 |
|
|
|
Next: This team is one move away
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Aug 05, 2008
Posts: 17
|
(Msg. 16) Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:56 am
Post subject: Re: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>sports>baseball>cinci-reds (more info?)
|
|
|
On Aug 5, 5:49 pm, tom dunne <dunn... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 4:32 pm, BenchMade <gk... RemoveThis @earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 5, 3:30 pm, tom dunne <dunn... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I can see that a lot of stars don't hustle, but amongst younger or
> > > lesser established players, lots of guys do. That said, I also don't
> > > use Pete Rose as my measuring stick for hustle. Running to first base
> > > on a walk is nothing about winning games and all about "look @ me."
> > > I'd rather have a player like Tony Gwynn (preferrably a less hefty
> > > one) who spends tons of hours in preparation and improving his
> > > skillset for the game than have one who goes kamikaze during the game..
>
> > > Granted, I don't think the Reds have either of these kinds of guys.
>
> > Tom - Pete set the bar by letting the opposing team know that he would
> > sprint to first base - was there hot dog involved? Of course. But I
> > have 'never' and I think Marty B. said almost the same thing - that
> > Peter Rose was 'The Best' baserunner he/I ever saw. Not because of his
> > speed but because of his hustle. Case in point IMO- there has yet to
> > IMO be another ball player since Pete that consistently will pressure
> > an outfielder to charge the ball and make a quick throw EVERY time
> > they are running towards first after a base hit. I have 'never' seen
> > another ball player- none- that could go from first to third like
> > Pete- it is an uncanny knowledge that todays players may have but not
> > utilize 'every' time. Very few of Pete's triples - IMO of course- were
> > solid triples where they were no doubters. My guess would estimate
> > that over 45-50% were just doubles that Pete 'imposed' into triples.
> > Again- this is all my opinion. But at the time he was underestimated
> > as a baserunner but now that time and history has taken care of itself
> > I feel it is safe to say that Pete Rose -IMO- was the best baserunner
> > the Cincinnati Reds ever had and potentially in the top five of all
> > time. Again just my opinion- but I would dare someone to name a Red
> > since Pete that it even was a discussion worth having. 
>
> I wasn't saying anything about Pete's baserunning, just making the
> point that hustle and showing off are not exclusive. However, since
> you bring it up...
>
> Pete Rose was not a good baserunner. He's the perfect example of
> someone who is overaggressive on the bases. For his career, he was
> successful just 57% of the times he tried to steal. That is just a
> terrible rate. Most folks will say that a success rate of 80% is the
> break-even point to make it worth your while. If Pete had stolen
> bases at that rate, he'd have stolen an additional 80 bases in his
> career. Sure, sometimes he took advantage in going first-to-third and
> things like that, but that's just part of the equation - many other
> times he gave away outs he didn't have to.
>
> IMO, Pete always played hard but he certainly didn't always play
> smart. Considering he spent much of his career hitting ahead of three
> Hall of Famers, Rose would have actually scored more runs through his
> career if he had never attempted a steal or tried to stretch a double
> into a triple. Honestly, if you're batting in front of Morgan, Bench,
> Perez and Foster, getting thrown out on the bases is the absolute last
> thing you want to do.
>
> If you want a Red since Rose, I say that Barry Larkin was hands down a
> much better baserunner. Not even close, IMO.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well Tom I was wrong in the fact that even though I was talking about
baserunning I assumed (my bad) that since we were talking about Pete
that I wasn't talking about stolen bases. Of course that could be the
only arguement that would side with yourself on that. Anyone that
watched Rose play knew he didn't have blazing speed or extremely fast
'take off power' so too speak. I guess we will just agree to disagree
but I know my eyes and the stats don't lie and I am in pretty good
company in the belief about what I stated. I heard not only Marty B.
but Tracy Jones/ Johnny Bench of all people and get this Willie
Stargell in an interview say the same thing. I had noticed through
some of your various posts that you weren't/aren't really a Pete Rose
fan so I can see why you would say what you did. But I know this.
There is no one I would have wanted leaving the batters box when a
ball was hit towards the gap nor going from first to third nor
stretching a double into a triple. That's why I don't post much in
this group. Still a great group though. Root on those losers and I
will be watching a 'real team' play starting this weekend slowly
sipping my coffee with a grin.
Barry Larkin? <shaking my head and rolling my eyes> |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Aug 05, 2008
Posts: 17
|
(Msg. 17) Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 1:32 am
Post subject: Re: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Aug 5, 7:01 pm, "Bob Braun" <oxin... RemoveThis @hotandsunnymail.com> wrote:
> ************************response******************
> Base running isn't limited to stealing bases. Taking an extra base is where
> Rose excelled. That threat, translated into players making hurried and bad
> throws, as well.
Bob. You brought me back.  After responding to Tom and hitting the
send button I wasn't even going to look at this group again till next
season when everyone would say the same things they do every year.
>
> His base stealing is inconsequential.
Exactly my point. I didn't think I had to 'literally' say in speaking
of baserunning with Pete that I wasn't talking about swiping
sacks.<sigh> But I guess you have to in a group like this or the stat
people will pick you apart *even though* you physically watched him
play in Cincinnati x number of years and bring Phillie their world
championship.
Pete Rose rarely, if ever had the
> 'green light' to steal a base. The decision to have Pete Rose attempt a
> steal came from the dugout. In fact Sparky used to belabor the point, the
> ONLY 'green light' on the team was Joe Morgan.
Indeed - I have read in print and heard Sparky say that- which leads
me to this also because I forgot. Sparky himself said in an interview
in either 77 or 78 that there was NO ONE he would wanted running the
bases than Peter Rose. I guess Sparky could come on WLW tomorrow and
say it again but unfortunately it isn't going to matter to some.
>
> His sprinting to first was indeed a 'look at me' deal. He did it to catch
> the eye of Fred Hutchinson. It worked. Opposing players made fun of it, so
> he kept doing it.
>
> There is nothing wrong with being a hot dog, if you can back it up.
I agree but once the other teams saw he wasn't going to change - IMO-
it put opposing teams on notice that when he was on the bases that
they better bring their A game because if they didn't he was going to
make them pay.
