest provided fans the chance to select a winner from a handful of current and former players from each franchise using on-field and off-field contributions as criteria. More than 17 million votes were cast online at MLB.com, in person at ballparks and DHL Authorized Shipping Centers and via cell phone from July 18 through Sept. 17.

Fans voted Cobb over fellow Hall of Famers Charlie Gehringer, Hank Greenberg and Al Kaline, as well as legendary Tigers shortstop Alan Trammell for the Detroit honor.

Cobb, who joined the Tigers in 1905 at age 18, played 24 seasons, and all but two of them were in Detroit. His .367 career average still stands as the highest in Major League history, one of 90 big-league records he owned at the time of his retirement. He piled up nine consecutive league batting titles and 12 in all.

As strong as his numbers were, his competitive nature was just as famous. His stories of sliding into bases with spikes up are legendary. He once hit three home runs in a game and two in the next to try to prove his point that hitting home runs was not a special skill.

Cobb was honored with a plaque at Tiger Stadium upon his retirement. The plaque was moved to Comerica Park last year and posted outside the administrative lobby.

The winners for each team are being unveiled in a series of specials this week on ESPN.

Cyclone792
09-28-2006, 12:45 PM
I wouldn't call this guy a hero either... but the Tiger fans voted him in:

09/27/2006 11:00 PM ET
Cobb voted Detroit's Hometown Hero
Hall of Famer's .367 average still highest career mark
By Jason Back / MLB.com

DETROIT -- Ty Cobb was honored Wednesday night as the Tigers' winner in the Major League Baseball Hometown Heroes program, as selected by fan balloting.
The contest provided fans the chance to select a winner from a handful of current and former players from each franchise using on-field and off-field contributions as criteria. More than 17 million votes were cast online at MLB.com, in person at ballparks and DHL Authorized Shipping Centers and via cell phone from July 18 through Sept. 17.

Fans voted Cobb over fellow Hall of Famers Charlie Gehringer, Hank Greenberg and Al Kaline, as well as legendary Tigers shortstop Alan Trammell for the Detroit honor.

Cobb, who joined the Tigers in 1905 at age 18, played 24 seasons, and all but two of them were in Detroit. His .367 career average still stands as the highest in Major League history, one of 90 big-league records he owned at the time of his retirement. He piled up nine consecutive league batting titles and 12 in all.

As strong as his numbers were, his competitive nature was just as famous. His stories of sliding into bases with spikes up are legendary. He once hit three home runs in a game and two in the next to try to prove his point that hitting home runs was not a special skill.

Cobb was honored with a plaque at Tiger Stadium upon his retirement. The plaque was moved to Comerica Park last year and posted outside the administrative lobby.

The winners for each team are being unveiled in a series of specials this week on ESPN.

The negative image of Cobb is kicked around by most fans, but many are unaware of some of the positives ...

In August, 1909, in a game against the Philadelphia A's, Cobb slid hard into third base and spiked Home Run Baker in the process. Fortunately for Cobb, that game was in Detroit, but Cobb received several death threats prior to the Tigers next series in Philadelphia. A's manager Connie Mack called Cobb the "dirtiest player he had ever seen," and Philadelphia lined the field with police during the next Tigers home series to prevent a riot.

The following is a photo of the Cobb/Baker incident:

http://wso.williams.edu/~jkossuth/cobb/pics/baker.jpg

What's ironic about that event is nearly 20 years later, in the offseason before the 1927 season, Connie Mack handed Ty Cobb a blank check to try to persuade Cobb to sign with the A's for the 1927 season. Mack was beginning to craft a dynasty that included top young talent such as Jimmie Foxx, Mickey Cochrane, Al Simmons and Lefty Grove, and he wanted Cobb onboard to provide leadership and hitting instruction to Mack's young talented hitters. Cobb was with the A's for two seasons, 1927 and 1928, and by 1929 that same young nucleus of A's players had developed into one of the greatest teams the game has ever seen. From 1929-1931, the A's won two World Series and three AL Pennants, all in a time span where they averaged 104 wins each season.

Connie Mack was in baseball for well over 50 years, and in his mind Cobb went from being "the dirtiest player" he had ever seen to a guy Mack respected enough to offer any amount of cash in exchange for helping mold a dynasty. That's quite impressive for Cobb, I'd say.

Prior to Cobb serving his specific purpose for Mack and the A's during his two seasons there, Cobb was Player/Manager of the Tigers for six seasons, whereupon Cobb reshaped the Tigers into an impressive offensive unit capable of putting a load of runs on the board. During Cobb's six seasons as Player/Manager, the Tigers finished no worse than third in the AL in runs, and two of Cobb's primary hitting students were Harry Heilmann and Heinie Manush, both Hall of Fame outfielders.

Unfortunately for Cobb and the Tigers, team owner Frank Navin was a 1920s version of Carl Lindner, and Navin wouldn't pony up any cash for pitching. Cobb could teach his players how to hit and mold a solid offensive unit, but he was no pitching coach.

Cobb was far from the nicest guy in the world, but he did have some other positive attributes besides being one of the greatest players the game has ever seen.

And I haven't even mentioned one word about all the hospitals Cobb played a key role in helping fund in the Atlanta, Georgia area, hospitals that still exist today.

westofyou
09-28-2006, 12:50 PM
I would have voted for Kaline over Cobb.

But Al's to me what Pete is to most Reds fans (Oh and I wore #14 too)

MartyFan
09-28-2006, 12:54 PM
I wouldn't call this guy a hero either... but the Tiger fans voted him in:

09/27/2006 11:00 PM ET
Cobb voted Detroit's Hometown Hero
Hall of Famer's .367 average still highest career mark
By Jason Back / MLB.com

DETROIT -- Ty Cobb was honored Wednesday night as the Tigers' winner in the Major League Baseball Hometown Heroes program, as selected by fan balloting.
The contest provided fans the chance to select a winner from a handful of current and former players from each franchise using on-field and off-field contributions as criteria. More than 17 million votes were cast online at MLB.com, in person at ballparks and DHL Authorized Shipping Centers and via cell phone from July 18 through Sept. 17.

Fans voted Cobb over fellow Hall of Famers Charlie Gehringer, Hank Greenberg and Al Kaline, as well as legendary Tigers shortstop Alan Trammell for the Detroit honor.

Cobb, who joined the Tigers in 1905 at age 18, played 24 seasons, and all but two of them were in Detroit. His .367 career average still stands as the highest in Major League history, one of 90 big-league records he owned at the time of his retirement. He piled up nine consecutive league batting titles and 12 in all.

As strong as his numbers were, his competitive nature was just as famous. His stories of sliding into bases with spikes up are legendary. He once hit three home runs in a game and two in the next to try to prove his point that hitting home runs was not a special skill.

Cobb was honored with a plaque at Tiger Stadium upon his retirement. The plaque was moved to Comerica Park last year and posted outside the administrative lobby.

The winners for each team are being unveiled in a series of specials this week on ESPN.

I get that there are plenty of SOB's in the rich history of baseball...I just hate that Rose is the Reds SOB and I couldn't care less about any other teams.

KittyDuran
09-28-2006, 01:03 PM
I didn't vote, but if I did I would have voted for Bench - but then he was my favorite player.

But a little background from a personal level why Rose was voted in. I didn't really start liking baseball until 1969 (which is the year when Riverfront Stadium was almost finished). Until then my knowledge of the game and the players were limited. I thought only the ugliest player on the team would be catcher since I only saw two pictures, one of Berra and another of a guy with a big nose - later would find out it was Lombardi. Scant knowledge except for Rose. I might not have known what position he played or his stats but I would have recognized him walking down the street. People talked about him in the area, but the talk was not only about his play but that he was home grown - he was one of "us". There was a pride factor. Someone from the city (and from the west side) playing baseball for the home team.

This "hometown" factor was also there with Larkin and Junior (even tho' Junior is only hometown because his father played baseball here).

You might not think that Pete is a good player or person - but he is Cincinnati to many people, not just fans, warts and all.

KittyDuran
09-28-2006, 01:05 PM
I get that there are plenty of SOB's in the rich history of baseball...I just hate that Rose is the Reds SOB and I couldn't care less about any other teams.Oh I agree, but he was (as was Cobb) put on the ballot to be voted on by the fans. MLB and DHL knew what they were doing....:p:

dabvu2498
09-28-2006, 01:33 PM
The negative image of Cobb is kicked around by most fans, but many are unaware of some of the positives ...


Of course, some would (and have) allege that one of the reasons Cobb resigned as manager of the Tigers in 1926 (and thus, been available to be the A's manager) was the "scandal" of 1926, which implicated Cobb, Tris Speaker and Smokey Joe Wood in activities that would not have been swept under the rug in a more "media-mature" era.

SeeinRed
09-28-2006, 01:40 PM
Oh boy, here we go again. If it isn't the assembling masses against Adam Dunn, it's the ignorant Pete Rose defense attorneys.

The only reason Pete Rose is the record holder for most hits is because he played 23 years. He averaged 194 H/162. There's the secret to why Pete Rose has 4256. While Rose had a respectable .375 OBP for his career, and a career BA of .303, it doesn't change the fact his lifetime OPS is .784, which is very pedestrian. Rose was never even mentioned in the same breath of "best at his position", whereas Morgan and Bench are often mention in that same breath of "best at his position". Bench quite possibly could be the best catcher of all time, he's definitely put together a body of work to deserve such merit, but it's not all stat derived. With both Morgan and Bench, there are defensive metrics to consider as well. Pete Rose was never going to fool anyone with his defense, nor was he ever going to change the outcome of a game by good defense. Morgan and Bench both had the ability to positively impact the outcome of a ballgame with their defensive abilities.

