chat night ruined - Page 2 - Brown Cafe

pickup · 04-13-2009, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UpstateNYUPSer

In his 16-season career, Dave Kingman batted .236, with 442 home runs, 1210 runs batted in, 901 runs scored, 1575 hits, 240 doubles, 25 triples and 85 stolen bases in 1,941 games played. He also struck out 1,816 times, then the 4th-highest total in history. He was named to the National League All-Star team three times (1976-1979-1980).

As I mentioned in an earlier post, you were either gonna get a home run or a strikeout from him. 442 homeruns is a lot for a presteroids era baseball player. True, 16 seasons.Guy didn't run very well either, hit into a lot of double plays when there was a guy on first. You lived and died with this guy when he was on a a mets team that wasn't very good.

pickup · 04-13-2009, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trplnkl

I wonder why your source didn't include walks and on base percentage? I think that stat is as important as batting average and home runs to strike out ratio.

walks and on base percentage ain't gonna help push kingman into the hall of fame, I can assure you.

trplnkl · 04-13-2009, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pickup

walks and on base percentage ain't gonna help push kingman into the hall of fame, I can assure you.

You're probably right, but it would sure keep in my batting order. Ya can't score if you can't get on base.
BTW, I do think Kingman should be in and probably will one day. But then I keep thinking that some miracle will happen and Rose will be forgiven and make it in.

Hoaxster · 04-13-2009, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trplnkl

But then I keep thinking that some miracle will happen and Rose will be forgiven and make it in.

I know Pete is betting on it!

helenofcalifornia · 04-13-2009, 02:39 PM

I don't get that. Betting is one of the cardinal sins in baseball, right? Pete Rose bet on teams while still in the game, and was caught, therefore he is banned from baseball. Just because he was a great player some people say he should be let into Cooperstown. Denied it for years until he thought that telling the truth might get him voted in. Wouldn't that be lowering the standard, like letting in Barry and Maguire in when they blatently were doing steroids during their most productive times? (Though anyone from the Bay area will tell you Bonds should be voted in on the first try) You let one violator of the rules in, you have to let them all in. Or is it subjective and you just let in the favorites?

Big Babooba · 04-13-2009, 03:02 PM

Shoeless Joe Jackson

pickup · 04-13-2009, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helenofcalifornia

I don't get that. Betting is one of the cardinal sins in baseball, right? Pete Rose bet on teams while still in the game, and was caught, therefore he is banned from baseball. Just because he was a great player some people say he should be let into Cooperstown. Denied it for years until he thought that telling the truth might get him voted in. Wouldn't that be lowering the standard, like letting in Barry and Maguire in when they blatently were doing steroids during their most productive times? (Though anyone from the Bay area will tell you Bonds should be voted in on the first try) You let one violator of the rules in, you have to let them all in. Or is it subjective and you just let in the favorites?

First of all I am a fan of Rose, liked his style , his feistyness. Charlie Hustle , indeed. That much being said, I don't think he belongs in the hall of fame. His player stats obviously merit his induction, but you know the gambling issues.

My big issue with him , is that he has publicly stated that he would like to manage again in the big leagues because he needs the money. Therefore, over the years, he confesses a little more every 4 or 5 years and shows some remorse in the hopes that he will get reinstated so he can manage. I don't think he cares about the hall of fame. If he got on a talk show today and let it ALL hang out and showed true remorse then I say let him in for his stats as a player , but still prevent him from ever being hired as a manager or a coach because once a gambler , always a gambler.

As for Barry Bonds and McGuire, their stats are a result of steroids(yeah, allegedly , I know ). Sad thing about Bonds is that he probably would have gotten into hall of fame with stats based on and projected from the years one can assume he wasn't on steroids. But No, never for Mcguire, Sosa, and Bonds in my opinion. For Rose, yes , but only if a total confession and true remorse, not the drip drop of confessions and superficial remorse we have gotten from him over the years in a calculated attempt to become a manager again( and the very fact that he thinks managing is a viable option for him shows that he is still living in a dream world)

trplnkl · 04-13-2009, 03:21 PM

I haven't really kept up with Rose for the last few years, I have no idea what extent his gambling ran. I do know that when it first came out, supposedly, he was not betting on games that his team were or would be playing, that the bets could not be hedged by his team losing. IF that is true, then I really see no harm in him betting, period. I understand the fears of a gambler getting too far in debt with the mob and all that, but you never know for certain that is going to happen.
Now with any of the steroid users, they all knew full well what they were taking and why. I have never seen another,so called modern era, player play the game with the intensity of Rose. He played in the same manner of Williams and Cobb. In fact it has been said that many times Williams would go into the locker room during the seventh inning stretch and call his bookie. True or not, that's the story I heard more than once.

So now, have we ruined the "Chat night ruined" thread?

pickup · 04-13-2009, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trplnkl

I haven't really kept up with Rose for the last few years, I have no idea what extent his gambling ran. I do know that when it first came out, supposedly, he was not betting on games that his team were or would be playing, that the bets could not be hedged by his team losing. IF that is true, then I really see no harm in him betting, period. I understand the fears of a gambler getting too far in debt with the mob and all that, but you never know for certain that is going to happen.
Now with any of the steroid users, they all knew full well what they were taking and why. I have never seen another,so called modern era, player play the game with the intensity of Rose. He played in the same manner of Williams and Cobb. In fact it has been said that many times Williams would go into the locker room during the seventh inning stretch and call his bookie. True or not, that's the story I heard more than once.

So now, have we ruined the "Chat night ruined" thread?

yep, we ruined it, but it was a thread that if kept strictly to it , it would have had the life span of a mayfly, plus since I started the thread it makes no difference if it morphs into a discussion on best linoleum choices for a kitchen floor.

As for Mr. Rose, he finally admitted around 2005 0r 2004 that he did bet on his team to win when he was a manager.(after years of denying the allegations that he bet on his to win and sometimes to lose). Let's assume he didn't bet on them to lose which would definitely affect the integrity of the game. Okay let's say one night he bet on them to win, knowing his starting pitcher worked out the kinks in his mechanics( on his four off days) and is capable tonight of reverting back to form which is usually a 2.2 era as opposed to his last four starts where he had a 5.4 era due to his mechanics being screwed up(due to a twisted vertebra, chiropractor finally fixed the problem) . So he knows something the oddsmakers don't and bets heavily on his team to win tonight especially with the fact that the other team's starter stinks. jj(for editing purposes)
So game starts, and the reds pitcher has a rough first 2 inning giving up 3 runs and going long into his pitch count. He finally settles down in the 3rd and the other starting pitcher pitches the way he normally pitches so by the 7th inning, the game is tied at 5-5 and the eighth inning comes and the reds starting pitcher has thrown 132 pitches and is showing signs of strain, as he lives off the fastball). Pete Rose needs to get a run scored which he thinks he can with the part of his batting order coming up and needs to keep the other team from scoring in the eighth until he can get to his reliever who normally only pitches one inning but is lights out. So instead of taking out his straining starting pitcher , he leaves him in for the inning. the guy reaches back and throws the high heat and no one scores. Everything else goes to plan and reds win 6-5. Great, who got hurt? Well, the starting pitcher now has a dead arm (cause Pete has overused him this game and other games he bet on to win) and is now looking at a tear in his rotator cuff because of the over use. He has rotator cuff surgery 3 weeks later, out for the rest of season. He comes back next season and never regains his form and is never signed to a new contract and is now a coke snorting used car salesman muttering "I coulda been a contender".

Had Pete not bet the game , he might have thought more about the long term welfare of his starting pitcher and not about the short term prospect of his bet . This is a hypothetical situation but it is not far fetched. A manager betting on his team to win puts him in a situation to profit from ignoring the real effects it might have on the health of his players. Sort of like managers in certain companies who have their bonuses linked to the achievement of certain performance numbers which can only be achieved if they implicitly encourage their runners and gunners to ignore the methods that ensure their safety.

trplnkl · 04-13-2009, 04:19 PM

That's a great hypothesis, and not far fetched at all really. However all hypothesis are still speculation. Not saying you are wrong, I understand that Rose did bet pretty high amounts of dough.

pickup · 04-13-2009, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trplnkl

That's a great hypothesis, and not far fetched at all really. However all hypothesis are still speculation. Not saying you are wrong, I understand that Rose did bet pretty high amounts of dough.

I agree speculation. But when you bet on your team to win, it sets up a conflict of interests that wouldn't be there otherwise. You would like to think good judgement would prevail in choosing the correct interest, but if pete rose were able to exercise good judgment in this matter, he wouldn't have bet in the first place.

And you mentioned the mob in the other post. As soon as he bets one dollar with them, he is in a position of being blackmailed by them into doing their bidding lest they drop the dime on him. And if he is into tremendous debt with them, then he can be offered a chance to knock down that debt by losing a game.(sure thing for that particular mob can push their bet onto another gambling house.) I'm not saying any of this happened but it definitely could not happen if he didn't bet with them. This is in conjunction with the fact that a gambler's mind is not rational at times, and can really do stupid things in an effort to deal with consequences.

trplnkl · 04-14-2009, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pickup

I agree speculation. But when you bet on your team to win, it sets up a conflict of interests that wouldn't be there otherwise. You would like to think good judgement would prevail in choosing the correct interest, but if pete rose were able to exercise good judgment in this matter, he wouldn't have bet in the first place.

And you mentioned the mob in the other post. As soon as he bets one dollar with them, he is in a position of being blackmailed by them into doing their bidding lest they drop the dime on him. And if he is into tremendous debt with them, then he can be offered a chance to knock down that debt by losing a game.(sure thing for that particular mob can push their bet onto another gambling house.) I'm not saying any of this happened but it definitely could not happen if he didn't bet with them. This is in conjunction with the fact that a gambler's mind is not rational at times, and can really do stupid things in an effort to deal with consequences.

I don't disagree with you really. Actually my main premise was to allow Rose into the Hall. I don't necessarily think his being a manager would be a good idea. I also think that most managers were at one time pretty good ball players, but not superstars. They knew/know the game better than the superstars.

pickup · 04-14-2009, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trplnkl

I don't disagree with you really. Actually my main premise was to allow Rose into the Hall. I don't necessarily think his being a manager would be a good idea. I also think that most managers were at one time pretty good ball players, but not superstars. They knew/know the game better than the superstars.

Yeah, you know what? You're right! Let him into the Hall for his stats. But with the explicit understanding, he is barred from managing or coaching or any job in mlb.