Brandon
> Phillips is a hot dog. While having flashes of brilliance, he fills voids
> with lip service. He's starting to take shape as 'I'll be the star, if I
> can eliminate the other stars.'
>
> That doesn't enter the same hemisphere with Pete Rose. Pete wanted to be
> immersed in stars, and make them all, better.
I was going to break up your statement but it would have been doing
you a diservice. That was just about as well said as possible. Tom was
'hinting' that Pete actually took away or could have done even better
by letting the others do more. Oh quit it...lol. Brandon Phillips?-
dude- I know it doesn't matter to you and that's fine but you will/are
lose all credibility. Does someone have to actually say this? OK- I
will say it. The Cincinnati Reds have NOT a 'leader' a 'captain' since
Pete Rose. Just because you have the 'C' on your jersey doesn't mean a
thing to me. You can't be a captain of your team and go behind backs
of others to promote your own agendas IMO. You put team first. Barry
Larkin played the part and conned the majority but he didn't con me.
Can you picture Pete Rose knowlingly hamstringing the team and payroll
by 'forcing' them soo to speak into inking him a contract he didn't
deserve while taking real payroll away that could have helped the ball
club? I know the answer to that.
>
> You can bang Pete Rose, for not being smart with personal decisions, but
> saying he didn't play smart is preposterous. Compared to Votto & Dunn, he's
> Einstein
I know one can always attack Pete for what he did and that would be
valid, but that is the only thing/arguement they can draw on. I don't
live in the past when it comes to Reds baseball. It is just that my
baseball iq is high enough to know a winner before the end of the
first month of the season - sometimes faster than that. The scouting
report said he couldn't hit/ run/ throw..... he 'made' himself through
hard work into what he was. I loved all the players of that era and I
know losing Tony Perez was huge to that team- but when Rose left- that
team and this city baseball wise was never the same. He took and
imposed his will on Philadelphia and turned them into champions- the
winning ways returned to the Nati' when none other than Pete Rose came
back. Nuff' said IMO. Them are the facts and they are undisputable.
Good post Bob. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 05, 2008
Posts: 17
|
(Msg. 18) Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 1:36 am
Post subject: Re: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Aug 5, 9:35 pm, tom dunne <dunn....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 7:01 pm, "Bob Braun" <oxin....RemoveThis@hotandsunnymail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "tom dunne" <dunn....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:d527f50e-949f-437d-b19c-485d190ed95d@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com....
> > On Aug 5, 4:32 pm, BenchMade <gk....RemoveThis@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 5, 3:30 pm, tom dunne <dunn....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I can see that a lot of stars don't hustle, but amongst younger or
> > > > lesser established players, lots of guys do. That said, I also don't
> > > > use Pete Rose as my measuring stick for hustle. Running to first base
> > > > on a walk is nothing about winning games and all about "look @ me."
> > > > I'd rather have a player like Tony Gwynn (preferrably a less hefty
> > > > one) who spends tons of hours in preparation and improving his
> > > > skillset for the game than have one who goes kamikaze during the game.
>
> > > > Granted, I don't think the Reds have either of these kinds of guys.
>
> > > Tom - Pete set the bar by letting the opposing team know that he would
> > > sprint to first base - was there hot dog involved? Of course. But I
> > > have 'never' and I think Marty B. said almost the same thing - that
> > > Peter Rose was 'The Best' baserunner he/I ever saw. Not because of his
> > > speed but because of his hustle. Case in point IMO- there has yet to
> > > IMO be another ball player since Pete that consistently will pressure
> > > an outfielder to charge the ball and make a quick throw EVERY time
> > > they are running towards first after a base hit. I have 'never' seen
> > > another ball player- none- that could go from first to third like
> > > Pete- it is an uncanny knowledge that todays players may have but not
> > > utilize 'every' time. Very few of Pete's triples - IMO of course- were
> > > solid triples where they were no doubters. My guess would estimate
> > > that over 45-50% were just doubles that Pete 'imposed' into triples.
> > > Again- this is all my opinion. But at the time he was underestimated
> > > as a baserunner but now that time and history has taken care of itself
> > > I feel it is safe to say that Pete Rose -IMO- was the best baserunner
> > > the Cincinnati Reds ever had and potentially in the top five of all
> > > time. Again just my opinion- but I would dare someone to name a Red
> > > since Pete that it even was a discussion worth having.
>
> > I wasn't saying anything about Pete's baserunning, just making the
> > point that hustle and showing off are not exclusive. However, since
> > you bring it up...
>
> > Pete Rose was not a good baserunner. He's the perfect example of
> > someone who is overaggressive on the bases. For his career, he was
> > successful just 57% of the times he tried to steal. That is just a
> > terrible rate. Most folks will say that a success rate of 80% is the
> > break-even point to make it worth your while. If Pete had stolen
> > bases at that rate, he'd have stolen an additional 80 bases in his
> > career. Sure, sometimes he took advantage in going first-to-third and
> > things like that, but that's just part of the equation - many other
> > times he gave away outs he didn't have to.
>
> > IMO, Pete always played hard but he certainly didn't always play
> > smart. Considering he spent much of his career hitting ahead of three
> > Hall of Famers, Rose would have actually scored more runs through his
> > career if he had never attempted a steal or tried to stretch a double
> > into a triple. Honestly, if you're batting in front of Morgan, Bench,
> > Perez and Foster, getting thrown out on the bases is the absolute last
> > thing you want to do.
>
> > If you want a Red since Rose, I say that Barry Larkin was hands down a
> > much better baserunner. Not even close, IMO.
>
> > ************************response******************
> > Base running isn't limited to stealing bases. Taking an extra base is where
> > Rose excelled. That threat, translated into players making hurried and bad
> > throws, as well.
>
> > His base stealing is inconsequential. Pete Rose rarely, if ever had the
> > 'green light' to steal a base. The decision to have Pete Rose attempt a
> > steal came from the dugout. In fact Sparky used to belabor the point, the
> > ONLY 'green light' on the team was Joe Morgan.
>
> > His sprinting to first was indeed a 'look at me' deal. He did it to catch
> > the eye of Fred Hutchinson. It worked. Opposing players made fun of it, so
> > he kept doing it.
