RESINSTATE PETE ROSE

RESINSTATE PETE ROSE

Post by DougP0 » Sat, 23 Sep 1995 04:00:00



Quote:

>A new Web site has set up a petition for the reinstatement of Pete
>Rose.

Rose accepted the banishment rather than let MLB continue its
investigation into his sports betting.  Are you also petitioning him to
allow the investigation to continue?  Or is this more fatuous hero
worship?

Doug Pappas

 
 
 

RESINSTATE PETE ROSE

Post by Mark J. Rineha » Sat, 23 Sep 1995 04:00:00

Quote:



> >A new Web site has set up a petition for the reinstatement of Pete
> >Rose.
> Rose accepted the banishment rather than let MLB continue its
> investigation into his sports betting.  Are you also petitioning him to
> allow the investigation to continue?  Or is this more fatuous hero
> worship?
> Doug Pappas

The facts are clear. Rose's playing career was phenomenal. He deserves
to be in the HoF. He was among the very best of all the professional
baseball players since the game came into existence. Isn't that what
the HoF is supposed to be - the best of all the players to have played
the game professionally?

Mark

 
 
 

RESINSTATE PETE ROSE

Post by Sarcasm Is A Way Of Lif » Tue, 26 Sep 1995 04:00:00


Quote:



>> >A new Web site has set up a petition for the reinstatement of Pete
>> >Rose.
>> Rose accepted the banishment rather than let MLB continue its
>> investigation into his sports betting.  Are you also petitioning him to
>> allow the investigation to continue?  Or is this more fatuous hero
>> worship?
>> Doug Pappas
>The facts are clear. Rose's playing career was phenomenal.

In what way?  Phenomenally stretching his career out past its appropriate
end longer than any player in the history of baseball?

To me, people like Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Mike
Schmidt - they were phenomenal.  Rose was a very good ballplayer.

 He deserves

Quote:
>to be in the HoF. He was among the very best of all the professional
>baseball players since the game came into existence. Isn't that what
>the HoF is supposed to be - the best of all the players to have played
>the game professionally?

Well, how many of the best?  If it's the 50 best, Rose doesn't get
in without paying admission.  

Anyway, play is not the only thing that counts for the Hall, or***
Allen and Joe Jackson would've sailed in a while back.  Keeping Rose
of the ballot is, in my opinion, an outrage, but there are plenty of
reasonable arguments against letting him in, including 1) the
argument that he was only a very good player, and not one of the
100 greatest 2) the argument that he gambled on baseball, thus
threatening the integrity of the game, and 3) the argument that
he made a mockery of the game by putting his hits record ahead
of giving his team the best chance to win the division while he
was managing.

Personally, I think Rose was just good enough, and brought enough
extra to the game, that I would've voted for him had he retired
in 1982.  But his behavior after that date leaves an extraordinarily
bad taste for me, and negates some of his legitimate achievements
in my eyes.

Greg

 
 
 

RESINSTATE PETE ROSE

Post by Ted Floy » Tue, 26 Sep 1995 04:00:00


Quote:

> The facts are clear. Rose's playing career was phenomenal. He deserves

What was so great about him?

Quote:
> to be in the HoF. He was among the very best of all the professional
> baseball players since the game came into existence. Isn't that what

Among the 300 best.  There were many better ball players who also aren't
in the Hall of Fame.

Quote:
> the HoF is supposed to be - the best of all the players to have played
> the game professionally?

He wasn't among the very best.

Also, Hall of Fame induction tends to depend -- rightly or wrongly so --
on "intangibles" such as character and sportsmanship.  Rose excelled at
neither.


 
 
 

RESINSTATE PETE ROSE

Post by r.. » Tue, 26 Sep 1995 04:00:00

Quote:

>Well, if you ask the Hall, they'll tell you that character *is* one
>of the considerations.  They'll also tell you that they get to make
>the rules, so the Hall of Fame is what the Hall of Fame thinks it
>should be.

The skull of the Lustig is sooo thick there is no room for any brain.  There
are no "rules."  The players are elected according to the individual
discretion of people who know far more about the game than you and any of
the other stat fans that pollute this group.

Get OUT.

Quote:
>Besides, what it *should* be and what it is are two different things,
>and that's been the case since Freddie Lindstrom, Morgan Bulkeley,
>Lloyd Waner, Roger Bresnahan, etc. were elected...

What on earth would we do without the likes of you around to tell us how
things "*should* be"?  Hmm?

Get OUT.  You are an idiot.  You don't understand sport.  You shit all over
sport.  Cal Ripken is bigger than you.  Pete Rose is bigger than you.
Alfredo Griffin is bigger than you.  And not a single one is going to lose
any sleep over anything that a moron like you might think.