Maybe I'm too young to have been fed the Pete Rose hype, and subsequently gotten caught up in the hoopla, but while I believe he put together a marginal HOF bid on counting stats alone, he was not a complete player. He got on base largely due to BA, and had an adequate amount of career walks to bring his career OBP to a respectable .375. That's it. He had no power. Only 25% of his career hits were XBH, so there's his low career SLG. He wasn't the fleetest of foot either. 198 career SB vs. 149 career CS. Not good numbers.

Am I trying to say Pete Rose wasn't a good player? No. Do I believe he should be in the HOF had he not committed the worst offense in baseball? Yes. Have we historically had better players on the Reds than Pete Rose? You betcha. Bench and Morgan are just two to top that list.

As for the betting on baseball is worse than illegal substances argument, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree, because where I'm sitting, degrading the integrity of such a great game is a far worse crime than ingesting supplements in an attempt to enhance performance.


Playing 23 seasons seem like quite a feat to me. You're argument is that he isn't a great player because he had longevity? Please. That is another reason Pete was such a great player. Arguing that betting degrades the integrity of the game but taking ILLEGAL performance enhancing drugs isn't is complete ignorance. Players who cheat degrade the integrity of the game. If you are going to call me ignorant, you better not be blinded by your sheer dislike of a player that will not allow you to separate Pete Rose the baseball player from Pete Rose the person. Throwing stats out to support your veiw is not impressive. I can throw out stats that say he belongs in the Hall, but that is not really questioned in this case. Pete has the numbers, wether you agree with it or not. Players who cheat degrade the integrity of the game. The question is and allways has been should his character issues prevent him from getting in the HOF. If he didn't have the numbers, this wouldn't be an issue. When you ask the voters why Pete doesn't belong in the HOF, they won't say "because he wasn't a good enough player" or "he didn't have the numbers." They will say "because he bet on baseball." Period. He was a winner on the field. He didn't have power, sure. But is power the only reason a player belongs in the Hall Of Fame? You are fighting a battle that doesn't exist if your only argument is that Pete didn't have a HOF caliber career.

Heath
09-28-2006, 01:49 PM
I voted for Ethan Allen... but I'm an eastside guy when it comes to Cincinnati.

I didn't. He sold me bad furniture once.

Chip R
09-28-2006, 01:51 PM
Also have to remember that it wasn't just Reds fans who voted on this.

Cyclone792
09-28-2006, 01:57 PM
Of course, some would (and have) alleged that one of the reasons Cobb resigned as manager of the Tigers in 1926 (and thus, been available to be the A's manager) was the "scandal" of 1926, which implicated Cobb, Tris Speaker and Smokey Joe Wood in activities that would not have been swept under the rug in a more "media-mature" era.

Ask yourself why baseball may have swept those charges under the rug themselves.

As soon as Cobb began spouting off to the media that he had inside information about the owners doing such things as forging gate receipts and providing inaccurate information about league finances to the US government, Landis suddenly came out of his cave and declared there was no finding of wrongdoing.

Quite a bit of the media took Cobb's side, and Cobb used the media for his benefit during the entire ordeal.

big boy
09-28-2006, 02:01 PM
The only reason Pete Rose is the record holder for most hits is because he played 23 years. He averaged 194 H/162. There's the secret to why Pete Rose has 4256.


If it was so easy, why aren't they all doing it?

dabvu2498
09-28-2006, 02:10 PM
Ask yourself why baseball swept may have swept those charges under the rug themselves.



You're missing my point.

I found it ironic that the activity that allowed Cobb to be a "good guy" (in the eyes of Cornelius McGillicuddy) may have directly or indirectly resulted from an activity that most of us would consider bad (betting on baseball).

JEA
09-28-2006, 02:12 PM
Off-the-field and personality problems aside, here's what a mere "singles hitter" was able to accomplish against his competition (and none of this has anyting to do with his longevity or the notion of him "hanging on"):

AWARDS
1973 NL MVP
1963 NL Rookie of the Year
1975 WS MVP
17-time All-Star
2-time Gold Glover
1-time Silver Slugger

MVP VOTING
Winner: 1 time
Top 5: 5
Top 10: 9

LEAGUE LEADER
Batting champ: 3 times
OB%: 2
Runs: 4
Hits: 7
Doubles: 5
Singles: 3
Times on Base: 9
Games: 5
AB: 4
HBP: 1

LEAGUE TOP 10:
Batting average: 13 times
OB%: 11
Runs: 15
Hits: 17
Doubles: 15
Triples: 8
Walks: 7
Singles: 17
Times on Base: 18
Games: 15
AB: 18
HBP: 7

Cyclone792
09-28-2006, 02:16 PM
You're missing my point.

I found it ironic that the activity that allowed Cobb to be a "good guy" (in the eyes of Cornelius McGillicuddy) may have directly or indirectly resulted from an activity that most of us would consider bad (betting on baseball).

No I very much understood your point. Navin wanted Cobb out, and the fact that Cobb became embroiled in controversy gave Navin an excuse to get rid of him. The Cobb controversy saved Navin from a complete PR disaster in getting rid of Cobb.

However, Connie Mack sure did find Cobb so disgraceful to the game that he offered an enormous sum of money for Cobb's services.

BoydsOfSummer
09-28-2006, 02:28 PM
When you play 6 different spots instead of spending your entire career in 1 position you don't typically get on those "best at position" lists. It's not comparable. You could just as easily flip it around and say Morgan and Bench weren't as versatile as Rose and therefore weren't as complete a ballplayer. I'm not going to actually make that argument, but it shows the fallacy of using the "best at position" argument here.

Bench played games at CF-RF-LF-3B-1B-C. That's pretty versatile. :D

RANDY IN INDY
09-28-2006, 02:43 PM
Bench played games at CF-RF-LF-3B-1B-C. That's pretty versatile. :D

And he played one of those positions well. Always thought he could have been a decent first baseman, but for reasons beyond me, they thought Driessen was the answer there. Might have kept him around a little longer.

Danny Serafini
09-28-2006, 02:44 PM
Bench played games at CF-RF-LF-3B-1B-C. That's pretty versatile. :D

True he played there, but he was never a regular in the OF, and on the corners only at the very end of his career.

dabvu2498
09-28-2006, 02:45 PM
No I very much understood your point. Navin wanted Cobb out, and the fact that Cobb became embroiled in controversy gave Navin an excuse to get rid of him. The Cobb controversy saved Navin from a complete PR disaster in getting rid of Cobb.

However, Connie Mack sure did find Cobb so disgraceful to the game that he offered an enormous sum of money for Cobb's services.

And I wonder if Cobb's issues would have passed so easily if the media had been more probing.

Or perhaps Pete should have gone to the media with dirt on Marge.

I dunno. I have a hard time with any attempt to portray either of these guys in any sort of a positive light off the diamond.

terminator
09-28-2006, 02:45 PM
The absurdity of being a Reds fan in 2006 is:

1. having to defend the offensive contributions of a .360OBP, 40HR, 100 RBI, 100 run player

and

2. having to try to explain to kids who were not even born when he was playing that a Reds player who has 4,256 hits and is one one of the greatest players in major league history is not in any sense of the word pedestrian.

As for the award, well, geez a Cincinnatian who went to West High HS, won two world series in Cincy, broke the all-time hit record in Cincy, won a TON of games for the Reds overall, lived in Cincy much of his life (had kids who went to school in Cincy), played the game like it should be played, and returned to Cincy in a blaze of glory in the 80's is our Hometown Hero. Who woulda thunk it?

WMR
09-28-2006, 02:51 PM
The voting wasn't for 'best Reds player.' It was for 'Hometown Hero,' and, like it or not, that's still how the Pete is viewed by the majority of the Cincinnati fan-base.

WVJulz
09-28-2006, 02:56 PM
2. having to try to explain to kids who were not even born when he was playing that a Reds player who has 4,256 hits and is one one of the greatest players in major league history is not in any sense of the word pedestrian.

As for the award, well, geez a Cincinnatian who went to West High HS, won two world series in Cincy, broke the all-time hit record in Cincy, won a TON of games for the Reds overall, lived in Cincy much of his life (had kids who went to school in Cincy), played the game like it should be played, and returned to Cincy in a blaze of glory in the 80's is our Hometown Hero.

:jump:
HEAR HEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is exactly what I told my husband before I even read this post. How anyone that never saw Pete Rose play can sit and make judgement on what kind of PLAYER he was, is beyond me. (It's the same mentality of sports writers not voting Davey Concepcion into the Hall of Fame. How can they judge what he did when they never saw him play on a daily basis????) Like I keep saying any man that said "I would walk through Hell in a gasoline suit to play baseball" was one helluva PLAYER. You don't like Pete Rose the manager, that's fine. Pete Rose the player is a different story. I voted for him and I damned glad I did!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Julz

BoydsOfSummer
09-28-2006, 02:57 PM
True he played there, but he was never a regular in the OF, and on the corners only at the very end of his career.

Yeah, I was just pokin' at ya.:thumbup:

Matt700wlw
09-28-2006, 03:06 PM
Bud Selig is squirming.....Pete is not going away

Cyclone792
09-28-2006, 03:23 PM
And I wonder if Cobb's issues would have passed so easily if the media had been more probing.

Or perhaps Pete should have gone to the media with dirt on Marge.