>
> > There is nothing wrong with being a hot dog, if you can back it up. Brandon
> > Phillips is a hot dog. While having flashes of brilliance, he fills voids
> > with lip service. He's starting to take shape as 'I'll be the star, if I
> > can eliminate the other stars.'
>
> > That doesn't enter the same hemisphere with Pete Rose. Pete wanted to be
> > immersed in stars, and make them all, better.
>
> > You can bang Pete Rose, for not being smart with personal decisions, but
> > saying he didn't play smart is preposterous. Compared to Votto & Dunn, he's
> > Einstein.
>
> A 'smart' player is one who adjust to the situation - aggressive when
> it's appropriate, cautious when it's appropriate. He didn't play
> smart, he played aggressive, which manages to look smart when it
> works. He sometimes stretch doubles into triples, sure, but being on
> third isn't a huge advantage when you've got a murderers row hitting
> behind you. The BRM wasn't about manufacturing runs, they were about
> mashing the hell out of the ball. Maybe sometimes Rose scored on a
> sac fly he wouldn't have. Other times, potential run scoring doubles
> amounted to nothing because he'd gotten himself thrown out trying to
> take what wasn't there. He hit ahead of literally one of the most
> potent lineups in the history of baseball; getting on and *staying
> there* is what mattered, not trading outs for an occasional base here
> and there. If any team in living memory didn't need a leadoff guy
> pressing his luck on the bases, it's that Reds team.
>
> As to the green light issue, that argument makes it worse rather than
> better. If a guy is left to run on his own, I see that he might make
> bad decisions more frequently. If he only goes when the dugout allows
> him, I assume that means in safer or more advantageous situations -
> his manager isn't letting him run if he thinks he hasn't got a chance,
> right? Even with managerial oversight, Rose failed in those
> situations more than 40% of the time. A green light doesn't mean he
> was forced to run, it means he was allowed to take a chance and he
> converted those chances barely half the time.
>
> Comparing him to Votto and Dunn? Okay: compared to Greg Maddux and
> Tony Gwynn, Pete Rose is an idiot.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I will not post any more to this guy. It is easy to recognize that he
has a dislike and agenda to the greatest player that ever put on the
Cincinnati uniform. It's sad actually. Have fun in your 'right' world
Tom. Brandon Phillips....lol...Barry Larkin....it's almost not even
fair so I won't. >> Stay informed about: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 05, 2008
Posts: 17
|
(Msg. 19) Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 1:42 am
Post subject: Re: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Aug 5, 9:38 pm, "Bob Braun" <oxin....DeleteThis@hotandsunnymail.com> wrote:
> "tom dunne" <dunn....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a526741a-c464-4c41-8076-e3e958e69d5b@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 5, 7:01 pm, "Bob Braun" <oxin....DeleteThis@hotandsunnymail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "tom dunne" <dunn....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:d527f50e-949f-437d-b19c-485d190ed95d@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com....
> > On Aug 5, 4:32 pm, BenchMade <gk....DeleteThis@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 5, 3:30 pm, tom dunne <dunn....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I can see that a lot of stars don't hustle, but amongst younger or
> > > > lesser established players, lots of guys do. That said, I also don't
> > > > use Pete Rose as my measuring stick for hustle. Running to first base
> > > > on a walk is nothing about winning games and all about "look @ me."
> > > > I'd rather have a player like Tony Gwynn (preferrably a less hefty
> > > > one) who spends tons of hours in preparation and improving his
> > > > skillset for the game than have one who goes kamikaze during the game.
>
> > > > Granted, I don't think the Reds have either of these kinds of guys.
>
> > > Tom - Pete set the bar by letting the opposing team know that he would
> > > sprint to first base - was there hot dog involved? Of course. But I
> > > have 'never' and I think Marty B. said almost the same thing - that
> > > Peter Rose was 'The Best' baserunner he/I ever saw. Not because of his
> > > speed but because of his hustle. Case in point IMO- there has yet to
> > > IMO be another ball player since Pete that consistently will pressure
> > > an outfielder to charge the ball and make a quick throw EVERY time
> > > they are running towards first after a base hit. I have 'never' seen
> > > another ball player- none- that could go from first to third like
> > > Pete- it is an uncanny knowledge that todays players may have but not
> > > utilize 'every' time. Very few of Pete's triples - IMO of course- were
> > > solid triples where they were no doubters. My guess would estimate
> > > that over 45-50% were just doubles that Pete 'imposed' into triples.
> > > Again- this is all my opinion. But at the time he was underestimated
> > > as a baserunner but now that time and history has taken care of itself
> > > I feel it is safe to say that Pete Rose -IMO- was the best baserunner
> > > the Cincinnati Reds ever had and potentially in the top five of all
> > > time. Again just my opinion- but I would dare someone to name a Red
> > > since Pete that it even was a discussion worth having.
>
> > I wasn't saying anything about Pete's baserunning, just making the
> > point that hustle and showing off are not exclusive. However, since
> > you bring it up...
>
> > Pete Rose was not a good baserunner. He's the perfect example of
> > someone who is overaggressive on the bases. For his career, he was
> > successful just 57% of the times he tried to steal. That is just a
> > terrible rate. Most folks will say that a success rate of 80% is the
> > break-even point to make it worth your while. If Pete had stolen
> > bases at that rate, he'd have stolen an additional 80 bases in his
> > career. Sure, sometimes he took advantage in going first-to-third and
> > things like that, but that's just part of the equation - many other
> > times he gave away outs he didn't have to.
>
> > IMO, Pete always played hard but he certainly didn't always play
> > smart. Considering he spent much of his career hitting ahead of three
> > Hall of Famers, Rose would have actually scored more runs through his
> > career if he had never attempted a steal or tried to stretch a double
> > into a triple. Honestly, if you're batting in front of Morgan, Bench,
> > Perez and Foster, getting thrown out on the bases is the absolute last
> > thing you want to do.
>
> > If you want a Red since Rose, I say that Barry Larkin was hands down a
> > much better baserunner. Not even close, IMO.
>
> > ************************response******************
> > Base running isn't limited to stealing bases. Taking an extra base is
> > where
> > Rose excelled. That threat, translated into players making hurried and bad
> > throws, as well.