Get OUT.  Winning is _not_ everything to the sport fan.  Efficiency is one
of many factors to be used in considering a player's "value".

Get OUT.

cordially, as always,

rm

 
 
 

RESINSTATE PETE ROSE

Post by r.. » Tue, 26 Sep 1995 04:00:00

Quote:



>> The facts are clear. Rose's playing career was phenomenal. He deserves
>What was so great about him?

He gets more air time than any other player in this group.  More air time
than Frank Thomas and Barry Bonds combined.  Pete Rose is a household name.
Pete Rose is one of the greatest players in the history of the game.  If
you knew anything at all about sport you wouldn't ask such an asinine
question.

Quote:
>> to be in the HoF. He was among the very best of all the professional
>> baseball players since the game came into existence. Isn't that what
>Among the 300 best.  There were many better ball players who also aren't
>in the Hall of Fame.

Well no, there may have been many more efficient players but there were
few better.

Quote:
>> the HoF is supposed to be - the best of all the players to have played
>> the game professionally?
>He wasn't among the very best.

Rose and Jackson were the best of that era.  Neither were the most efficient.
But they are clearly the greatest players and the ones that will be remembered.
(Alfredo Griffin came a little later)

Quote:
>Also, Hall of Fame induction tends to depend -- rightly or wrongly so --
>on "intangibles" such as character and sportsmanship.  Rose excelled at
>neither.

HOF voters use their discretion.  There are no criteria.  There are no rules.

And no one gives a rat's ass what your opinion is about the voting process
because you know nothing about sport.  Nothing at all.

Get OUT.

cordially, as always,

rm

 
 
 

RESINSTATE PETE ROSE

Post by r.. » Tue, 26 Sep 1995 04:00:00


Quote:
>In what way?  Phenomenally stretching his career out past its appropriate
>end longer than any player in the history of baseball?

Ok.  Take away his record you miserable little shit.  At what point should
he have retired?  After his 4,000 hit?  3,500?  3,000?

He still makes the HOF.  Sport is not about efficiency.  Only stat fans
are about efficiency.  Stat fans are morons.

Go on.  *** off.

Quote:
>To me, people like Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Mike
>Schmidt - they were phenomenal.  Rose was a very good ballplayer.

How about Ty Cobb?  Was he phenomenal?  He's second on the all-time hit
list you miserable little shit.

Quote:
>Well, how many of the best?  If it's the 50 best, Rose doesn't get
>in without paying admission.  

Oh well if that is your opinion then it certainly must be the case.
After all you have all the charts and lists and numbers.  And of course
you are a miserable little stat fan and you would shit all over Pete Rose
who is huge compared to you.

Pete Rose had more hits than anyone in the game.  Pete Rose is a household
name.  Barry Bonds ain't and never will be.  Frank Thomas ain't and never
will be.

Pete Rose is a household name and Greg Spira is something you flush down
the toilet.

Go on.  Get OUT of here.  Your opinions about sport are totally grounded in
ignorance and you have long ago gone past the point of being entertaining.

Get OUT.

cordially, as always,

rm

 
 
 

RESINSTATE PETE ROSE

Post by Roger Lust » Tue, 26 Sep 1995 04:00:00

Quote:


>>Well, if you ask the Hall, they'll tell you that character *is* one
>>of the considerations.  They'll also tell you that they get to make
>>the rules, so the Hall of Fame is what the Hall of Fame thinks it
>>should be.
>The skull of the Lustig is sooo thick there is no room for any brain.  There
>are no "rules."  

Look who's talking!  There are plenty of rules: a player has to have played
for ten years, and be eligible under other balloting requirements; there
are also rules for who's eligible to be picked by the New Veterans Committee.
Moreover, the "character" rule is explicitly part of the election instructions.

Sorry you're too busy spattering your ignorance all over the net to bother
to get the facts.

Quote:
>The players are elected according to the individual
>discretion of people who know far more about the game than you and any of
>the other stat fans that pollute this group.

Really?  Who are these people?  How do you know what they know?  And what
makes you say that there are no rules limiting their individual discretion?
That's simply false.

Quote:
>Get OUT.

On *your* authority?  Why?  You don't even *say* anything about baseball.
This isn't alt.tantrum.infantile; why do you post here?

Quote:
>>Besides, what it *should* be and what it is are two different things,
>>and that's been the case since Freddie Lindstrom, Morgan Bulkeley,
>>Lloyd Waner, Roger Bresnahan, etc. were elected...
>What on earth would we do without the likes of you around to tell us how
>things "*should* be"?  Hmm?

I didn't.  Where do you read that?  You're letting your blind rage dictate
what you post--and that seems to lead you to delete the context of my
remarks.  This isn't alt.slander.cowardly either, so why not pack up and
post over there?

