Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs?

"tom dunne" <dunnetg.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f96aec82-013e-4305-81de-7180a426bd8a@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 6, 9:09 pm, "Bob Braun" <oxin....TakeThisOut@hotandsunnymail.com> wrote:
> "tom dunne" <dunn....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fbd7b9a0-5d1d-42c5-912c-9be0ebcf811f@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Aug 6, 11:49 am, Kevin McClave <kmccl....TakeThisOut@SPAM666twcny.rr.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:49:51 -0700 (PDT), tom dunne <dunn....TakeThisOut@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Aug 5, 4:32 pm, BenchMade <gk....TakeThisOut@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Aug 5, 3:30 pm, tom dunne <dunn....TakeThisOut@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.
>
> While you are scouring for things to discredit Pete Rose, check some of
> this......
> He won three World Series rings, three batting titles, one Most Valuable
> Player Award, two Gold Gloves, the Rookie of the Year Award, and made 17
> All-Star appearances at an unequaled five different positions (2B, LF, RF,
> 3B, and 1B).

Danny, you can be such a princess when someone steps on your favorite
Barbie. My entire argument on this topic, and I'm quoting myself, was
"Pete Rose was not a good baserunner." To clarify, I think his style
hurt the team approximately as much as it helped, be it in however
many caught steals he has, being thrown out trying to stretch doubles
to triples, and generally not recognizing that the monster bats behind
him didn't need him risking outs on the basepaths to score runs. I
didn't say anything about his hitting, his fielding, his effort, his
popularity, his credentials, his managerial ability, his gambling or
any other thing about his value to baseball. Nary a thing.

In other newsgroups, I see his name blanked out as P*t* R*s* so that
ardent defenders don't turn up and flame the place to hell. This is
exactly why - mention anything negative about Rose and his supporters
race to the rescue. My comments were ENTIRELY about Pete Rose's
contribution on the bases, nothing else. You derailed that point with
irrelevant comparisons, had a go at me for being too young to have
seen the games in person, and now you've got me "scouring for things
to discredit..." If you disagree with my opinion about the topic I
brought up, that's fine. For the rest, leave the bullshit at the bar.

***********************************
Your opinion was based on total bullshit. You don't even know what the hell
a steal sign is. It's not the first time your baseball ignorance has
shined.

You are the one who cannot stand to be disagreed with. Your condescending,
jerkoff side surfaces immediately.

As for the Princess and Barbie........ah the safety of a keyboard.

Pete Rose defenders pale in ASBCR, the altar of St. Adam Dunn.
 >> Stay informed about: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? 

On Aug 6, 12:27 pm, Kevin McClave <kmccl... DeleteThis @SPAM666twcny.rr.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 01:32:48 -0700 (PDT), BenchMade <gk... DeleteThis @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
> ******************************************************************

I was wondering when Kevin was going to show up. Was anything I
said in the above post a lie/ wrong or embellished in the least? That
is what I thought. <shaking my head> Are you going to say you were two
years old when he played? Please tell me the same thing Tom said (he/
you only watched him on tape) and I will 'somewhat' excuse you. If not
there is an agenda. I mean- come on guys......this should be the
simplest subject to talk about in here. Just seeing that there is even
a 'debate' for stupider terms of words on this.....knocks your
credibility down to nill IMO and again shows me why I don't make a
habit of posting in here.
 >> Stay informed about: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? 

On Aug 6, 10:15 pm, tom dunne <dunn....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> Danny, you can be such a princess when someone steps on your favorite
> Barbie.

You know you have 'won' by responses like this IMO. Game over.<rolling
my eyes>



 
 >> Stay informed about: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? 

On Aug 6, 10:15 pm, tom dunne <dunn....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Danny, you can be such a princess when someone steps on your favorite
> Barbie.  My entire argument on this topic, and I'm quoting myself, was
> "Pete Rose was not a good baserunner."  