>
> > His base stealing is inconsequential. Pete Rose rarely, if ever had the
> > 'green light' to steal a base. The decision to have Pete Rose attempt a
> > steal came from the dugout. In fact Sparky used to belabor the point, the
> > ONLY 'green light' on the team was Joe Morgan.
>
> > His sprinting to first was indeed a 'look at me' deal. He did it to catch
> > the eye of Fred Hutchinson. It worked. Opposing players made fun of it, so
> > he kept doing it.
>
> > There is nothing wrong with being a hot dog, if you can back it up.
> > Brandon
> > Phillips is a hot dog. While having flashes of brilliance, he fills voids
> > with lip service. He's starting to take shape as 'I'll be the star, if I
> > can eliminate the other stars.'
>
> > That doesn't enter the same hemisphere with Pete Rose. Pete wanted to be
> > immersed in stars, and make them all, better.
>
> > You can bang Pete Rose, for not being smart with personal decisions, but
> > saying he didn't play smart is preposterous. Compared to Votto & Dunn,
> > he's
> > Einstein.
>
> A 'smart' player is one who adjust to the situation - aggressive when
> it's appropriate, cautious when it's appropriate. He didn't play
> smart, he played aggressive, which manages to look smart when it
> works. He sometimes stretch doubles into triples, sure, but being on
> third isn't a huge advantage when you've got a murderers row hitting
> behind you. The BRM wasn't about manufacturing runs, they were about
> mashing the hell out of the ball. Maybe sometimes Rose scored on a
> sac fly he wouldn't have. Other times, potential run scoring doubles
> amounted to nothing because he'd gotten himself thrown out trying to
> take what wasn't there. He hit ahead of literally one of the most
> potent lineups in the history of baseball; getting on and *staying
> there* is what mattered, not trading outs for an occasional base here
> and there. If any team in living memory didn't need a leadoff guy
> pressing his luck on the bases, it's that Reds team.
>
> As to the green light issue, that argument makes it worse rather than
> better. If a guy is left to run on his own, I see that he might make
> bad decisions more frequently. If he only goes when the dugout allows
> him, I assume that means in safer or more advantageous situations -
> his manager isn't letting him run if he thinks he hasn't got a chance,
> right? Even with managerial oversight, Rose failed in those
> situations more than 40% of the time. A green light doesn't mean he
> was forced to run, it means he was allowed to take a chance and he
> converted those chances barely half the time.
>
> Comparing him to Votto and Dunn? Okay: compared to Greg Maddux and
> Tony Gwynn, Pete Rose is an idiot.
>
> ***************************************
>
> How old are you Tom? Did you even watch Pete Rose play in the 70's?
> Because your description indicates that you don't know what the hell you are
> talking about.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I know Bob - I know. You have to know and see what I do- don't you? If
you are of at least average intelligience (which I am sure you are
from your posts) he is simply blinded by his dislike for Pete. That's
fine by me. It is sad IMO. But he is the one looking silly by saying
what he's saying an trying to convince others he is right- when if you
breathed oxygen in the 60-70-80's you knew better just by watching
him.<shaking my head> Human behavior is a trip. >> Stay informed about: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 05, 2008
Posts: 17
|
(Msg. 20) Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 1:46 am
Post subject: Re: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Aug 5, 10:27 pm, "Chuck" <chuckw....RemoveThis@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Bob Braun" <oxin....RemoveThis@hotandsunnymail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d-qdnWKg8fiFmATVnZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Chuck" <chuckw....RemoveThis@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >news:Ep7mk.5131$Ep1.326@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
> >> "Bob Braun" <oxin....RemoveThis@hotandsunnymail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:p5GdnX0_U6cvnQTVnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> >>> "tom dunne" <dunn....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:a526741a-c464-4c41-8076-e3e958e69d5b@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com....
> >>> On Aug 5, 7:01 pm, "Bob Braun" <oxin....RemoveThis@hotandsunnymail.com> wrote:
> >>>> "tom dunne" <dunn....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>>news:d527f50e-949f-437d-b19c-485d190ed95d@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> On Aug 5, 4:32 pm, BenchMade <gk....RemoveThis@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> > On Aug 5, 3:30 pm, tom dunne <dunn....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> > > I can see that a lot of stars don't hustle, but amongst younger or
> >>>> > > lesser established players, lots of guys do. That said, I also
> >>>> > > don't
> >>>> > > use Pete Rose as my measuring stick for hustle. Running to first
> >>>> > > base
> >>>> > > on a walk is nothing about winning games and all about "look @ me."
> >>>> > > I'd rather have a player like Tony Gwynn (preferrably a less hefty
> >>>> > > one) who spends tons of hours in preparation and improving his
> >>>> > > skillset for the game than have one who goes kamikaze during the
> >>>> > > game.
>
> >>>> > > Granted, I don't think the Reds have either of these kinds of guys.
>
> >>>> > Tom - Pete set the bar by letting the opposing team know that he
> >>>> > would
> >>>> > sprint to first base - was there hot dog involved? Of course. But I
> >>>> > have 'never' and I think Marty B. said almost the same thing - that
> >>>> > Peter Rose was 'The Best' baserunner he/I ever saw. Not because of
> >>>> > his
> >>>> > speed but because of his hustle. Case in point IMO- there has yet to
> >>>> > IMO be another ball player since Pete that consistently will pressure
> >>>> > an outfielder to charge the ball and make a quick throw EVERY time
> >>>> > they are running towards first after a base hit. I have 'never' seen
> >>>> > another ball player- none- that could go from first to third like
> >>>> > Pete- it is an uncanny knowledge that todays players may have but not
> >>>> > utilize 'every' time. Very few of Pete's triples - IMO of course-
> >>>> > were
> >>>> > solid triples where they were no doubters. My guess would estimate
> >>>> > that over 45-50% were just doubles that Pete 'imposed' into triples.
> >>>> > Again- this is all my opinion. But at the time he was underestimated
> >>>> > as a baserunner but now that time and history has taken care of
> >>>> > itself
> >>>> > I feel it is safe to say that Pete Rose -IMO- was the best baserunner
> >>>> > the Cincinnati Reds ever had and potentially in the top five of all
> >>>> > time. Again just my opinion- but I would dare someone to name a Red
> >>>> > since Pete that it even was a discussion worth having.
