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

On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 12:03:33 -0700 (PDT), Ron Johnson
<johnson.TakeThisOut@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote:

>On Aug 5, 5:49 pm, tom dunne <dunn....TakeThisOut@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)

How about Eric Davis, who I mentioned in this thread?

>> 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)

And one we could probably tie to "hustle." If a guy is still standing
near the plate because he "knows" he's grounded out, he's not pressuring
the D in to an error.

********************************************************************
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 8, 8:46 pm, tom dunne <dunn... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:

> All other things being equal, do the
> 1976 Reds score more runs with Pete Rose batting leadoff or Barry
> Larkin?

You'll do better with Rose. Not least because he'll be in
the lineup while with Larkin you'll get extended playing
time from a backup SS.

Oh you can find plenty of years from Larkin that would
look perfectly in place with Rose's prime. And his rate
stats for his extended prime are excellent.
 >> Stay informed about: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? 

On Aug 8, 6:06 pm, Kevin McClave <kmcclaveSPAM D... RemoveThis @HEREtwcny.rr.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 12:03:33 -0700 (PDT), Ron Johnson
>
>
>
> <john... RemoveThis @ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote:
> >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)
>
> How about Eric Davis, who I mentioned in this thread?

Don't know how I missed him. Davis' base stealing was 11th
in overall value. Oddly though he added very little value
on the bases. Substantially less than such well known
burners as Wade Boggs or Eddie Murray. Who got their
share of bases and didn't make outs.

Willie Wilson 119.7
Vince Coleman 94.3
Lou Brock 87.9
Ozzie Smith 81.9
Davey Lopes 79.6
Roberto Alomar 64.6
Ron LeFlore 61.6
Tommy Harper 61.1
Otis Nixon 60.7
Marquis Grissom 59.8
Cesar Cedeno 59.6
Eric Davis 57.7

Looks to me like baserunning Reds go Morgan, Larkin, Harper, Davis,
Redus (who just missed the list in a fairly short career)

Like young Redus, young Bobby Tolan could fly. Injuries
got both of them.
just
 >> Stay informed about: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? 

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:48:07 -0700 (PDT), tom dunne <dunnetg.DeleteThis@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Aug 6, 12:01 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:
>>
>> >Can you picture Pete Rose knowlingly hamstringing the team
>>
>> Uhhh....
>
>I'm not the oldest guy in here, but I do remember 1986...

It wasn't just 1986.

He was an easy Hall of famer by the end of 1979. His career
number swere:

G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SB BA OBP SLG
3009 12147 1930 3749 680 124 155 1133 1322 174 .309 .376 .423

After 1979 he went:

G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SB BA OBP SLG
553 1906 235 507 66 11 5 181 244 24 .266 .349 .320

While playing first and not playing it particularly well.

You won't find anybody close to as bad as he was
in any kind of playing time. First basemen who slug .320
(or hit .266 with no power) lose their job.

It's instructive to compare Rose the manager with
Ty Cobb the manager.

In 1925 Cobb hit .378/.468/.598 -- he was the best
hitter in the league for the last time. In 1926 (while playing
fairly well, .339/.408/.511) he benched himself because he felt
the Tigers were stronger with Fothergill, Manush and Heilmann
in the outfield.
 >> Stay informed about: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? 

"Ron Johnson" <rnj.DeleteThis@canada.com> wrote in message
news:LtKcSPGKzrXWEOu96JsIwrWoCY9z@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:48:07 -0700 (PDT), tom dunne <dunnetg.DeleteThis@gmail.com>
>>On Aug 6, 12:01 pm, Kevin McClave <kmccl....DeleteThis@SPAM666twcny.rr.com>
>>> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 01:32:48 -0700 (PDT), BenchMade <gk....DeleteThis@earthlink.net>
>>>
>>> >Can you picture Pete Rose knowlingly hamstringing the team
>>>
>>> Uhhh....
>>
>>I'm not the oldest guy in here, but I do remember 1986...
>
> It wasn't just 1986.
>
> He was an easy Hall of famer by the end of 1979. His career
> number swere:
>
> G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SB BA OBP SLG
> 3009 12147 1930 3749 680 124 155 1133 1322 174 .309 .376 .423
>
> After 1979 he went:
>
> G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SB BA OBP SLG
> 553 1906 235 507 66 11 5 181 244 24 .266 .349 .320
>
> While playing first and not playing it particularly well.
>
> You won't find anybody close to as bad as he was
> in any kind of playing time. First basemen who slug .320
> (or hit .266 with no power) lose their job.
>
> It's instructive to compare Rose the manager with
> Ty Cobb the manager.
>
> In 1925 Cobb hit .378/.468/.598 -- he was the best
> hitter in the league for the last time. In 1926 (while playing
> fairly well, .339/.408/.511) he benched himself because he felt
> the Tigers were stronger with Fothergill, Manush and Heilmann
> in the outfield.
>

Yeah, but from 79 to 83 it wasn't like he was writing his own name in the
lineup card.
The Phillies seemed grateful for his services and as you just noted, while
stuck with this milstone at first place, these teams tended to outperform
their what their run scored/runs allowed ratios would have you think.