And I am quoting my self and anyone that knows baseball. I won't say
you are stupid, you just don't know what you are talking about. You
were just a freeking lad (I suppose) when he played. Tom- you never
even seen him play!!!!! That is the end of the discussion- well not
really- the scary part is you didn't 'have to' watch him play I
suppose- just read what EVERY player said about Pete Rose. The ones
that played against him. I have NEVER (someone correct me if I am
wrong here) heard the lead off batter and captain be **BOOED** every
time he came up to bat in EVERY stadium....lol. You know why? I would
think you would know the answer but you didn't even know the answer to
this thread so I'll say it. EVERY fan hated him because he didn't play
for their team...lol. But when he went to Philadelphia the applause he
got every time was just like at Riverfront. IMO that says it all.
Forget the biases- forget the stats- every stadium booed this guy
every time his name was said over the PA. Unless he played on your
team. Damn- what a newsgroup. <sigh>



To clarify, I think his style
> hurt the team approximately as much as it helped, be it in however
> many caught steals he has, being thrown out trying to stretch doubles
> to triples, and generally not recognizing that the monster bats behind
> him didn't need him risking outs on the basepaths to score runs.  I
> didn't say anything about his hitting, his fielding, his effort, his
> popularity, his credentials, his managerial ability, his gambling or
> any other thing about his value to baseball.  Nary a thing.
>
> In other newsgroups, I see his name blanked out as P*t* R*s* so that
> ardent defenders don't turn up and flame the place to hell.  This is
> exactly why - mention anything negative about Rose and his supporters
> race to the rescue.  My comments were ENTIRELY about Pete Rose's
> contribution on the bases, nothing else.  You derailed that point with
> irrelevant comparisons, had a go at me for being too young to have
> seen the games in person, and now you've got me "scouring for things
> to discredit..."  If you disagree with my opinion about the topic I
> brought up, that's fine.  For the rest, leave the bullshit at the bar.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
 >> Stay informed about: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? 

On Aug 6, 11:33 pm, "Bob Braun" <oxin... DeleteThis @hotandsunnymail.com> wrote:

> ***********************************
> Your opinion was based on total bullshit.  You don't even know what the hell
> a steal sign is.  It's not the first time your baseball ignorance has
> shined.
>
> You are the one who cannot stand to be disagreed with.  Your condescending,
> jerkoff side surfaces immediately.

****EXACTLY**** that is why when this thread is done- I will be gone
and this just shows me why I don't post in here. If you can't agree on
this subject you simply do not know baseball or you have an agenda.
That is it. End of story. The guy then says....ROTFL........I was too
young to see him play but I saw him on tape. If there was a 'banished'
button in this group- that statement along with his other nonsense
should banish him from here. <shaking my head/rolling my eyes>
 >> Stay informed about: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? 

On Aug 7, 1:08 am, tom dunne <dunn....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 6, 11:33 pm, "Bob Braun" <oxin....TakeThisOut@hotandsunnymail.com> wrote:
>
> > "tom dunne" <dunn....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > As for the Princess and Barbie........ah the safety of a keyboard.
>
> Which one of us hides behind a fake name, "Bob"?  Any time your royal
> highness wants to visit, you can find me in the white pages.

I don't see it in my phone book. Not that I care- but you did say "you
can find me etc. etc." But alas not under the name you use in here.
Just thought I'd mention it.
 >> Stay informed about: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? 

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 21:00:01 -0400, "Bob Braun"
<oxinfla DeleteThis @hotandsunnymail.com> wrote:

>
>"Kevin McClave" <kmcclave DeleteThis @SPAM666twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:mlij94dbln6io7unj5r8n3jkmtp8hv9fst@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 01:32:48 -0700 (PDT), BenchMade <gkotr DeleteThis @earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Can you picture Pete Rose knowlingly hamstringing the team
>>
>> Uhhh....
>
>Give us an example.

No need. He was betting on them. Throws everything he did as a manager
in to doubt. If you think he managed the team, especially where use of
personnel (the bullpen in particular would be at risk) in games he bet,
I don't know what to tell you.