>
> >>>> I wasn't saying anything about Pete's baserunning, just making the
> >>>> point that hustle and showing off are not exclusive. However, since
> >>>> you bring it up...
>
> >>>> Pete Rose was not a good baserunner. He's the perfect example of
> >>>> someone who is overaggressive on the bases. For his career, he was
> >>>> successful just 57% of the times he tried to steal. That is just a
> >>>> terrible rate. Most folks will say that a success rate of 80% is the
> >>>> break-even point to make it worth your while. If Pete had stolen
> >>>> bases at that rate, he'd have stolen an additional 80 bases in his
> >>>> career. Sure, sometimes he took advantage in going first-to-third and
> >>>> things like that, but that's just part of the equation - many other
> >>>> times he gave away outs he didn't have to.
>
> >>>> IMO, Pete always played hard but he certainly didn't always play
> >>>> smart. Considering he spent much of his career hitting ahead of three
> >>>> Hall of Famers, Rose would have actually scored more runs through his
> >>>> career if he had never attempted a steal or tried to stretch a double
> >>>> into a triple. Honestly, if you're batting in front of Morgan, Bench,
> >>>> Perez and Foster, getting thrown out on the bases is the absolute last
> >>>> thing you want to do.
>
> >>>> If you want a Red since Rose, I say that Barry Larkin was hands down a
> >>>> much better baserunner. Not even close, IMO.
>
> >>>> ************************response******************
> >>>> Base running isn't limited to stealing bases. Taking an extra base is
> >>>> where
> >>>> Rose excelled. That threat, translated into players making hurried and
> >>>> bad
> >>>> throws, as well.
>
> >>>> His base stealing is inconsequential. Pete Rose rarely, if ever had the
> >>>> 'green light' to steal a base. The decision to have Pete Rose attempt a
> >>>> steal came from the dugout. In fact Sparky used to belabor the point,
> >>>> the
> >>>> ONLY 'green light' on the team was Joe Morgan.
>
> >>>> His sprinting to first was indeed a 'look at me' deal. He did it to
> >>>> catch
> >>>> the eye of Fred Hutchinson. It worked. Opposing players made fun of it,
> >>>> so
> >>>> he kept doing it.
>
> >>>> There is nothing wrong with being a hot dog, if you can back it up.
> >>>> Brandon
> >>>> Phillips is a hot dog. While having flashes of brilliance, he fills
> >>>> voids
> >>>> with lip service. He's starting to take shape as 'I'll be the star, if
> >>>> I
> >>>> can eliminate the other stars.'
>
> >>>> That doesn't enter the same hemisphere with Pete Rose. Pete wanted to
> >>>> be
> >>>> immersed in stars, and make them all, better.
>
> >>>> You can bang Pete Rose, for not being smart with personal decisions,
> >>>> but
> >>>> saying he didn't play smart is preposterous. Compared to Votto & Dunn,
> >>>> he's
> >>>> Einstein.
>
> >>> A 'smart' player is one who adjust to the situation - aggressive when
> >>> it's appropriate, cautious when it's appropriate. He didn't play
> >>> smart, he played aggressive, which manages to look smart when it
> >>> works. He sometimes stretch doubles into triples, sure, but being on
> >>> third isn't a huge advantage when you've got a murderers row hitting
> >>> behind you. The BRM wasn't about manufacturing runs, they were about
> >>> mashing the hell out of the ball. Maybe sometimes Rose scored on a
> >>> sac fly he wouldn't have. Other times, potential run scoring doubles
> >>> amounted to nothing because he'd gotten himself thrown out trying to
> >>> take what wasn't there. He hit ahead of literally one of the most
> >>> potent lineups in the history of baseball; getting on and *staying
> >>> there* is what mattered, not trading outs for an occasional base here
> >>> and there. If any team in living memory didn't need a leadoff guy
> >>> pressing his luck on the bases, it's that Reds team.
>
> >>> As to the green light issue, that argument makes it worse rather than
> >>> better. If a guy is left to run on his own, I see that he might make
> >>> bad decisions more frequently. If he only goes when the dugout allows
> >>> him, I assume that means in safer or more advantageous situations -
> >>> his manager isn't letting him run if he thinks he hasn't got a chance,
> >>> right? Even with managerial oversight, Rose failed in those
> >>> situations more than 40% of the time. A green light doesn't mean he
> >>> was forced to run, it means he was allowed to take a chance and he
> >>> converted those chances barely half the time.
>
> >>> Comparing him to Votto and Dunn? Okay: compared to Greg Maddux and
> >>> Tony Gwynn, Pete Rose is an idiot.
>
> >>> ***************************************
>
> >>> How old are you Tom? Did you even watch Pete Rose play in the 70's?
> >>> Because your description indicates that you don't know what the hell you
> >>> are talking about.
>
> >> LOL I miss Johnny Bench , saw an old tape of him the other day... He
> >> was incredible, I had forgotten how far above today's catchers he was in
> >> his prime! I didn't watch tonight's game, but checking the score our
> >> new ace has really sucked since the all star game
>
> > Yup. Arroyo has probably been the best since the break. This franchise
> > is a wreck.
>
> Don't ya get tired of saying wait till next year? Hell at 57 ya never know
> if there is a next year LOL Guess I will pull for sweet Lou,s Cubs!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The key is I don't wait till next season. I look at who they have/had-
who they will have/had and know without a doubt what will happen
before it happens. 4-5 game win streaks mean nothing to me. This team
will not win next season either, isn't that something? I know that-
you'd think I was a genius...lol. Unless WJ cleans house and they
spend money 'smartly' but you can't teach 'effort' or 'desire' sad to
say. >> Stay informed about: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 05, 2008
Posts: 17
|
(Msg. 21) Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 1:50 am
Post subject: Re: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Aug 5, 11:31 pm, tom dunne <dunn....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 11:19 pm, "Bob Braun" <oxin....TakeThisOut@hotandsunnymail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > >As to the green light issue, that argument makes it worse rather than
> > >better. If a guy is left to run on his own, I see that he might make
> > >bad decisions more frequently. If he only goes when the dugout allows
> > >him, I assume that means in safer or more advantageous situations -
> > >his manager isn't letting him run if he thinks he hasn't got a chance,
> > >right? Even with managerial oversight, Rose failed in those
> > >situations more than 40% of the time. A green light doesn't mean he
> > >was forced to run, it means he was allowed to take a chance and he
> > >converted those chances barely half the time.