I dunno. I have a hard time with any attempt to portray either of these guys in any sort of a positive light off the diamond.

You're talking about a time when the media sided with baseball players rather than probed them for any piece of dirt they could find. Writers would watch Babe Ruth get drunk and run after women, but they kept that under closed lips.

I know Cobb's downfalls, and he had many of them. He fought with fans, umpires, teammates, his ownership, his family, opposing players, etc. Due to that, the general perception of Cobb is that he had little to no positive attributes about him at all, and that couldn't be any further from the truth.

The guy donated $100,000 in 1950 toward the construction of a modern hospital that received high marks when it first opened. Three years later he donated another $100,000 toward an educational fund. I have a very hard time believing that neither act qualifies as any type of positive accomplishment off the diamond.

On the other hand, Pete Rose has offered you a personal apology for betting on baseballl, but it's gonna cost ya $350.

dabvu2498
09-28-2006, 03:41 PM
Sure... in 1945, Cobb donated his first 100k to hospital-building in GA, in his hometown, Royston, that in fact, served a predominantly African-American populace without prejudice, despite Cobb's earlier racist activities.

Of course, he was 59 in 1945. Pete is 65. So I guess Pete's 6 years late for his "repentance" so that he can be equally admirable as Cobb.

Cyclone792
09-28-2006, 04:07 PM
Sure... in 1945, Cobb donated his first 100k to hospital-building in GA, in his hometown, Royston, that in fact, served a predominantly African-American populace without prejudice, despite Cobb's earlier racist activities.

Of course, he was 59 in 1945. Pete is 65. So I guess Pete's 6 years late for his "repentance" so that he can be equally admirable as Cobb.

We'll just have to see how much of his proceeds from those big ole $349 signed balls gets donated to a worthy cause. Or, perhaps a portion of the proceeds from the $299 generalized I'm sorry balls. Or, another possibility, perhaps a portion of the proceeds from the I'm sorry t-shirts he's selling for $19.99.

I'm betting it'll be zero. It's probably a good, safe bet too.

KittyDuran
09-28-2006, 04:12 PM
We'll just have to see how much of his proceeds from those big ole $349 signed balls gets donated to a worthy cause. Or, perhaps a portion of the proceeds from the $299 generalized I'm sorry balls. Or, another possibility, perhaps a portion of the proceeds from the I'm sorry t-shirts he's selling for $19.99.

I'm betting it'll be zero. It's probably a good, safe bet too.But of course! :fineprint ;)

Highlifeman21
09-28-2006, 04:13 PM
Playing 23 seasons seem like quite a feat to me. You're argument is that he isn't a great player because he had longevity? Please. That is another reason Pete was such a great player. Arguing that betting degrades the integrity of the game but taking ILLEGAL performance enhancing drugs isn't is complete ignorance. Players who cheat degrade the integrity of the game. If you are going to call me ignorant, you better not be blinded by your sheer dislike of a player that will not allow you to separate Pete Rose the baseball player from Pete Rose the person. Throwing stats out to support your veiw is not impressive. I can throw out stats that say he belongs in the Hall, but that is not really questioned in this case. Pete has the numbers, wether you agree with it or not. Players who cheat degrade the integrity of the game. The question is and allways has been should his character issues prevent him from getting in the HOF. If he didn't have the numbers, this wouldn't be an issue. When you ask the voters why Pete doesn't belong in the HOF, they won't say "because he wasn't a good enough player" or "he didn't have the numbers." They will say "because he bet on baseball." Period. He was a winner on the field. He didn't have power, sure. But is power the only reason a player belongs in the Hall Of Fame? You are fighting a battle that doesn't exist if your only argument is that Pete didn't have a HOF caliber career.

Clearly you didn't read my post.

I said Pete Rose put together a HOF caliber body of work.


Am I trying to say Pete Rose wasn't a good player? No. Do I believe he should be in the HOF had he not committed the worst offense in baseball? Yes. Have we historically had better players on the Reds than Pete Rose? You betcha. Bench and Morgan are just two to top that list.


That's what I said.

I believe Pete Rose put together a HOF caliber body of work. My argument was that he has the hit record b/c he played in almost 600 more games than Ty Cobb. I also said Pete Rose wasn't a power hitter. Are you really trying to dispute either of those points?

Pete Rose wasn't a great player, he was a very good player. Huge difference in those two. Rose was probably one of the top 40 to ever play the game, but he was in no way shape or form one of the 20 best to ever play, and clearly not one of the 10 best to ever play. Those are great players.

I've separated Rose the player from Rose the person. Rose the person, I don't care for; Rose the player put up HOF numbers. Why you're asserting I said otherwise, I haven't the foggiest clue. I tossed out stats showing that as a corner OF, where he played the majority of his games, he put up a pedestrian career OPS, although having an above average career OBP of .375.

The only battle I'm fighting is that there have been better players who have contributed more to the team while putting up better numbers, while being at the top of their position over their careers in a Reds uniform than Pete Rose. Frank Robinson, Johnny Bench, and Joe Morgan are just 3 off the top of my head.

Thanks for telling me my position though, I'm glad you cleared that up for me.

dabvu2498
09-28-2006, 04:23 PM
Cyc -- So if Pete gave a couple million to oh.... I dunno... maybe Gamblers' Anonymous, could he be forgiven in your eyes?

Danny Serafini
09-28-2006, 04:27 PM
Pete Rose wasn't a great player, he was a very good player. Huge difference in those two. Rose was probably one of the top 40 to ever play the game

I've got to question this. According to the stats at mlb.com there are around 16,500 Major League players. I'm sure the actual number is quite a bit higher because their stats for the early, early years are not complete, but we'll just take the 16,500 figure. A top 40 player would be in the top 0.25% of all players. Are you really telling me someone who is better than 99.75% of his competitors isn't great?

KittyDuran
09-28-2006, 04:30 PM
Just to remind everyone that Pete won the Reds' Hometown Hero award... :beerme: ;)

KittyDuran
09-28-2006, 04:32 PM
Cyc -- So if Pete gave a couple million to oh.... I dunno... maybe Gamblers' Anonymous, could he be forgiven in your eyes?a hospital or educational fund would be better...;)

Ltlabner
09-28-2006, 04:49 PM
The only battle I'm fighting is that there have been better players who have contributed more to the team while putting up better numbers, while being at the top of their position over their careers in a Reds uniform than Pete Rose. Frank Robinson, Johnny Bench, and Joe Morgan are just 3 off the top of my head.

I wondered how many pages this thread would be at when I got back to a computer.

I guess it depends on what value you attach to what contributions. If hitting a bunch of singles and doubles (top 10 in leage 15 times) and being in the top 10 in the league in OBP 11 times isn't as important as total overall OBP and SLG then I guess you can say he didn't contribute to the team as much as others did.

If you consider being a "spark plug" to the team and playing that role not as important as particular stats because it can't be measured then yea, I guess he didn't contribute to the team as much as others did.

The fact is the BRM was better than the sum of its parts. IIRC one of the players said that at one point. No one player was more valuable to the collective success of the team than the others because each played their roles. So I don't think you really can measure the contribution of the individual player on the BRM except for the stats which always leads back to which stats are the most important. And it totally ignores the personallities, roles and other intangeables that are just as important, IMO.

Cyclone792
09-28-2006, 04:56 PM
Cyc -- So if Pete gave a couple million to oh.... I dunno... maybe Gamblers' Anonymous, could he be forgiven in your eyes?

Pete Rose is getting what he deserves because he bet on baseball. There's reams of evidence that he bet on baseball, and Rose fully admitted it himself after years of lying about it.

You brought up Ty Cobb betting on baseball almost as a way to defend Rose's actions, and that doesn't make much sense. The evidence against Cobb is inconclusive at best, and the powers in charge during that time not only exonerated him, but also made him a free agent. The Cobb/Speaker/Wood affair had as much to do with a battle of baseball power between Landis and Ban Johnson as it did with any of those players betting on a game. The end of that affair basically resulted in the end of Ban Johnson being associated with baseball in any type of important capacity.

Look, I know there's a love affair with Pete Rose in Cincinnati, especially on the west side, but part of that love affair stems from people being pissed off at MLB for banning him. They'll argue that gambling in baseball isn't a big deal at all without understanding the ramifications of gambling in baseball. Maybe they would enjoy a game being littered with bookies controlling the outcome, I don't know. If that's what they'd prefer, then to each to their own.

Pete Rose as a player was a phenomenal player, and I most definitely know this. I stated earlier in this thread that I believe he's probably one of the top 30-40 players in the history of the game, and what happened is people jumped down my throat about it probably because I didn't state that I believed Rose was the greatest player ever.

There's an enigma that surrounds Rose and where people evaluate him as a player, most likely because of the baseball crimes he committed. If ever there was a player that seems to get the fewest objective analysis of his playing career, Rose is probably it.

One group tends to believe he's the greatest player ever to walk the earth and seems to get offended if somebody would suggest that Mickey Mantle or Stan Musial were greater players than Rose. By any and all objective measures, Mantle, Musial and quite a few other players were greater than Rose, but that still doesn't mean Rose wasn't an outstanding player in his own right.

On the other side, another group may overlook his peak because of the length of Rose's career. Rose's peak was pretty darn good, and better than some people believe, specifically his 1969 season. By any and all objective measures, Rose was much greater than simply a marginal Hall of Fame caliber guy, and he's much greater than a majority of the Hall of Fame caliber players as we know them.