>Dusty burned up Harang in extra innings in San Diego. Do you think he had a
>sizable wager on the Reds? You can go through the moves of any manager on
>any team a put question marks next to decisions. If Pete Rose was doing
>something shady, players would have spoken up.
>
>Tracy Jones will tell you, Pete Rose is far and away the best manager he
>ever played for. And he played for several.
>
>I won't deny that Pete left the door open for people to throw dirt on him.

He did more than simply that. And to be clear, I am not trying to "throw
dirt on him" I've raised counter points to comments in this thread that
are not based in fact, though are phrased as if they are.

People are welcome to draw their own *conclusions* about anything, but
those conclusions are pretty shaky when they are obviously, at least in
part, based on beliefs that don't hold up to scrutiny (like the idea
that the Reds forgot how to win the moment Rose left the team and only
regained that knowledge when he returned, or that he would never
knowingly hamstring the team when it is known he was betting on it...and
yes, even if he always bet on it to win).

********************************************************************
Kevin McClave

"Courage, the footstool of the Virtues, upon
which they stand." ~Robert Louis Stevenson
********************************************************************
 >> Stay informed about: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? 

On Aug 7, 7:14 am, BenchMade <gk....DeleteThis@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Aug 6, 11:33 pm, "Bob Braun" <oxin....DeleteThis@hotandsunnymail.com> wrote:
>
> > ***********************************
> > Your opinion was based on total bullshit.  You don't even know what the hell
> > a steal sign is.  It's not the first time your baseball ignorance has
> > shined.
>
> > You are the one who cannot stand to be disagreed with.  Your condescending,
> > jerkoff side surfaces immediately.
>
> ****EXACTLY**** that is why when this thread is done- I will be gone
> and this just shows me why I don't post in here. If you can't agree on
> this subject you simply do not know baseball or you have an agenda.
> That is it. End of story. The guy then says....ROTFL........I was too
> young to see him play but I saw him on tape. If there was a 'banished'
> button in this group- that statement along with his other nonsense
> should banish him from here. <shaking my head/rolling my eyes>

You've suggested you're leaving two or three times, but here we are.
How about that.

The notion that anyone needs to see a given player in person to judge
him is ridiculous. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that
you've never seen Ty Cobb play, yeah? Or anyone else from the first
half of the 20th century? If that's the case, then either you operate
from stats, video and written accounts of that time, or you just don't
talk about it at all. Rose has often been discussed in regards to
Cobb - the hits, the hustle, the win-or-die-trying attitude. Either
we have that discussion based on what we know of Cobb from second hand
sources, or we simply can't discuss it. If you insist on the latter,
only speaking of what your own eyes have seen live, then you're not
going to have much to say about the 130 years of Major League Baseball.
 >> Stay informed about: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? 

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 04:21:47 -0700 (PDT), BenchMade <gkotr.DeleteThis@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>On Aug 7, 6:06 am, Kevin McClave <kmcclaveSPAM in
>> part, based on beliefs that don't hold up to scrutiny (like the idea
>> that the Reds forgot how to win the moment Rose left the team and only
>> regained that knowledge when he returned,
>
>People on usenet crack me up...lol...OK I will get 'literal' in my
>wording. The Reds forgot how to be ************CHAMPIONS*************
>when Pete left.........sheesh...and I know you knew what I meant
>Kevin. Now are you going to tell me they won another world series?
>Please don't say it.......please don't.

When Griffey returned, they won another WS, yes. They did not win
another WS when Pete returned, so your moving the goalposts, since your
comment referred to how they won when he returned to the organization
again. In fact, they didn't win the WQS again until after he'd left the
org in 1989.