>
> > Huh? The 'green light' means he can attempt a steal anytime he feels it is
> > appropriate.
> > Morgan was the only player afforded that privilege.
>
> > Rose was running when given the sign to run. The dugout is not 'allowing'
> > him to
> > run, they are TELLING him to run. That's not 'if you happen to feel like
> > it'.
> > You are to run on the next pitch, period! It has nothing to do with the
> > smarts of
> > the player.
>
> > If Dusty Baker tells Valentine to steal 10 times, and he gets thrown out 8
> > of them,
> > that doesn't make Valentine the dummy.
>
> > Rose sparked rallys, he didn't kill them. Give me a stat citing how often
> > Rose made
> > the 1st or 3rd out at third base. Anderson encouraged aggressive play, and
> > nobody
> > can argue the results.
>
> Nope, I've got to yield to your age on this one. I've only watched
> Rose's games on tape, read about him and looked at his numbers. It's
> a shame we can't have valid opinions on players we didn't see play in
> person, but that's the rule. Thanks for calling me on that one, I
> almost forgot my place!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh sheesh.......OK I will bite me lip this time. You have no idea what
you missed .........but oh yeah I have those stats. <sigh> Makes a
'little' more sense I suppose but it is still no excuse IMO. >> Stay informed about: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 07, 2006
Posts: 410
|
(Msg. 22) Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:49 am
Post subject: Re: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:49:51 -0700 (PDT), tom dunne <dunnetg.DeleteThis@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Aug 5, 4:32 pm, BenchMade <gk....DeleteThis@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Aug 5, 3:30 pm, tom dunne <dunn....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I can see that a lot of stars don't hustle, but amongst younger or
>> > lesser established players, lots of guys do. That said, I also don't
>> > use Pete Rose as my measuring stick for hustle. Running to first base
>> > on a walk is nothing about winning games and all about "look @ me."
>> > I'd rather have a player like Tony Gwynn (preferrably a less hefty
>> > one) who spends tons of hours in preparation and improving his
>> > skillset for the game than have one who goes kamikaze during the game.
>>
>> > Granted, I don't think the Reds have either of these kinds of guys.
>>
>> Tom - Pete set the bar by letting the opposing team know that he would
>> sprint to first base - was there hot dog involved? Of course. But I
>> have 'never' and I think Marty B. said almost the same thing - that
>> Peter Rose was 'The Best' baserunner he/I ever saw. Not because of his
>> speed but because of his hustle. Case in point IMO- there has yet to
>> IMO be another ball player since Pete that consistently will pressure
>> an outfielder to charge the ball and make a quick throw EVERY time
>> they are running towards first after a base hit. I have 'never' seen
>> another ball player- none- that could go from first to third like
>> Pete- it is an uncanny knowledge that todays players may have but not
>> utilize 'every' time. Very few of Pete's triples - IMO of course- were
>> solid triples where they were no doubters. My guess would estimate
>> that over 45-50% were just doubles that Pete 'imposed' into triples.
>> Again- this is all my opinion. But at the time he was underestimated
>> as a baserunner but now that time and history has taken care of itself
>> I feel it is safe to say that Pete Rose -IMO- was the best baserunner
>> the Cincinnati Reds ever had and potentially in the top five of all
>> time. Again just my opinion- but I would dare someone to name a Red
>> since Pete that it even was a discussion worth having.
>
>I wasn't saying anything about Pete's baserunning, just making the
>point that hustle and showing off are not exclusive. However, since
>you bring it up...
>
>Pete Rose was not a good baserunner. He's the perfect example of
>someone who is overaggressive on the bases. For his career, he was
>successful just 57% of the times he tried to steal. That is just a
>terrible rate. Most folks will say that a success rate of 80% is the
>break-even point to make it worth your while. If Pete had stolen
>bases at that rate, he'd have stolen an additional 80 bases in his
>career. Sure, sometimes he took advantage in going first-to-third and
>things like that, but that's just part of the equation - many other
>times he gave away outs he didn't have to.
>
>IMO, Pete always played hard but he certainly didn't always play
>smart. Considering he spent much of his career hitting ahead of three
>Hall of Famers, Rose would have actually scored more runs through his
>career if he had never attempted a steal or tried to stretch a double
>into a triple. Honestly, if you're batting in front of Morgan, Bench,
>Perez and Foster, getting thrown out on the bases is the absolute last
>thing you want to do.
>
>If you want a Red since Rose, I say that Barry Larkin was hands down a
>much better baserunner. Not even close, IMO.
And Eric Davis.
Injuries curtailed their abilities at (too frequent) times, but those
guys both knew how to use their natural abilities to their fullest with
smart baserunning that was aggressive when it needed to be and not when
it was counter productive to be. In his prime, Davis probably could have
stolen 100 bases in a season.
I believe Eric may still be the most successful base stealer of all
time, with Barry not far behind.
Certainly, nobody could ever accuse Ryan Freel of not hustling, but...
******************************************************************
Kevin McClave
"To justify himself, each relies on
the other's crime." ~Albert Camus
****************************************************************** >> Stay informed about: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 07, 2006
Posts: 410
|
(Msg. 23) Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:52 am
Post subject: Re: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 19:01:27 -0400, "Bob Braun"
<oxinfla.RemoveThis@hotandsunnymail.com> wrote:
>You can bang Pete Rose, for not being smart with personal decisions, but
>saying he didn't play smart is preposterous. Compared to Votto & Dunn, he's
>Einstein.
That's a big ol' strawman, since nobody was comparing him to Votto and
Dunn. He was, however, compared to a potential future Hall of Famer.
******************************************************************
Kevin McClave
"To justify himself, each relies on
the other's crime." ~Albert Camus
****************************************************************** >> Stay informed about: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 07, 2006
Posts: 410
|
(Msg. 24) Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:01 pm
Post subject: Re: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 01:32:48 -0700 (PDT), BenchMade <gkotr.RemoveThis@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>Can you picture Pete Rose knowlingly hamstringing the team
Uhhh....
******************************************************************
Kevin McClave
"To justify himself, each relies on
the other's crime." ~Albert Camus
****************************************************************** >> Stay informed about: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 07, 2006
Posts: 410
|
(Msg. 25) Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:27 pm
Post subject: Re: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 01:32:48 -0700 (PDT), BenchMade <gkotr.RemoveThis@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> I loved all the players of that era and I
>know losing Tony Perez was huge to that team- but when Rose left- that
>team and this city baseball wise was never the same. He took and
>imposed his will on Philadelphia and turned them into champions- the
>winning ways returned to the Nati' when none other than Pete Rose came
>back. Nuff' said IMO. Them are the facts and they are undisputable.
>Good post Bob.
Well, except the 1979 team won 90 games and the diviision, the '80 team
89 games, and the 1981 Reds had the best record in baseball.
If you want to play correlation equals causation, you could make a much
better and more direct case for Ken Griffey being the Magic Man whose
departure caused the Reds to lose, and who's return led to their winning
another title in 1990.
******************************************************************
Kevin McClave
"To justify himself, each relies on
the other's crime." ~Albert Camus
****************************************************************** >> Stay informed about: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 09, 2007
Posts: 302
|
(Msg. 26) Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 1:34 pm
Post subject: Re: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Aug 6, 4:36 am, BenchMade <gk... DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 9:35 pm, tom dunne <dunn... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 5, 7:01 pm, "Bob Braun" <oxin... DeleteThis @hotandsunnymail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "tom dunne" <dunn... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:d527f50e-949f-437d-b19c-485d190ed95d@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Aug 5, 4:32 pm, BenchMade <gk... DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 5, 3:30 pm, tom dunne <dunn... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I can see that a lot of stars don't hustle, but amongst younger or
> > > > > lesser established players, lots of guys do. That said, I also don't
> > > > > use Pete Rose as my measuring stick for hustle. Running to first base
> > > > > on a walk is nothing about winning games and all about "look @ me."
> > > > > I'd rather have a player like Tony Gwynn (preferrably a less hefty
> > > > > one) who spends tons of hours in preparation and improving his
> > > > > skillset for the game than have one who goes kamikaze during the game.
>
> > > > > Granted, I don't think the Reds have either of these kinds of guys.
>
> > > > Tom - Pete set the bar by letting the opposing team know that he would
> > > > sprint to first base - was there hot dog involved? Of course. But I
> > > > have 'never' and I think Marty B. said almost the same thing - that
> > > > Peter Rose was 'The Best' baserunner he/I ever saw. Not because of his
> > > > speed but because of his hustle. Case in point IMO- there has yet to
> > > > IMO be another ball player since Pete that consistently will pressure
> > > > an outfielder to charge the ball and make a quick throw EVERY time
> > > > they are running towards first after a base hit. I have 'never' seen
> > > > another ball player- none- that could go from first to third like
> > > > Pete- it is an uncanny knowledge that todays players may have but not
> > > > utilize 'every' time. Very few of Pete's triples - IMO of course- were
> > > > solid triples where they were no doubters. My guess would estimate
> > > > that over 45-50% were just doubles that Pete 'imposed' into triples.
> > > > Again- this is all my opinion. But at the time he was underestimated
> > > > as a baserunner but now that time and history has taken care of itself
> > > > I feel it is safe to say that Pete Rose -IMO- was the best baserunner
> > > > the Cincinnati Reds ever had and potentially in the top five of all
> > > > time. Again just my opinion- but I would dare someone to name a Red
> > > > since Pete that it even was a discussion worth having.
>
> > > I wasn't saying anything about Pete's baserunning, just making the
> > > point that hustle and showing off are not exclusive. However, since
> > > you bring it up...
>
> > > Pete Rose was not a good baserunner. He's the perfect example of
> > > someone who is overaggressive on the bases. For his career, he was
> > > successful just 57% of the times he tried to steal. That is just a
> > > terrible rate. Most folks will say that a success rate of 80% is the
> > > break-even point to make it worth your while. If Pete had stolen
> > > bases at that rate, he'd have stolen an additional 80 bases in his
> > > career. Sure, sometimes he took advantage in going first-to-third and
> > > things like that, but that's just part of the equation - many other
> > > times he gave away outs he didn't have to.
>
> > > IMO, Pete always played hard but he certainly didn't always play
> > > smart. Considering he spent much of his career hitting ahead of three
> > > Hall of Famers, Rose would have actually scored more runs through his
> > > career if he had never attempted a steal or tried to stretch a double
> > > into a triple. Honestly, if you're batting in front of Morgan, Bench,
> > > Perez and Foster, getting thrown out on the bases is the absolute last
> > > thing you want to do.
>
> > > If you want a Red since Rose, I say that Barry Larkin was hands down a
> > > much better baserunner. Not even close, IMO.
>
> > > ************************response******************
> > > Base running isn't limited to stealing bases. Taking an extra base is where
> > > Rose excelled. That threat, translated into players making hurried and bad
> > > throws, as well.
>
> > > His base stealing is inconsequential. Pete Rose rarely, if ever had the
> > > 'green light' to steal a base. The decision to have Pete Rose attempt a
> > > steal came from the dugout. In fact Sparky used to belabor the point, the
> > > ONLY 'green light' on the team was Joe Morgan.
>
> > > His sprinting to first was indeed a 'look at me' deal. He did it to catch
> > > the eye of Fred Hutchinson. It worked. Opposing players made fun of it, so
> > > he kept doing it.
>
> > > There is nothing wrong with being a hot dog, if you can back it up. Brandon
> > > Phillips is a hot dog. While having flashes of brilliance, he fills voids
> > > with lip service. He's starting to take shape as 'I'll be the star, if I
> > > can eliminate the other stars.'
>
> > > That doesn't enter the same hemisphere with Pete Rose. Pete wanted to be
> > > immersed in stars, and make them all, better.
>
> > > You can bang Pete Rose, for not being smart with personal decisions, but
> > > saying he didn't play smart is preposterous. Compared to Votto & Dunn, he's
> > > Einstein.
>
> > A 'smart' player is one who adjust to the situation - aggressive when
> > it's appropriate, cautious when it's appropriate. He didn't play
> > smart, he played aggressive, which manages to look smart when it
> > works. He sometimes stretch doubles into triples, sure, but being on
> > third isn't a huge advantage when you've got a murderers row hitting
> > behind you. The BRM wasn't about manufacturing runs, they were about
> > mashing the hell out of the ball. Maybe sometimes Rose scored on a
> > sac fly he wouldn't have. Other times, potential run scoring doubles
> > amounted to nothing because he'd gotten himself thrown out trying to
> > take what wasn't there. He hit ahead of literally one of the most
> > potent lineups in the history of baseball; getting on and *staying
> > there* is what mattered, not trading outs for an occasional base here
> > and there. If any team in living memory didn't need a leadoff guy
> > pressing his luck on the bases, it's that Reds team.
>
> > As to the green light issue, that argument makes it worse rather than
> > better. If a guy is left to run on his own, I see that he might make
> > bad decisions more frequently. If he only goes when the dugout allows
> > him, I assume that means in safer or more advantageous situations -
> > his manager isn't letting him run if he thinks he hasn't got a chance,
> > right? Even with managerial oversight, Rose failed in those
> > situations more than 40% of the time. A green light doesn't mean he
> > was forced to run, it means he was allowed to take a chance and he
> > converted those chances barely half the time.
>
> > Comparing him to Votto and Dunn? Okay: compared to Greg Maddux and
> > Tony Gwynn, Pete Rose is an idiot.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I will not post any more to this guy. It is easy to recognize that he
> has a dislike and agenda to the greatest player that ever put on the
> Cincinnati uniform. It's sad actually. Have fun in your 'right' world
> Tom. Brandon Phillips....lol...Barry Larkin....it's almost not even
> fair so I won't.
Oh dear, it looks like I'm off the Chistmas card list. >> Stay informed about: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 09, 2007
Posts: 302
|
(Msg. 27) Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 1:43 pm
Post subject: Re: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Aug 6, 11:49 am, Kevin McClave <kmccl....RemoveThis@SPAM666twcny.rr.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:49:51 -0700 (PDT), tom dunne <dunn....RemoveThis@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Aug 5, 4:32 pm, BenchMade <gk....RemoveThis@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> On Aug 5, 3:30 pm, tom dunne <dunn....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > I can see that a lot of stars don't hustle, but amongst younger or
> >> > lesser established players, lots of guys do. That said, I also don't
> >> > use Pete Rose as my measuring stick for hustle. Running to first base
> >> > on a walk is nothing about winning games and all about "look @ me."
> >> > I'd rather have a player like Tony Gwynn (preferrably a less hefty
> >> > one) who spends tons of hours in preparation and improving his
> >> > skillset for the game than have one who goes kamikaze during the game.
>
> >> > Granted, I don't think the Reds have either of these kinds of guys.
>
> >> Tom - Pete set the bar by letting the opposing team know that he would
> >> sprint to first base - was there hot dog involved? Of course. But I
> >> have 'never' and I think Marty B. said almost the same thing - that
> >> Peter Rose was 'The Best' baserunner he/I ever saw. Not because of his
> >> speed but because of his hustle. Case in point IMO- there has yet to
> >> IMO be another ball player since Pete that consistently will pressure
> >> an outfielder to charge the ball and make a quick throw EVERY time
> >> they are running towards first after a base hit. I have 'never' seen
> >> another ball player- none- that could go from first to third like
> >> Pete- it is an uncanny knowledge that todays players may have but not
> >> utilize 'every' time. Very few of Pete's triples - IMO of course- were
> >> solid triples where they were no doubters. My guess would estimate
> >> that over 45-50% were just doubles that Pete 'imposed' into triples.
> >> Again- this is all my opinion. But at the time he was underestimated
> >> as a baserunner but now that time and history has taken care of itself
> >> I feel it is safe to say that Pete Rose -IMO- was the best baserunner
> >> the Cincinnati Reds ever had and potentially in the top five of all
> >> time. Again just my opinion- but I would dare someone to name a Red
> >> since Pete that it even was a discussion worth having.
>
> >I wasn't saying anything about Pete's baserunning, just making the
> >point that hustle and showing off are not exclusive. However, since
> >you bring it up...
>
> >Pete Rose was not a good baserunner. He's the perfect example of
> >someone who is overaggressive on the bases. For his career, he was
> >successful just 57% of the times he tried to steal. That is just a
> >terrible rate. Most folks will say that a success rate of 80% is the
> >break-even point to make it worth your while. If Pete had stolen
> >bases at that rate, he'd have stolen an additional 80 bases in his
> >career. Sure, sometimes he took advantage in going first-to-third and
> >things like that, but that's just part of the equation - many other
> >times he gave away outs he didn't have to.
>
> >IMO, Pete always played hard but he certainly didn't always play
> >smart. Considering he spent much of his career hitting ahead of three
> >Hall of Famers, Rose would have actually scored more runs through his
> >career if he had never attempted a steal or tried to stretch a double
> >into a triple. Honestly, if you're batting in front of Morgan, Bench,
> >Perez and Foster, getting thrown out on the bases is the absolute last
> >thing you want to do.
>
> >If you want a Red since Rose, I say that Barry Larkin was hands down a
> >much better baserunner. Not even close, IMO.
>
> And Eric Davis.
>
> Injuries curtailed their abilities at (too frequent) times, but those
> guys both knew how to use their natural abilities to their fullest with
> smart baserunning that was aggressive when it needed to be and not when
> it was counter productive to be. In his prime, Davis probably could have
> stolen 100 bases in a season.
>
> I believe Eric may still be the most successful base stealer of all
> time, with Barry not far behind.
Good call, I should have mentioned him as well. In his best season,
he stole 80 bases, at an 88% success rate. If you needed a pinch
runner in situation with the game on the line, I can't imagine anyone
picking any season of Pete Rose over the 86/87 Eric Davis.
> Certainly, nobody could ever accuse Ryan Freel of not hustling, but...
Right. If he was built like Rose, he might have avoided some of the
injuries, but he's the best in-house example of why aggressive play
needs to be paired with good sense. >> Stay informed about: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? |
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