That's the enigma of Pete Rose; it's a sort of love/hate relationship with him, or so it seems. I don't hate Pete Rose, but I don't love Pete Rose either. As a player, I wish people would get out of the love/hate relationship with the man and look at his career objectively. As a guy off the field, he's made a lot of mistakes, and he's paying the deserving price for them by being banned. It's a shame the baseball crime he committed and the methods he's resorted to trying to make a buck, and I don't like it at all. But he is who he is, and the mistakes have already been made.

I do believe it's very unfair to judge him as a player based on what he's doing off the field, and I try to stay away from that since I try to be as objective as possible. Unfortunately it tends to make me the bad guy since I neither love him nor hate him.

dabvu2498
09-28-2006, 05:04 PM
Cyc -- I understand your position with regards to Rose and I can respect that. Some of the first Reds games I went to were Pete chasing down 4192, so I love him, but I can maintain some objectivity.

What I don't get is your "defense" of Cobb.

Cyclone792
09-28-2006, 05:14 PM
Cyc -- I understand your position with regards to Rose and I can respect that. Some of the first Reds games I went to were Pete chasing down 4192, so I love him, but I can maintain some objectivity.

What I don't get is your "defense" of Cobb.

My defense of Cobb is simple ... he did some things right.

The perception of Cobb is that he's the poster boy for being a complete waste to the world other than being one of the greatest baseball players ever. Yes, I will dispute that because it just flat out isn't accurate. The guy had many, many shortcomings, some were incredibly wrong yet a by-product of his era while others were totally inexcusable. A great deal of his actions followed in the latter case of being totally inexcusable.

But that doesn't mean that Cobb did absolutely nothing right off the field.

I find it incredibly shallow that some people are already mocking me in this thread with remarks about Cobb's donations to the hospital/education funds. Ty Cobb did not have to donate what was a very large sum of money for that time to those specific causes. But he did it. It can't be taken away, and it shouldn't be laughed at.

I'm sure the people who benefitted from that aren't laughing and won't ever laugh about it.

Always Red
09-28-2006, 05:25 PM
Look, I know there's a love affair with Pete Rose in Cincinnati, especially on the west side, but part of that love affair stems from people being pissed off at MLB for banning him. They'll argue that gambling in baseball isn't a big deal at all without understanding the ramifications of gambling in baseball. Maybe they would enjoy a game being littered with bookies controlling the outcome, I don't know. If that's what they'd prefer, then to each to their own.

Pete Rose as a player was a phenomenal player, and I most definitely know this. I stated earlier in this thread that I believe he's probably one of the top 30-40 players in the history of the game, and what happened is people jumped down my throat about it probably because I didn't state that I believed Rose was the greatest player ever...

...That's the enigma of Pete Rose; it's a sort of love/hate relationship with him, or so it seems. I don't hate Pete Rose, but I don't love Pete Rose either. As a player, I wish people would get out of the love/hate relationship with the man and look at his career objectively. As a guy off the field, he's made a lot of mistakes, and he's paying the deserving price for them by being banned. It's a shame the baseball crime he committed and the methods he's resorted to trying to make a buck, and I don't like it at all. But he is who he is, and the mistakes have already been made.


Cyclone, I usually find myself agreeing with nearly everything you post. But not this time

I'm from the west side of town, actually grew up one neighborhood over from where Rose lived with Carolyn and their kids, before they divorced. I absolutely idolized the man when I was kid; he played baseball in a way, with such enthusiam and joy, in a way that few others did. I knew he wasn't the best, heck he wasn't even the best on his team, Bench and Morgan were both better, as you say. I don't think anyone would argue with that. Bench had more talent in his pinkie finger than Pete Rose did. What makes Rose my favorite Red of all time, even to this day, is what he did with that little talent he had. No one worked harder, no one competed harder, no one got more out of that talent. Rose's best years were over by the time the BRM really got going in 1972; his best years were probably '68-'69.

Things look different when you're a kid. As I grew up, I started to realize, as many of us did, that Rose the man was not the hero that Rose the ballplayer was. And this was even before the betting incident.

I don't speak for all westsiders, of course, but no one I know is pissed off at MLB for banning Rose. Rose bet on baseball, got caught, lied about it for years. It's the one rule that is posted in every MLB clubhouse and dugout specifically not to do! MLB is not to blame, in any way, shape or form.

I disagree with you totally- betting on baseball IS a big deal, and NO, I don't want the game littered with bookies controlling the outcome of the game. In fact, most folks on the west side very much respect the integrity of the great game of baseball; it's a baseball crazy area. I do respect it, and I ask you to please not generalize west siders in such a way- you're better than that, I know you are.

MLB did the right thing in banning Rose from the game. He should never be allowed to participate, in any way, ever again. I do have a love affair with Rose the player, the legendary, larger than life Rose of my youth. He was a phenomenal player, as you correctly state, on a team with a lot of them. He was the engine that made that team go. There are a lot of Rose haters, even here, who hate him because of the shame he brought on the team and himself, and I understand that. You're right in stating that he's an enigma- I agree. I loved the player, and shake my head in sorrow and disappointment at the man.

Peter Edward Rose will someday be in the HoF, I believe, for the accomplishments he earned on the field of play. But perhaps fittingly, it will be long after he has passed away.

terminator
09-28-2006, 05:49 PM
I don't speak for all westsiders, of course, but no one I know is pissed off at MLB for banning Rose.
We're P.O.'d about it because baseball doesn't distinguish between someone who bets on his own team and in the process of doing so does everything he can to help his team win and someone who throws a game while betting against his team. There's a huge difference.

I'm 99% sure that the former is the case with Rose and so I am still a big fan. If I ever found out that he bet against the Reds I'd be in favor of extraditing him to Cincy and tarring and feathering the bastard.

Cyclone792
09-28-2006, 05:57 PM
AR, it wasn't my intention to generalize westsiders or those who love Pete Rose in that way. If that's how it came across, then my apologies, and I probably need to verify what I meant.

I've met a number of people who are staunch Rose apologists and think that he should be reinstated, put in the Hall of Fame and allowed to work in the game again. Some of them even go as far as to say they're no longer fans of baseball because of how they perceive baseball treating Rose. Perhaps it's hyperbole on their part, or perhaps they're serious, I really have no idea. But I've observed some animosity thrown towards baseball because of a perception that baseball screwed over Rose and that baseball owes Rose something.

You're right that a lot of the love for Rose is because of how much talent he got out of his body. He probably got more talent out of his body than anybody else who's ever play. Rose should definitely be praised for that, and all his hard work enabled him to become who he was as a player. It didn't make him the best player ever, but it made him better than most everyone else who has played baseball.

FWIW, I don't believe Rose will ever be in the Hall of Fame, and I'm stating that based on what I think will happen instead of what I think should happen. Baseball almost always prefers to defer to whatever decisions were made during the time they were made.

The longer Rose waits to get in, the more I think his chances drop, especially given the nature of his crime. Players who bet on baseball 85 years ago are still banned with virtually no chance of reinstatement. Rose will probably follow the path of Joe Jackson, and while they didn't commit the exact same crime, they committed similar enough crimes. Jackson's support actually stems from cases being made that he's actually innocent, whereas Rose won't ever have the argument that he's innocent. There's been recent pushes in support for Jackson from politicians and former players such as Ted Williams and Bob Feller, but nothing has ever come out of any of it.

By now, I think Jackson's chances of making the Hall of Fame are zero.

westofyou
09-28-2006, 05:58 PM
We're P.O.'d about it because baseball doesn't distinguish between someone who bets on his own team and in the process of doing so does everything he can to help his team win and someone who throws a game while betting against his team. There's a huge difference.

Yeah they do.

They are both wrong and treated thusly, as it should be.

Always Red
09-28-2006, 05:58 PM
We're P.O.'d about it because baseball doesn't distinguish between someone who bets on his own team and in the process of doing so does everything he can to help his team win and someone who throws a game while betting against his team. There's a huge difference.

I'm 99% sure that the former is the case with Rose and so I am still a big fan. If I ever found out that he bet against the Reds I'd be in favor of extraditing him to Cincy and tarring and feathering the bastard.

Man, that's splitting hairs right there.

For the record, I agree that Rose probably would never bet against the Reds. It would certainly go against his competetive nature. But is there any way of knowing? You can't believe Pete, or anything he says.

Pretend it's 1986. The Reds have...oh, let's say Chris Welsh on the mound against the Mets who are throwing Dwight Gooden. or Ron Darling. or Bob Ojeda.

Who do you put money on if you're trying to win the bet? I'm assuming Rose was actually gambling in order to make money, although by all accounts Pete is not a very good gambler.

Rose wasn't allowed to bet on any games, because as a participant he had insider information. That's why he, or any other MLB player/manager is not even allowed to consort with gamblers. Once enough $$ is on the game, due to insider info, a greater risk in something like the 1919 WS can happen again.

A bet is a bet. Doesn't matter who it was on.

Always Red
09-28-2006, 06:02 PM
Pretend it's 1986. The Reds have...oh, let's say Chris Welsh on the mound against the Mets who are throwing Dwight Gooden. or Ron Darling. or Bob Ojeda.



or Sid Fernandez, or Rick Aguilera. Man, I know this is off topic, but I keep forgetting how tremendous that starting 5 actually was!

terminator
09-28-2006, 06:09 PM
Man, that's splitting hairs right there.

For the record, I agree that Rose probably would never bet against the Reds. It would certainly go against his competetive nature. But is there any way of knowing? You can't believe Pete, or anything he says.

That's a huge difference whether you are betting ON your team or AGAINST your team. Everything I've seen from the Dowd report was evidence that he bet for the Reds to win.



Pretend it's 1986. The Reds have...oh, let's say Chris Welsh on the mound against the Mets who are throwing Dwight Gooden. or Ron Darling. or Bob Ojeda.
Again, my understanding from the Dowd report was that he only bet on the Reds and hence, only bet on games he thought they would win.


A bet is a bet. Doesn't matter who it was on.It's wrong, I agree, but it's the difference between manslaughter with a chance for parole and Murder 1. Both terrible crimes with severe punishments, but one gives you a chance for redemption.

Always Red
09-28-2006, 06:11 PM
That's a huge difference whether you are betting ON your team or AGAINST your team.

No there isn't. It's just that simple, terminator.:dunno:

KittyDuran
09-28-2006, 07:16 PM
Man, that's splitting hairs right there.Only there??? I thought this whole thread was about that! :p:

Spring~Fields
09-28-2006, 08:05 PM
BTW, gambling is far worse a crime than steroids, but that's been rehashed over and over.

Rose clearly had or has a gambling addiction, that is not classified as a crime but a mental health issue. So Pete had or has an illness. I don't know of a banning of individuals with an illness in baseball or other unless it could have an adverse outcome on the health of the general populace, most are afforded the time to recover.

Understating his income from gambling winnings or not reporting them at all on his IRS return is the only statute that I am aware of him violating. (Of course no one here on this message board ever understated cash income or gifts when filing). Dowds report which I read more than once did not go so far as to state or prove that Rose ever bet against his team which clearly would have been a conflict of interest and destroyed the integrity of those games. Betting for your team might actually enhance the integrity in some minds. I don't recall Dowd reporting that he bet as a player either.

Pete Rose was entertaining and producing for the Reds and their fans before Bench, Perez, Griffey, Concepcion and Morgan came along. Perhaps that plus the fact that Rose was a winner with other teams also was a factor in the fans voting?

RedFanAlways1966
09-28-2006, 08:45 PM
Rose clearly had or has a gambling addiction, that is not classified as a crime but a mental health issue. So Pete had or has an illness. I don't know of a banning of individuals with an illness in baseball or other unless it could have an adverse outcome on the health of the general populace, most are afforded the time to recover.

I cannot speak for others, but I assume "crime" was not meant in a literal sense. Although the feds might see placing bets with bookies as a real crime... unless attornies can prove "insanity" in a trial for these crimes.

It is the most serious "violation" in MLB. Always has been. Pete knew this. It is stated that it will result in a lifetime ban. Pete accepted the lifetime ban that he lives with today. What was negotiated can be argued. Pete's word in regard to his negotiations with Giamatti and crew does not hold much weight with me b/c he has proven that he is a liar as well. Don't blame me for those feelings... blame Pete for his known lying.

If a person has 5 DUIs, he will probably not be given a chance to be a bus driver. Along this line of thinking a person who has gambled on baseball (and seeked zero help for his illness) will probably not be given a chance to be involved with the game.

The Hall ban is a different animal. They changed the rules after Pete accepted his lifetime ban. Although I do not feel too much sympathy for Pete, I do not think it was fair to change the rules after his punishment was given. Yes, it is fair to keep him out of the game. No, it is not fair to change the Hall rules after the fact.

Bet for, bet against. Does not matter. Betting and associating with bookies is wrong and may lead to bad things. Hence, the rule as it is and a rule I agree with wholeheartedly. A man can murder another person, be released from prison and still be allowed to play MLB. Bet on the game (for your team) and you can be banned for life. Keeps the game honest and valid. Without honesty and validity... then you might have another WWE. MLB has always understood this and has always made it very-very clear to those who participate. Mental illness, ego, whatever... does not matter. The game depends on it.

KittyDuran
09-28-2006, 09:29 PM
It is the most serious "violation" in MLB. Always has been. Well at least after the Sox scandal - before then it was probably both playing and drinking beer on Sunday. ;)

guttle11
09-28-2006, 09:41 PM
Why is it a whole different argument?

Aaron produced his career home run record based on a long career of very good home run production. If he had played "just" 12-14 years as was said about Pete, he'd have been nowhere near the HR record.

It's a different arguement because Aaron had longevity as a HR hitter. Last I checked, HR's > singles.

johngalt
09-28-2006, 10:15 PM
It's a different arguement because Aaron had longevity as a HR hitter. Last I checked, HR's > singles.

So longevity only counts if you're a home run hitter? What kind of logic is that?

johngalt
09-28-2006, 10:29 PM
That's a huge difference whether you are betting ON your team or AGAINST your team. Everything I've seen from the Dowd report was evidence that he bet for the Reds to win.


The problem is that by betting on the Reds to win certain games, you're putting yourself in a position where oftentimes your desire to win one ballgame (because of the bet) outweighs what is best for the team in the long run.

Say Pete had a big bet on this game against the Phillies. The Reds are clinging to a 4-3 lead at home heading into the top of the 8th. Pete, wanting to protect this lead on this night, turns to his best setup reliever to hold the lead for the closer.

Now, the setup man has already pitched two days in a row, including a long two innings the night before. Running him out there for a third straight game - a practice that he's probably already done several times before - is risking an injury to your best reliever for the sake of this one win. That's putting your betting interests ahead of the team's.

Also, maybe the Reds are playing the Braves on a night when Pete doesn't have a bet down. The Reds this time are trailing 7-6 in the eighth. Now, in this case, what if Pete decides to put in a secondary reliever rather than one of his better ones thinking he'll save them for the next night when he'll lay a bet down. Again, that's allowing your betting to affect how you run the ballclub.

guttle11
09-28-2006, 10:34 PM
So longevity only counts if you're a home run hitter? What kind of logic is that?


Who said longevity didn't count?

I did say, however, that hitting home runs is more impressive than hitting singles over a long period of time.

Really, I'm still not getting the Rose eternal man-love. Maybe it's because I wasn't around during his prime, but the numbers are there. Pete simply wasn't an all time great player. If Ichiro would have been in the US early enough to play 23 years, he'd shatter Pete's record.

Not to mention the embarrassment Pete Rose has caused himself, the Reds, and really the entire city. Like I said, it's probably due to the fact that I have no emotional attachment to him whatsoever, but I can't stand the mere mention of the name Pete Rose.

I'd love for the Reds and Reds fans to completely let the guy fade into oblivion.

terminator
09-28-2006, 10:42 PM
No there isn't. It's just that simple, terminator.:dunno:

Thanks for that persuasive argument. :rolleyes: :dunno:

The effect on the integrity of the game is not the same when a guy wins $5,000 for driving in the winning run (Rose's case) as when a guy wins $5,000 for purposely striking out with the winning run in scoring position.

I'll certainly agree that the rules are clear that it's treated the same and that he's banned for life. But baseball rules are just rules created by man not ordained by God and in this case I think it's wrong that they don't differentiate between betting for and against your team. IMHO it should be a long suspension for betting on yourself and a lifetime ban for betting against yourself. But the existing rule is clear and he violated it. I won't argue that he's banned for life.

Anyway, splitting hairs isn't the difference between betting for and against your own team. Splitting hairs is the difference between making money betting on yourself and contract incentive clauses. A pitcher wining $5,000 by betting on himself to win the game isn't nearly as far removed from a contract that awards him $5,000 for each game he wins as it is from winning $5,000 by giving up 10 earned runs in the first inning on purpose.

WMR
09-28-2006, 11:02 PM
The problem is that by betting on the Reds to win certain games, you're putting yourself in a position where oftentimes your desire to win one ballgame (because of the bet) outweighs what is best for the team in the long run.

Say Pete had a big bet on this game against the Phillies. The Reds are clinging to a 4-3 lead at home heading into the top of the 8th. Pete, wanting to protect this lead on this night, turns to his best setup reliever to hold the lead for the closer.

Now, the setup man has already pitched two days in a row, including a long two innings the night before. Running him out there for a third straight game - a practice that he's probably already done several times before - is risking an injury to your best reliever for the sake of this one win. That's putting your betting interests ahead of the team's.

Also, maybe the Reds are playing the Braves on a night when Pete doesn't have a bet down. The Reds this time are trailing 7-6 in the eighth. Now, in this case, what if Pete decides to put in a secondary reliever rather than one of his better ones thinking he'll save them for the next night when he'll lay a bet down. Again, that's allowing your betting to affect how you run the ballclub.

Perfect explanation.

Furthermore, what was the implicit message to Pete's bookies when he didn't bet on the Reds?

Yachtzee
09-28-2006, 11:22 PM
And he played one of those positions well. Always thought he could have been a decent first baseman, but for reasons beyond me, they thought Driessen was the answer there. Might have kept him around a little longer.

According to my grandmother (who, in full disclosure, had a strong dislike for Pete Rose), Bench (who, in full disclosure, my grandmother loved) was going to play a few more years at 1B, but then Rose returned and it forced JB to retire.

Cedric
09-28-2006, 11:23 PM
Clearly you didn't read my post.

I said Pete Rose put together a HOF caliber body of work.



That's what I said.

I believe Pete Rose put together a HOF caliber body of work. My argument was that he has the hit record b/c he played in almost 600 more games than Ty Cobb. I also said Pete Rose wasn't a power hitter. Are you really trying to dispute either of those points?

Pete Rose wasn't a great player, he was a very good player. Huge difference in those two. Rose was probably one of the top 40 to ever play the game, but he was in no way shape or form one of the 20 best to ever play, and clearly not one of the 10 best to ever play. Those are great players.

I've separated Rose the player from Rose the person. Rose the person, I don't care for; Rose the player put up HOF numbers. Why you're asserting I said otherwise, I haven't the foggiest clue. I tossed out stats showing that as a corner OF, where he played the majority of his games, he put up a pedestrian career OPS, although having an above average career OBP of .375.

The only battle I'm fighting is that there have been better players who have contributed more to the team while putting up better numbers, while being at the top of their position over their careers in a Reds uniform than Pete Rose. Frank Robinson, Johnny Bench, and Joe Morgan are just 3 off the top of my head.

Thanks for telling me my position though, I'm glad you cleared that up for me.


Weird.

Someone is very good and yet they deserve to be in your hall of fame?

My dad used to always tell me that numbers can't even begin to scratch the surface of what Pete Rose brought to the Reds. I imagine you haven't really thought about anything outside of the raw numbers.

Yachtzee
09-28-2006, 11:25 PM
Well at least after the Sox scandal - before then it was probably both playing and drinking beer on Sunday. ;)

But only in Pennsylvania,...at least since those German Catholics from Cincinnati rejoined the NL in 1890. ;)

Yachtzee
09-28-2006, 11:57 PM
My dad used to always tell me that numbers can't even begin to scratch the surface of what Pete Rose brought to the Reds.

And yet, by his own selfishness, he has taken so much away from the Reds and their fans,...his fans.

Had he not bet on baseball, the people of Cincinnati who have looked up to him his whole career could openly celebrate his accomplishments without shame. He would be in the Hall of Fame and take part in the festivities, so that his fans could go to Cooperstown, meet their hero and maybe talk some baseball. Maybe he might even still be manager of the Reds and the King of the Queen City.

Or maybe, if Pete hadn't been selfish, he could have admitted his transgressions, sought help for his addictions, and asked for forgiveness from baseball, and more importantly, the fans he let down. Maybe people would have forgotten about it by now and baseball would embrace him with open arms.

Or maybe, if Pete had really thought about the Reds and his fans, even after spending years denying that he bet on baseball, he would have offered his long awaited mea culpa freely, without an expectation of a "quid pro quo" from the Commissioner, and without seeking cash remuneration. Maybe then the rehabilitation process could begin.

Or maybe, instead of hanging out at Caesar's and signing balls with personal apologies for $300 a pop, he could just sit down with his fans who still come up to him at signings and offer an honest, sincere handshake and a heartfelt apology.

I just don't get it. I hear talk from Cincinnati about how baseball has done Pete wrong and kept him out of baseball and the Hall of Fame. But from my perspective, I see only what Pete keeps doing to himself and to those who are his biggest fans. He has sucked all the joy from his accomplishments.

George Foster
09-29-2006, 12:47 AM
But Cobb's legacy goes beyond his accomplishments on the field. He is remembered as one of baseball's most despicable figures -- a dirty player, a racist, a quick-tempered, violent man who fought with fans, opponents and teammates.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2146324

To argue that Cobb is a better person than Pete is laughable:laugh:

I'll take Pete and his gambling...anyday over the racist Cobb.

RANDY IN INDY
09-29-2006, 06:55 AM
According to my grandmother (who, in full disclosure, had a strong dislike for Pete Rose), Bench (who, in full disclosure, my grandmother loved) was going to play a few more years at 1B, but then Rose returned and it forced JB to retire.


Bench retired after the 1983 season. Rose didn't return until late in the 1984 season. Bad argument.

Spring~Fields
09-29-2006, 07:18 AM
It is the most serious "violation" in MLB. Always has been. Pete knew this. It is stated that it will result in a lifetime ban. Pete accepted the lifetime ban that he lives with today. What was negotiated can be argued. Pete's word in regard to his negotiations with Giamatti and crew does not hold much weight with me b/c he has proven that he is a liar as well. Don't blame me for those feelings... blame Pete for his known lying.


Can an individual with mental disorders even make rational, logical, correct choices and decisions, or do they have difficulty with those vs healthy people?

Addictive personality
Gambling addiction
Obsessive Compulsive disorder
Denial or lying traditionally goes hand and hand with those mental health disorders, mental health issues .

A common Google search of the above terms returns 14,500 I don't see how Dowd and MLB could have missed it!

http://topcondition.com/images/mymindfield/gambling_addiction.htm

Yes, even a baseball player can have health problems.

I think that the Dowd report and the Giamatti investigation was incomplete, I don't think that they did or requested a psychological or psychiatric medical evaluation of Rose. I don't think that they or the other lawyers were qualified to do a medical evaluation ( I am not qualified either) of the baseball player and athlete, surely with such a serious allegation and consequences they would have wanted to be thorough. Perhaps I would feel more comfortable with their evaluation if they could show where they insisted on Pete doing some time at the Betty Ford clinic or something like that.

Always Red
09-29-2006, 07:30 AM
Thanks for that persuasive argument. :rolleyes: :dunno:

The effect on the integrity of the game is not the same when a guy wins $5,000 for driving in the winning run (Rose's case) as when a guy wins $5,000 for purposely striking out with the winning run in scoring position.

I'll certainly agree that the rules are clear that it's treated the same and that he's banned for life. But baseball rules are just rules created by man not ordained by God and in this case I think it's wrong that they don't differentiate between betting for and against your team. IMHO it should be a long suspension for betting on yourself and a lifetime ban for betting against yourself. But the existing rule is clear and he violated it. I won't argue that he's banned for life.

Anyway, splitting hairs isn't the difference between betting for and against your own team. Splitting hairs is the difference between making money betting on yourself and contract incentive clauses. A pitcher wining $5,000 by betting on himself to win the game isn't nearly as far removed from a contract that awards him $5,000 for each game he wins as it is from winning $5,000 by giving up 10 earned runs in the first inning on purpose.

I think I know what you're saying, terminator, not to put words in your mouth, but I'll try:

Rose didn't throw any games. When he bet, he bet only on his team to win. And that's what separates him from Shoeless Joe and the '19 Sox. And I agree with that; what Rose did was NOT as bad as what Jackson and the Sox did back in the Series of 1919.

And I used to agree with you. But I am persuaded by all of the other arguments and reasoning given above as to why it is wrong that he bet at all on the game, even if he never once bet on a Reds game at all.

As a manger and a participant, Rose had insider info about who was hurt, who was hot, who was depressed, etc. If the bookies knew he had money on a certain team (even if not the Reds), you know word got out, and this could certainly bring other big money in, and before you know it, unsavory types are attempting to influence game outcomes.

The difference between Rose and Bonds is very simple. I, for one, believe Bonds (and his ilk, not just him) breached the integrity of the game to a larger degree than Rose ever did. But with Pete, it had happened before, and rules and punishments were in place. It was just a matter of following through, and being consistent with what punishment had been meted out in the past. And with Bonds and the steroid heads, it's all virgin territory, and certainly tougher to find "proof."

terminator
09-29-2006, 08:10 AM
I think I know what you're saying, terminator, not to put words in your mouth, but I'll try:

Rose didn't throw any games. When he bet, he bet only on his team to win. And that's what separates him from Shoeless Joe and the '19 Sox. And I agree with that; what Rose did was NOT as bad as what Jackson and the Sox did back in the Series of 1919.

And I used to agree with you. But I am persuaded by all of the other arguments and reasoning given above as to why it is wrong that he bet at all on the game, even if he never once bet on a Reds game at all.


I agree it was wrong. I agree he knew the consequences and is and will remain banned for life. I agree that there are situations when even being "for" your team could be bad for the team in the long run. All I am saying is that I can forgive the guy because he was always trying to help the Reds win. If he had thrown games as a Red that would be an unforgiveable offense. As it is, I'm disappointed that he bet on baseball (and evaded taxes) and thereby tarnished his own image and tarnished the image of the Reds and possibly even tarnished the image of our city, but I can forgive a guy who by all apparent accounts was still pulling for the Reds 100%.

Getting back more to the topic at hand, maybe "Hometown Fallen Hero" would have been more appropriate, but even the prodigal son was welcomed home as a son.

Yachtzee
09-29-2006, 08:21 AM
Bench retired after the 1983 season. Rose didn't return until late in the 1984 season. Bad argument.

Yeah, I know. But the conspiracy theorist in her believed that the Reds were talking about it in '83. She really loved Johnny Bench and she really didn't like Pete Rose.

Degenerate39
09-29-2006, 12:58 PM
How many times did Daryl Strawberry go to rehab for drug use? More than enough times. Gambling is an addiction like drugs so why didn't they do anything to help Pete? Baseball doesn't want Pete Rose. They did nothing to help him through his addictions.

In his playing days he was one of a kind he played every game like it was his last. He was a pretty damn good outfielder but he never stayed there because it would benefit the team if he moved else where. How many players almost always slid headfirst? As far as I know just Pete. He was a dedicated player. He might not have been a great man but hell how many people in the hall of fame are saints? Ty Cobb was a racist, Mickey Mantle cheated on his wife constantly, pretty soon it'll be Mark McGwire and he was on steroids. Pete never did those things and he's banned from baseball for an addiction. An addiction that was in his whole family. Theres only one reason he shouldn't be in the hall of fame but there are 14 more reasons he should be in the hall of fame.

guttle11
09-29-2006, 01:17 PM
How many times did Daryl Strawberry go to rehab for drug use? More than enough times. Gambling is an addiction like drugs so why didn't they do anything to help Pete? Baseball doesn't want Pete Rose. They did nothing to help him through his addictions.