Put more simply, make up your mind. Are you talking about "winning" or
"winning championships?" Because you can't give him credit for both when
as you tried to do with the comment to which I was responding. Talking
about the organizations successes or lack there of when he was there,
when he left, and then when he returned. It did not "remember" how to
win when he returned in 1984, if you're only referring to forgetting
"how to be ************CHAMPIONS*************." In fact, the org didn't
win a championship again until he left again.

Like I said, none of this is to try and tear down Pete Rose, it is to
try and add some reality to unrealistic comments.

******************************************************************
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? 

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 03:46:26 -0700 (PDT), BenchMade <gkotr.DeleteThis@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>On Aug 6, 12:27 pm, Kevin McClave <kmccl....DeleteThis@SPAM666twcny.rr.com>
>wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 01:32:48 -0700 (PDT), BenchMade <gk....DeleteThis@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.
>
>I was wondering when Kevin was going to show up. Was anything I
>said in the above post a lie/ wrong or embellished in the least? That
>is what I thought. <shaking my head>

I just showed you how what you wrote was wrong and embellished:

"...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."

That is simply wrong in the most basic way, as I pointed out with what
are actual facts (the teams W-L records). Incidentally, The Reds won 92
and 88 games in Rose's last two seasons there. Not much different from
the first two seasons without him.

In the other reply of yours to which I just responded, you changed the
point to say you were talking about winning "CHAMPIONSHIPS." Well, that
makes your above comment make even less sense, and be even less based in
"indisputable facts" since you obviously said outright that "the winning
ways returned to the Nati' when none other than Pete Rose came back." If
all you were talking about was winning "CHAMPIONSHIPS," then that is
simply not true. The Reds didn't win another championship until after
Rose left again.

So, which is it?

>Are you going to say you were two years old when he played?

I've been a Reds fan since 1977.

>Please tell me the same thing Tom said (he/
>you only watched him on tape) and I will 'somewhat' excuse you. If not
>there is an agenda. I mean- come on guys......this should be the
>simplest subject to talk about in here. Just seeing that there is even
>a 'debate' for stupider terms of words on this.....knocks your
>credibility down to nill IMO and again shows me why I don't make a
>habit of posting in here.

Well, your conclusions are based on "facts" that aren't facts and in
some cases are completely untrue. If you can't handle someone
questioning the basic things on which you base your conclusions, then
maybe Usenet really isn't for you.

There's a lot of noise on the Internet: SPAM, trolls, Anonymous Tough
Guys. That someone would actually try and engage you in discussion of
the things *you* have *actually* written *shouldn't* be a problem. If
you can't defend your positions without relying on inaccuracies, that's
not really my problem.

This place needs as many voices as it can get. I hope you stick around.

*********************************************************************
Kevin P. McClave

"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of
people walking on it." ~Robert F. Kennedy
*********************************************************************
 >> Stay informed about: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? 

On Aug 5, 5:49 pm, tom dunne <dunn....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 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.

Yeah but base running and base stealing aren't the same thing.
Or to be more precise base stealing is merely the easiest to
track part of base running.

However we've got PBP data going back to the 50s and Tom Ruane
has gone through it.

Rose was -3.2 runs stealing bases but +43.2 runs on the other
stuff (reaching on error, net bases gained). All in all, somewhere
in the top 30 on the bases. Here are the people I'm aware of who
were better than +50.

Rickey Henderson 163.5
Tim Raines 135.5
Joe Morgan 101.0
Paul Molitor 98.1
Bert Campaneris 76.2
Craig Biggio 71.5
Barry Larkin 69.9
Rod Carew 50.6

(Others with very high totals would include Vince Coleman,
Willie Wilson among others)


> Most folks will say that a success rate of 80% is the
> break-even point to make it worth your while.

More like 75%. Today. Basically the higher the offensive
level the more an out costs.

But Rose played his career in a much lower offensive context.
Break even point in his day was a lot closer to 2/3.

> 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.