We can fairly blame Rose for writing his name in the lineup card from 84 to
86

except in 84 he "stole" playing time from Dan Driessen and Tony Perez and
handily outhit both of them while putting seats in the seats.

so we can blame him for 85 and 86...Of course in 85 he did put up a 99 OPS+
which certainly isn't good for a first baseman, but it isn't terrrible. He
could have benched himself and inked in Gary Redus in the lineup. Eric Davis
probably could certainly have handled the work, but he kept pissing off the
front office and they sent him back to Denver. I guess you can fault Pete
for not playing hall of famer Tony Perez over himself. Paul O'Neil got a
september callup. There was the small matter of passing Ty Cobb.

It's kind of an interesting exercize. The reds ended up losing the division
to the dodgers by 5 games. Rose broke the hit record and the reds did get an
attendance/feel good windfall from that. If Rose had gone all Cobb-mature on
us and sat himself down ... at the begining of the season. Under those
circumstances, would they have caught the Dodgers? Probably not. While you
can blame Rose for not playing Redus and Davis more, the fact of the matter
is that if Pete had sat more, in all likelihood he would have given those at
bats to Ceasar Cedeno and Tony Perez. Eventually they aquired Buddy Bell to
move Nick Easasky off third and into Cedeno's slot in left.

I won't make excuses for 86. You can blame him all you want for that. I will
say that he DID end up sitting down and they lost that division to the
astros by 10 games. Pete sitting down wasn't gonna put that team over the
edge.

That's probably why I try to stay out of threads like this....heh.
dfs
 >> Stay informed about: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? 

"Ron Johnson" <johnson.DeleteThis@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in message
> On Aug 8, 8:24 pm, "David Short"
>> If Rose had gone all Cobb-mature on
>> us and sat himself down ... at the begining of the season. Under those
>> circumstances, would they have caught the Dodgers? Probably not. While
>> you
>> can blame Rose for not playing Redus and Davis more, the fact of the
>> matter
>> is that if Pete had sat more, in all likelihood he would have given those
>> at
>> bats to Ceasar Cedeno and Tony Perez.
>
> Yeah I can remember his talk. Pity. Stunning amount of
> talent coming through the organization.

Absolutely incredible amount of talent. They were reaping the results of
drafting early because they fielded terrible teams with the advantage of
having scouts who knew talent and an owner willing to sign guys. Way
different from these days, where reds fans just have the first part of that
equation (drafting early because they are fielding terrible teams.)

>> Eventually they aquired Buddy Bell to
>> move Nick Easasky off third and into Cedeno's slot in left.
>
> And no love for Wayne Krenchicki. And I thought at the time
> that Wade Rowdon could play. I'd certainly have bet on
> Rowdon out-hitting Concepcion.
>>
>> I won't make excuses for 86. You can blame him all you want for that. I
>> will
>> say that he DID end up sitting down and they lost that division to the
>> astros by 10 games. Pete sitting down wasn't gonna put that team over the
>> edge.
>
> Well I can sort of see 100 net runs in there, but it's obvious
> that Rose's playing time is a small part. (Daniels is part of the
> equation. They wasted over a quarter of his season at AAA
> and that's a black mark on Rose the manager, but that's not
> what we're discussing)

Right most of those wins are from reallocting talent. Not benching that old
fart over on first base.

>> That's probably why I try to stay out of threads like this....heh.
>
> I can't resist them because ... well I've actually succeeded in
> having rational discussions about the guy.
>
> You want to know how to shut up a stathead about Pete Rose?
>
> Pete Rose=Ron Santo + Dave Magadan. I'm dead serious.
> (to be precise the offensive difference between Rose and
> Santo is 1,319 games of .386 OBP and .334 SLG. Flip the
> two stats and you've got a worthless player, but the
> actual comination has value.)

Althought it doesn't match peak well, but Craig Biggio + Chris Sabo
illustrates.the depth of Rose's career which is really the tough part. It
also accounts for the versatility that Pete brought his team, although this
particular combination overstates it.

Tom wrote about how Pete should have been more cautious since he had Morgan,
Bench and Perez hitting behind him. Bench and Perez were teammates of Pete's
for less than half of his career. Add Morgan to the mix and you only account
for a THIRD of Pete's major league career. By the time those four guys were
together Pete was unquestionably past his prime.

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

On Aug 8, 3:03 pm, Ron Johnson <john....DeleteThis@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 5:49 pm, tom dunne <dunn....DeleteThis@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.

Don't bother with facts Ron. Tom and Kevin are right - they are always
right. I was wrong in what I stated and I bow to them. It just isn't
fun to be part of group where the same two guys are 'literally' always
right and you are 'literally' always wrong. <sigh - rolling my eyes>
 >> 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....RemoveThis@Spam.Wright.Please.Edu> wrote:
> "Ron Johnson" <john....RemoveThis@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:38574776-b9ae-4e53-b399-1eeff3c7f1eb@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 7, 7:05 am, BenchMade <gk....RemoveThis@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> On Aug 6, 10:15 pm, tom dunne <dunn....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 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."
>
> I've tried pretty hard to stay out of this thread.
> Just FWIW, I don't remember fans booing Pete at every stop at all. Obviously
> my memory has been proven wrong about several things, but I just don't
> remember that.
> I do remember Pete being very polorizing. People loved him or hated him.
>
> >> 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.)
>
> Pete was....he was the Michael Jordan of his time. Yeah the ads look stupid
> and cheezy now, even offensive, but Pete and the blue collar image he
> projected was the fellow that national ad guys wanted. Rightly or wrongly it
> was never Joe Morgan and the Big Red Machine...or Johnny Bench and the BRM
> it was Pete Rose and the Big Red Machine coming into town. He was the
> brightest star in a very tremendous constellation of talent. You look at the
> numbers and see the comical hair style and you just don't see that in
> retrospect.
>
> 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. Since the 99
> season, more than riding their stars the reds have catered to their stars..
> You didn't push Junior or Larkin, you "respected" them. I think the reds
> will continue to play less than stellar baseball until somebody in
> management decides they need to start "respecting" the stars less and
> challenging them more. You never would have had that problem on a team that
> Rose was associated with.
>
> dfs- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

David,
When you said you didn't think that Pete got booed everywhere.....I
thought maybe I was wrong. Maybe all these years I just thought that,
even though I remember as a 7-8 yr. old why Pete always got booed
because to me as a kid "why would they boo Pete Rose"? So I called my
Dad. He said it wasn't like 'literally' every person in the stadium
booed at the top of their lungs but he said everywhere they played
Pete would get booed and then he said "you and your brother asked me
that when you were kids".....so there is 'some' validity to it. I am
trying to find a dvd set of the 73 playoffs - I know the Reds lost but
I would love to see the Rose/Harrelson fight but more importantly the
next game. I remember- I was 7 yrs. old and that was the first time
watching a baseball game that I was scared for my Reds and especially
Pete. The fans at Shea were out for blood - if I remember right didn't
Pete hit a homerun that next game? Maybe won the game? I remember
having the poster of Pete- he was rounding second base and you could
see thrown debri behind him. Hit it off a Harry Parker maybe?
 >> Stay informed about: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? 

On Aug 8, 8:46 pm, tom dunne <dunn....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 8, 6:06 pm, Kevin McClave <kmcclaveSPAM D....RemoveThis@HEREtwcny.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 12:03:33 -0700 (PDT), Ron Johnson
>
> > <john....RemoveThis@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote:
> > >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)
>
> > How about Eric Davis, who I mentioned in this thread?
>
> > >> 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)
>
> > And one we could probably tie to "hustle." If a guy is still standing
> > near the plate because he "knows" he's grounded out, he's not pressuring
> > the D in to an error.
>
> I was going to respond directly to Ron, but Kevin's already getting at
> the point I want to make.
>
> Ron, you said that the majority of Rose's added value when running is
> in reaching base on errors, etc.  Absolutely, he reached base via
> error more than anyone else.  But I'd say that has nothing to do with
> baserunning ability, just flat-out effort.  You can be too aggressive
> trying to stretch a double or trying to steal third; you can't be too
> aggressive trying to get to first base.  At all times, running to
> first as hard as you can once the ball is in play is the right thing
> to do.  That other players don't always do it doesn't speak to their
> ability on their basepaths but to their lack of effort.
>
> Taking that element aside, what about Rose's game can we see in terms
> of extra bases (be they steals, stretching singles/doubles or taking
> extra bases on hits and errors)?  What I can see is that his stolen
> base percentage is lousy and his runs-per-hits average is nothing
> special for a guy hitting ahead of Morgan, Bench and Perez.  On those
> grounds, I think he's not a particularly good base runner the way we
> think of a guy like Larkin.
>
> Maybe I read too much into the lineups he played most of his career
> with, but it seems to me that Rose would have served his team just as
> well by playing a more cautious, higher-percentage game and letting
> the bats behind him do the work.  All other things being equal, do the
> 1976 Reds score more runs with Pete Rose batting leadoff or Barry
> Larkin?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

OK Tom - You Freeking Win - OK? Damn dude.....lol.....never even seen
him....never mind. You guys are a trip is all I can say. Pete Rose was
**NOT** a great baserunner. OK- are you happy? Pathetic is all I can
say. I am done. I promise. Tools.
 >> Stay informed about: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? 

On Aug 9, 5:25 am, BenchMade <gk... DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote:

> I am done. I promise.

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

On Aug 9, 9:49 am, "David Short"
<David.No.Sh... DeleteThis @Spam.Wright.Please.Edu> wrote:

> oh yeah, lastly. Don't take disagreement in the newsgroup too personally.
> Opinions are like....well, I'm sure you know. We need more voices, not
> fewer.

Indeed! I suggest new posters pay me no mind until they get settled
in. To see anyone lump me and Kevin together is pretty funny; if he
can put up with me, I figure others can as well
 >> Stay informed about: Will the Reds be a winning team in the next 10 yrs? 

"BenchMade" <gkotr DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote
On Aug 8, 5:16 pm, "David Short"
> > On Aug 7, 7:05 am, BenchMade <gk... DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> I've tried pretty hard to stay out of this thread.
> Just FWIW, I don't remember fans booing Pete at every stop at all.
> Obviously
> my memory has been proven wrong about several things, but I just don't
> remember that.
> I do remember Pete being very polorizing. People loved him or hated him.
big long snip

from benchmade
David,
When you said you didn't think that Pete got booed everywhere.....I
thought maybe I was wrong. Maybe all these years I just thought that,
even though I remember as a 7-8 yr. old why Pete always got booed
because to me as a kid "why would they boo Pete Rose"? So I called my
Dad. He said it wasn't like 'literally' every person in the stadium
booed at the top of their lungs but he said everywhere they played
Pete would get booed and then he said "you and your brother asked me
that when you were kids".....so there is 'some' validity to it. I am
trying to find a dvd set of the 73 playoffs - I know the Reds lost but
I would love to see the Rose/Harrelson fight but more importantly the
next game. I remember- I was 7 yrs. old and that was the first time
watching a baseball game that I was scared for my Reds and especially
Pete. The fans at Shea were out for blood - if I remember right didn't
Pete hit a homerun that next game? Maybe won the game? I remember
having the poster of Pete- he was rounding second base and you could
see thrown debri behind him. Hit it off a Harry Parker maybe?

from david
Sure Rose got booed at Shea after he fought with Harrelson. Justifiably so.
I will readily agree that Pete got booed sometimes, but it's a ways from
there to he was booed at every stadium at every at bat.
The Pete Rose wiki entry claims the fight was in game 3 and Rose won Game 4
with a 12th inning homer and I do remember Pete celebrating as he went
around the basepaths. Of course, the muts won game 5.

You're watching the 75 series. Is Rose booed by the crowed in Fenway? To my
knowledge, the only DVD set out is the 75 one. IIRC There were VHS tapes
that summerized the other series, but not the full play by play. That may
have changed.

btw Don't the graphics look odd. They ran with ...what 4 cameras? The
telecast really shows its age. The other thing I remember from watching
those games is how small all the players look. Weights have changed the way
ballplayers look. Marty sure was better when he just broadcast the game and
was less focused on being a personality.

oh yeah, lastly. Don't take disagreement in the newsgroup too personally.
Opinions are like....well, I'm sure you know. We need more voices, not
fewer.

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

On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 07:31:41 -0700 (PDT), tom dunne <dunnetg.TakeThisOut@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Aug 9, 9:49 am, "David Short"
><David.No.Sh....TakeThisOut@Spam.Wright.Please.Edu> wrote:
>
>> oh yeah, lastly. Don't take disagreement in the newsgroup too personally.
>> Opinions are like....well, I'm sure you know. We need more voices, not
>> fewer.
>
>Indeed! I suggest new posters pay me no mind until they get settled
>in. To see anyone lump me and Kevin together is pretty funny; if he
>can put up with me, I figure others can as well

Yes, it seems we disagree with each other as much as we individually
disagree with others.

I would really like this group to have a lot more voices in it. The only
thing I personally expect is for people to be able to defend their
opinions without, essentially, making things up. Because we'll draw
different *conclusions* about things, but if conclusions are based on
things that simply aren't true...

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