Quote:
>Get OUT.  You are an idiot.  You don't understand sport.  You shit all over
>sport.  Cal Ripken is bigger than you.  Pete Rose is bigger than you.

By several inches.  But then, this *is* USENET; and USENET is for people who
want to post things about whatever topic.  It's not for little jerks who
simply want to tell others what to do.

Quote:
>Alfredo Griffin is bigger than you.  And not a single one is going to lose
>any sleep over anything that a moron like you might think.

Do you suppose I lose sleep over you?  Do you suppose that all your lies
and slanders and hateful garbage put together means a thing?  Do you think
that you have convinced anyone at all that you're anything but a coward
who hides behind his terminal and spews lies?

Quote:
>Get OUT.  Winning is _not_ everything to the sport fan.  Efficiency is one
>of many factors to be used in considering a player's "value".

That's what I said.  You must be illiterate as well as psychotic.  The
guy I was responding to was the one who claimed that Rose's supposed
contribution to winning was what made his election necessary.

Quote:
>Get OUT.
>cordially, as always,

You keep misspelling "cowardly."  Ask your mama to buy you a dictionary
once you've finished those reading lessons.

Roger

 
 
 

RESINSTATE PETE ROSE

Post by Ted Floy » Wed, 27 Sep 1995 04:00:00

Quote:




>>> The facts are clear. Rose's playing career was phenomenal. He deserves
>> What was so great about him?
> He gets more air time than any other player in this group.  More air

time

*That's* all you can say in his favor?  

Quote:
> than Frank Thomas and Barry Bonds combined.  Pete Rose is a household
name.
> Pete Rose is one of the greatest players in the history of the game.  If

Tell us why.  Amount of air time isn't good enough for most of us.

Quote:
> you knew anything at all about sport you wouldn't ask such an asinine
> question.

Just answer the question, okay?

Quote:
>>> to be in the HoF. He was among the very best of all the professional
>>> baseball players since the game came into existence. Isn't that what
>> Among the 300 best.  There were many better ball players who also
aren't
>> in the Hall of Fame.
> Well no, there may have been many more efficient players but there were
> few better.

Don't know about "Efficiency" (you've never bothered to define this
statistic for us), but there were MANY better players.

Quote:
>>> the HoF is supposed to be - the best of all the players to have played
>>> the game professionally?
>> He wasn't among the very best.
> Rose and Jackson were the best of that era.  Neither were the most

efficient.

Jackson was good.  Seaver was better.  Schmidt was much better.

Quote:
> But they are clearly the greatest players and the ones that will be
remembered.
> (Alfredo Griffin came a little later)

Alfredo Griffin was a decidedly *bad* player.  You know that, don't you?

Quote:
>> Also, Hall of Fame induction tends to depend -- rightly or wrongly so
--
>> on "intangibles" such as character and sportsmanship.  Rose excelled at
>> neither.
> HOF voters use their discretion.  There are no criteria.  There are no

rules.

Yes, there are.  You have once again demonstrated your total ignorance
about anything having to do with baseball.

Quote:
> And no one gives a rat's ass what your opinion is about the voting
process
> because you know nothing about sport.  Nothing at all.
> Get OUT.


 
 
 

RESINSTATE PETE ROSE

Post by Michael David Jon » Wed, 27 Sep 1995 04:00:00

Quote:


>>Well, if you ask the Hall, they'll tell you that character *is* one
>>of the considerations.  They'll also tell you that they get to make
>>the rules, so the Hall of Fame is what the Hall of Fame thinks it
>>should be.
>The skull of the Lustig is sooo thick there is no room for any brain.  There
>are no "rules."  The players are elected according to the individual
>discretion of people who know far more about the game than you and any of
>the other stat fans that pollute this group.

Like sports themselves, the Hall of Fame does in fact have rules that
it imposes on those it allows to vote. You, as usual, know nothing and
merely sling insults rather like baboons slinging their own dung.

But you know what? You're all alone, Roger. No one agrees with you.
I rather suspect, after all the displays of petty hate and stupidity
we've seen recently, that even someone who *did* agree with you would
not care to publicly admit such. You are a worthy object of pity.


If the programmer is working in a language that allows only three
dimensions, we are not likely to observe more than three.
        - Gerald Weinberg, The Psychology of Computer Programming

 
 
 

RESINSTATE PETE ROSE

Post by Robert Rom » Fri, 29 Sep 1995 04:00:00

Wow, rlm, this one was childish even by your low standards.

How many times have we told you, you'll never make any friends
here if you don't play nice.  People here seem to have the
impression that you are a sniveling little weasel who gets too
much sugar in his diet.  If this impression is incorrect, you
may want to take pains to rectify it.

Bob