In his playing days he was one of a kind he played every game like it was his last. He was a pretty damn good outfielder but he never stayed there because it would benefit the team if he moved else where. How many players almost always slid headfirst? As far as I know just Pete. He was a dedicated player. He might not have been a great man but hell how many people in the hall of fame are saints? Ty Cobb was a racist, Mickey Mantle cheated on his wife constantly, pretty soon it'll be Mark McGwire and he was on steroids. Pete never did those things and he's banned from baseball for an addiction. An addiction that was in his whole family. Theres only one reason he shouldn't be in the hall of fame but there are 14 more reasons he should be in the hall of fame.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here...

Pete Rose holds a highly regarded record, and he deserves HOF recognition for it, but let's not act like he was the greatest Red of all time.

Johnny Bench is twice the Red Pete Rose could ever hope to be. Rose may well be the greatest catcher to ever play the game. Since his playing days, he continues to be a great ambassador for the game, the Reds, and the city.

IMO, the fans made a horrible choice.

Always Red
09-29-2006, 01:20 PM
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here...

you're right, someone has gone and opened Pandora's box, now...:eek: :eek:

Chip R
09-29-2006, 01:50 PM
Pete never did those things and he's banned from baseball for an addiction.

Karolyn Rose would like a word with you.

Ltlabner
09-29-2006, 02:04 PM
How many times did Daryl Strawberry go to rehab for drug use? More than enough times. Gambling is an addiction like drugs so why didn't they do anything to help Pete? Baseball doesn't want Pete Rose. They did nothing to help him through his addictions.

This may get the thread quickly into peanut gallery territory.

Addiction or no, Pete still bears responsibility for the choices he has made. An addiction certinally makes that choice more difficult, however, it does not absolve him from the consequences of his choices.

Frankly, MLB does not have do to anything to help any addict not matter what the circumstance. It's nice if they offer assistance programs and support those who activily persue getting themselves into recovery, but in no way does MLB owe Pete any sort of assistance.

Sorry, if Pete truely has a gambling problem it's on his shoulders to figure that out himself and get help.

westofyou
09-29-2006, 02:04 PM
How many times did Daryl Strawberry go to rehab for drug use? More than enough times. Gambling is an addiction like drugs so why didn't they do anything to help Pete? Baseball doesn't want Pete Rose. They did nothing to help him through his addictions.

In his playing days he was one of a kind he played every game like it was his last. He was a pretty damn good outfielder but he never stayed there because it would benefit the team if he moved else where. How many players almost always slid headfirst? As far as I know just Pete. He was a dedicated player. He might not have been a great man but hell how many people in the hall of fame are saints? Ty Cobb was a racist, Mickey Mantle cheated on his wife constantly, pretty soon it'll be Mark McGwire and he was on steroids. Pete never did those things and he's banned from baseball for an addiction. An addiction that was in his whole family. Theres only one reason he shouldn't be in the hall of fame but there are 14 more reasons he should be in the hall of fame.

Hustle - The Myth, Life, and Lies of Pete Rose (http://www.michaelsokolove.com/hustle.htm)

dabvu2498
09-29-2006, 02:09 PM
All of this really should be moot. I agree with what Marty said last night. Joe Nuxhall should be the recipient of this honor.

Chip R
09-29-2006, 02:15 PM
All of this really should be moot. I agree with what Marty said last night. Joe Nuxhall should be the recipient of this honor.

Unfortunately he wasn't nominated. Although it'd be interesting to see who would win a popularity contest between the two.

dabvu2498
09-29-2006, 02:16 PM
Unfortunately he wasn't nominated. Although it'd be interesting to see who would win a popularity contest between the two.
I know. Major oversight by the "selection committee."

Chip R
09-29-2006, 02:17 PM
I know. Major oversight by the "selection committee."

I think they were focusing on players who had a great deal of success with their team. As popular as Joe is, he was not a great player.

Highlifeman21
09-29-2006, 03:15 PM
Weird.

Someone is very good and yet they deserve to be in your hall of fame?

My dad used to always tell me that numbers can't even begin to scratch the surface of what Pete Rose brought to the Reds. I imagine you haven't really thought about anything outside of the raw numbers.

Pete Rose put up a HOF caliber body of work. I'm not disputing that. I do feel that he is probably in the top 40 to ever play the game, largely due to his longevity.

That being said, I don't think Pete Rose was the spark plug of the BRM. He offered contributions, but the BRM could have and would have won without him, IMO.

I've thought about everything being Pete Rose outside his raw numbers, or else I wouldn't have drawn the conclusion that he did put together a HOF caliber body of work. For a corner OF, where he played the majority of his games, his career OPS wasn't all that good, and he only had a respectable OBP that was BA driven, due largely to all those singles he hit. 75% of his hits were singles. I applaud him for a long career where he averaged 194 H/162, but once I separate the person from the player, I don't care for the person, and it makes everything he did as a player moot because he bet on baseball.

RANDY IN INDY
09-29-2006, 03:22 PM
Pete Rose put up a HOF caliber body of work. I'm not disputing that. I do feel that he is probably in the top 40 to ever play the game, largely due to his longevity.

That being said, I don't think Pete Rose was the spark plug of the BRM. He offered contributions, but the BRM could have and would have won without him, IMO.

I've thought about everything being Pete Rose outside his raw numbers, or else I wouldn't have drawn the conclusion that he did put together a HOF caliber body of work. For a corner OF, where he played the majority of his games, his career OPS wasn't all that good, and he only had a respectable OBP that was BA driven, due largely to all those singles he hit. 75% of his hits were singles. I applaud him for a long career where he averaged 194 H/162, but once I separate the person from the player, I don't care for the person, and it makes everything he did as a player moot because he bet on baseball.

I know it is your opinion, but in my opinion, you are wrong.:beerme: And by the way, walks are good but singles are not?

Highlifeman21
09-29-2006, 03:38 PM
I know it is your opinion, but in my opinion, you are wrong.:beerme: And by the way, walks are good but singles are not?


1.37 BB:K combined with a BB every 10 PA tells me while he did walk, he hit a lot of singles and still struck out at an above average clip for a lead off hitter. Had Rose had better plate discipline/patience, he would have easily eclipsed the .400 career OBP mark had he just walked more and perhaps not slapped the ball the other way as often. In my book, walks are better than singles.

RANDY IN INDY
09-29-2006, 03:57 PM
1.37 BB:K combined with a BB every 10 PA tells me while he did walk, he hit a lot of singles and still struck out at an above average clip for a lead off hitter. Had Rose had better plate discipline/patience, he would have easily eclipsed the .400 career OBP mark had he just walked more and perhaps not slapped the ball the other way as often. In my book, walks are better than singles.

Particularly, with runners on first and second and two outs.

Cedric
09-29-2006, 04:51 PM
Particularly, with runners on first and second and two outs.


Fundamental differnence in some people. They love walks so much they have started some assinine belief that a walk is better than a hit. I guess an extra 2 pitches per at bat makes up for the loss in pressure on a defense and the obvious loss in advancement of runners.

Red in Chicago
09-29-2006, 06:52 PM
That being said, I don't think Pete Rose was the spark plug of the BRM. He offered contributions, but the BRM could have and would have won without him, IMO.

wow, i couldn't disagree more with that statement, but i'd like to see the results if a poll was taken:devil:

George Foster
09-29-2006, 07:32 PM
Can an individual with mental disorders even make rational, logical, correct choices and decisions, or do they have difficulty with those vs healthy people?

Addictive personality
Gambling addiction
Obsessive Compulsive disorder
Denial or lying traditionally goes hand and hand with those mental health disorders, mental health issues .

A common Google search of the above terms returns 14,500 I don't see how Dowd and MLB could have missed it!

http://topcondition.com/images/mymindfield/gambling_addiction.htm

Yes, even a baseball player can have health problems.

I think that the Dowd report and the Giamatti investigation was incomplete, I don't think that they did or requested a psychological or psychiatric medical evaluation of Rose. I don't think that they or the other lawyers were qualified to do a medical evaluation ( I am not qualified either) of the baseball player and athlete, surely with such a serious allegation and consequences they would have wanted to be thorough. Perhaps I would feel more comfortable with their evaluation if they could show where they insisted on Pete doing some time at the Betty Ford clinic or something like that.

If I got arrested for robbing banks can I say, " hey I got a stealing illiness":laugh:

Goten
09-29-2006, 08:23 PM
But he didn't. He was good enough to play for 23 years. I don't understand this argument of penalizing him for his longevity. It's like saying Hank Aaron only hit all of those HRs because he played for 23 years. Guess what, he hit them because he was still good enough to hit them. And Rose got all of those hits because he was still good enough to hit.

Aaron was still productive as he aged, rose sucked.

Goten
09-29-2006, 08:28 PM
Playing 23 seasons seem like quite a feat to me. You're argument is that he isn't a great player because he had longevity? Please. That is another reason Pete was such a great player. Arguing that betting degrades the integrity of the game but taking ILLEGAL performance enhancing drugs isn't is complete ignorance. Players who cheat degrade the integrity of the game. If you are going to call me ignorant, you better not be blinded by your sheer dislike of a player that will not allow you to separate Pete Rose the baseball player from Pete Rose the person. Throwing stats out to support your veiw is not impressive. I can throw out stats that say he belongs in the Hall, but that is not really questioned in this case. Pete has the numbers, wether you agree with it or not. Players who cheat degrade the integrity of the game. The question is and allways has been should his character issues prevent him from getting in the HOF. If he didn't have the numbers, this wouldn't be an issue. When you ask the voters why Pete doesn't belong in the HOF, they won't say "because he wasn't a good enough player" or "he didn't have the numbers." They will say "because he bet on baseball." Period. He was a winner on the field. He didn't have power, sure. But is power the only reason a player belongs in the Hall Of Fame? You are fighting a battle that doesn't exist if your only argument is that Pete didn't have a HOF caliber career.

Steroids were placed in the same category as heroin and cocaine and other serious drugs in 1991. And using any of THose drugs is only a misdemeanor, not a felony. They are illegal because of percieved health risks, not cheating. Hell, the penalty was that the player should seek out treatment from that team's physician. It wasn't until 2002, after Caminiti's slipshod confession, where " cheating " became an issue.


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/format/memos20051109?memo=1991&num=2

Goten
09-29-2006, 08:32 PM
But Cobb's legacy goes beyond his accomplishments on the field. He is remembered as one of baseball's most despicable figures -- a dirty player, a racist, a quick-tempered, violent man who fought with fans, opponents and teammates.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2146324

To argue that Cobb is a better person than Pete is laughable:laugh:

I'll take Pete and his gambling...anyday over the racist Cobb.


As a player ?

I dislike Cobb as much as the next guy, and believe he's generally over rated by some who believe he's the best player not named ruth ( completely ignoring adjustments for league quality), but he was a far superior player to rose.

Spring~Fields
09-29-2006, 09:26 PM
If I got arrested for robbing banks can I say, " hey I got a stealing illiness":laugh:

No you could say you got 5-15 in the pen! :evil:
Make sure that you drop me an email indicating where you burried the loot! :thumbup:

TC81190
09-29-2006, 09:53 PM
Hogwash. By what standard are these players better than Rose? I know you only care about statistics, but I care about a whole hell of a lot more. Having an opinion is one thing, to clearly state they are better is rich.

He's a hero to me for how he played the game. I couldn't care less about the idiocy of the "baseball's worst crime."

There is nothing worse than the HGH and steroid users of today. They are not only ruining the integrity of the game, they are a horrible influence on every young athlete.

You win the internet. Good job.


Oh boy, here we go again. If it isn't the assembling masses against Adam Dunn, it's the ignorant Pete Rose defense attorneys.

The only reason Pete Rose is the record holder for most hits is because he played 23 years. He averaged 194 H/162. There's the secret to why Pete Rose has 4256. While Rose had a respectable .375 OBP for his career, and a career BA of .303, it doesn't change the fact his lifetime OPS is .784, which is very pedestrian. Rose was never even mentioned in the same breath of "best at his position", whereas Morgan and Bench are often mention in that same breath of "best at his position". Bench quite possibly could be the best catcher of all time, he's definitely put together a body of work to deserve such merit, but it's not all stat derived. With both Morgan and Bench, there are defensive metrics to consider as well. Pete Rose was never going to fool anyone with his defense, nor was he ever going to change the outcome of a game by good defense. Morgan and Bench both had the ability to positively impact the outcome of a ballgame with their defensive abilities.

Maybe I'm too young to have been fed the Pete Rose hype, and subsequently gotten caught up in the hoopla, but while I believe he put together a marginal HOF bid on counting stats alone, he was not a complete player. He got on base largely due to BA, and had an adequate amount of career walks to bring his career OBP to a respectable .375. That's it. He had no power. Only 25% of his career hits were XBH, so there's his low career SLG. He wasn't the fleetest of foot either. 198 career SB vs. 149 career CS. Not good numbers.

Am I trying to say Pete Rose wasn't a good player? No. Do I believe he should be in the HOF had he not committed the worst offense in baseball? Yes. Have we historically had better players on the Reds than Pete Rose? You betcha. Bench and Morgan are just two to top that list.

As for the betting on baseball is worse than illegal substances argument, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree, because where I'm sitting, degrading the integrity of such a great game is a far worse crime than ingesting supplements in an attempt to enhance performance.

And you definitely lose x 1000. Go away.

westofyou
09-29-2006, 09:56 PM
And you definitely lose x 1000. Go away.

Nice retort. You told him!!!

TC81190
09-29-2006, 09:57 PM
1.37 BB:K combined with a BB every 10 PA tells me while he did walk, he hit a lot of singles and still struck out at an above average clip for a lead off hitter. Had Rose had better plate discipline/patience, he would have easily eclipsed the .400 career OBP mark had he just walked more and perhaps not slapped the ball the other way as often. In my book, walks are better than singles.

To put this as lightly as I can, that is probably the stupidest thing I have read in my life.

guttle11
09-29-2006, 09:59 PM
To put this as lightly as I can, that is probably the stupidest thing I have read in my life.


It's the pot...with the kettle...with the black...[/Bill Cosby]

vaticanplum
10-03-2006, 12:34 AM
Pete was on Letterman tonight, did anybody see it?

I've never really had much of an opinion on him one way or the other. I can see the merits of pretty much every single argument on this thread. I'm not even sure where I stand on the HOF issue; I can see both sides from a baseball standpoint, and beyond that, I know that there's a lot in the way of the case, of legality and of language, that I haven't explored and don't understand.

But all that aside, I have to say that I really enjoyed him on the show. He walks out and your first thought is whoa, there's a dude I never want to meet in a bar. But he's pleasant, he's straightforward (even if he's lying...I don't know how that makes sense but it does), he knows how to talk to people. I would go so far as to say that he was quite charming and funny, not at all sleazy or irritating. He definitely isn't the brightest bulb in the box or the classiest, but he seems to embrace that and...just be himself, I guess, himself being a pleasant guy who has had decades of experience talking to strangers to help him out. And he does truly love baseball. He talked about how he still watches three or four games a day, all Reds games, a lot of Dodgers games. There's an aspect of that that's tragic because of how he took himself out of it, but it was fun to hear him talk about baseball. He gave his opinions on the playoffs (he likes the Padres and Twins) and tried to quiz Dave on his opinions regarding season MVP :laugh: At the risk of sounding very simplistic, he'd be a fun guy to talk baseball with over some beers.

Like I said, I have no strong opinions about how baseball should remember him or whether he belongs in the HOF; I don't even feel very strongly about his character one way or the other. But I do feel sorry for him. I can never help feeling sorry for people like that...things could have been so much better for him. And he has a good life in a lot of ways, he had a wonderful baseball life, but he always has this cloud over him, he always has people like us talking about him, sometimes hating him a looooot, on message boards and so on, and most of all he cannot participate in the thing he clearly loves, the only thing he did his whole life. It's self-inflicted, I know, and he deserves to pay a price, the amount of which it's not up to me to determine. But he's a human being who made mistakes like we all do, and his mistakes are just so magnified. A lot of people would go into hiding forever or kill themselves or something, and it's possible that he's just too stupid to wallow, but he's still out there, maybe more affable than he's ever been. Am I allowed to say that there's a small part of me that...respects him? I dunno, that would not be what my family taught me :laugh: But it was a surprisingly enjoyable interview, in any case.

savafan
10-03-2006, 01:31 AM
It was illegal to buy a beer in 1919 as well. Times change.

If baseball was concerned about a level playing field they'd do something about HGH and revenue sharing.

RANDY IN INDY
10-03-2006, 07:03 AM
Pete is simply, "Pete." He will never be anything else. People should quit hoping for anything else.

Ltlabner
10-03-2006, 07:55 AM
But all that aside, I have to say that I really enjoyed him on the show. But it was a surprisingly enjoyable interview, in any case.


I've always enjoyed listening to Pete talk about baseball. When he's been on 700WLW or other shows he's always had something to say and something that is entertaining. He used to have a radio show out of Boca Ratone, FL (I don't remember the station, if it was syndicated, or what) but it was always entertaining.

Pete's name was floated (mostly as a joke, I think) as a possibility in the radio booth. While it will never happen (between MLB and Marty B it will never happen) it would be interesting to hear his take on the games in an analyist role, IMO.

westofyou
10-03-2006, 10:14 AM
If baseball was concerned about a level playing field they'd do something about HGH and revenue sharing.

HGH eh?

What are they going to do? Send all those ex-players into the labortory to figure out how to test for it?

I love how the Pete talk always heads back to the games other problems, if you recognize that HGH and Revenue Sharing is a problem then you have to recognize that gambling was once a large problem and the way Pete was dealt with (and others before him) is exactly what they did/do to confront that problem.

IMO you can't cry for the league to fix the other problems in the game to make up for what you see as an injustice done to a man that broke a rule that almost brought the game down.

That's just a red herring approach to what Pete did, and we're talking about a guy who MLB started investigating 19 years before he was banned.

KoryMac5
10-03-2006, 02:17 PM
Definition of hero

American Heritage Dictionary

1. In mythology and legend, a man, often of divine ancestry, who is endowed with great courage and strength, celebrated for his bold exploits, and favored by the gods.
2. A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life: soldiers and nurses who were heroes in an unpopular war.
3. A person noted for special achievement in a particular field: the heroes of medicine. See Synonyms at celebrity.*
4. The principal male character in novel, poem, or dramatic presentation. See Usage Note at heroine.**

Pete Rose is a hero do to part three of this definition. He is baseballs all time hit leader and won world series with the Reds and the Phillies. What he did after his career is irelevant in the discussion of hometown hero. I do feel Pete is a sad situation that will ulitmately get worse maybe this honor will wake him up.