That doesn't seem to be the case. Got a pretty fair number of
extra bases at relatively little cost -- outside of base stealing
that is. (Though the bulk of his value in misc. running actually
comes from the 210 times he reached on error -- the highest
total I'm aware of by a pretty fair margin)

As for the base stealing, well context matters. According to
linear weights Rose was -22.5 runs. In fact once game situation
is taken into account he was only -3.2. That's the second largest
positive difference (behind Paul Molitor). In other words,
he was doing the bulk of his running in high weight situations.
(As Pete Palmer pointed out in the first article on this
type of analysis, bottom of the 9th, two out, score tied, the
break even point is so low that anybody faster than Cliff
Johnson should be sent. And a 2 out steal of home always has
a break even point under 40%)

And that seems to fit a working definition of smart.
 >> Stay informed about: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? 

On Aug 7, 7:05 am, BenchMade <gk....TakeThisOut@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Aug 6, 10:15 pm, tom dunne <dunn....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Danny, you can be such a princess when someone steps on your favorite
> > Barbie. My entire argument on this topic, and I'm quoting myself, was
> > "Pete Rose was not a good baserunner."
>
> And I am quoting my self and anyone that knows baseball. I won't say
> you are stupid, you just don't know what you are talking about.

Well despite everything, he hurt his teams when attempting to
steal bases. That's a fact. Not the end of the world. Babe
Ruth was 110/117 SB/CS in the year we have both SB and CS.
And he was aggressive on the basepath. I'd settle if you know
what I mean.

> You
> were just a freeking lad (I suppose) when he played. Tom- you never
> even seen him play!!!!! That is the end of the discussion- well not
> really- the scary part is you didn't 'have to' watch him play I
> suppose- just read what EVERY player said about Pete Rose.

"If I had played my career hitting singles like Pete [Rose],
I'd wear a dress." - Mickey Mantle

Rose wasn't universally popular with the players. But then
who is? Or to turn it around, Dick Allen had friends.
(And I can find as many positive quotes about Allen on
the basepath as I can about Rose. It's one of those things
you learn to distrust)


> The ones
> that played against him. I have NEVER (someone correct me if I am
> wrong here) heard the lead off batter and captain be **BOOED** every
> time he came up to bat in EVERY stadium....lol.

It'll probably surprise the hell out of you, but Joe
DiMaggio was roundly booed everywhere he went.

From the Bill James Historical Abstract (Players vs Team - 1930s)

" [...] Everywhere he went, he got booed. He said he felt like
some places the only reason those people had come to the game was
to give DiMaggio the works. He got hate mail; he said that the
way some of the letters read, you would have thought he kidnapped
Lindbergh's baby."


> You know why? I would
> think you would know the answer but you didn't even know the answer to
> this thread so I'll say it. EVERY fan hated him because he didn't play
> for their team...lol.

Doesn't add up though. Good as Rose was, he wasn't as good as
Morgan in their respective primes. Or Mays, or Aaron.

It's not excellence that attracts opposition booing. People
booed Dick Allen, and before him Ted Williams and Rogers
Hornsby and Ty Cobb. Excellent players who were jerks or worse.
(DiMaggio got his boos because of the way he handled salary
disputes.)
 >> Stay informed about: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? 

On Aug 8, 5:16 pm, "David Short"
<David.No.Sh....TakeThisOut@Spam.Wright.Please.Edu> wrote:

>
> The other thing that comes to mind when I think of Pete and the current reds
> is the notion of Casey Stengle riding Mikey Mantle in spring training.
> Stengle would just push and push Mantle and everybody on the team saw that
> and figured if Mantle was working that hard, they better do everything they
> can to get better. Playing the way he did, Pete did the same thing for the
> BRM. They didn't loaf or play stupid baseball because that fellow over at
> third base was going to let you know about it if you did.

Sure, but that was the state of the Reds when he got there -- thanks
to Frank Robinson.

Weaver's quite specific on this in both of his books.

Another thing noted by Chris Dial. The teams Rose played for
late in his career consistently out-performed their pythags.
(For a full decade. If it's luck, I'll take it)
 >> Stay informed about: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs?