Re: Brad van Pelt's Last Words ...
- From: El Abogado Que Delira Ha VueltoŽ <siempredelirando@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:47:20 -0500
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:23:15 -0800 (PST), Macabee <LowHertz@xxxxxxxxx>
He was perhaps the most competitive player,
Oh, I don't know. That Keith Miller was a pretty hard-nosed son of a
without super abilities,
speed, soft hands or power won the MVP at three positions.
Let's not resort to making stuff up here. Rose won one MVP award,
in 1973, while playing left field.
He was a great manager as well.
A great manager doesn't give 500 plate appearances to a first baseman
with an adjusted OPS of 99... unless of course, the manager and first
baseman are both Pete Rose, a guy who always put his own interests
ahead of everybody else's.
He made a mistake that was a symptom of being over competitive,
No, he didn't make "a mistake." He made hundreds of mistakes,
flouted baseball's cardinal rule for years and repeatedly lied about
it. And he didn't do that because he was "overcompetitive." He
did it because he was a self-centered, dishonest prick.
he didn't lose games,
How do we know? All we have on that is the word of an admitted
liar, which isn't worth a whole lot.
he didn't cheat.
Tell that to the IRS.
He bet on his own team and played every game to win.
Yeah, but how do we know that the betting didn't affect his strategy?
How do we know that he didn't decide to skip pitchers in the rotation
in order to create more favorable matchups for the games he bet on, or
that he didn't elect to use a closer in a non-save situation because
he happened to have money riding on that day's contest?
And how can we be sure that Rose or one of his associates never tried
tries to cut deals with opposing players in order to ensure a positive
outcome for the Reds? His wanting to win isn't the issue. The
fact is that his betting on his own team creates just as many
potential problems as betting on the opposition, and if he managed
certain games differently because he had money on them, then it
affects and undermines the integrity of _every_ game.
If Micky Mantle, an alcoholic gets in, Whitey Ford and Gaylord Perry,
admitted cheaters get in, it's not a group of Sunday School Teachers.
Now they say Mays was a big and typical abuser of amphetamines.
All of those things may be bad, but they don't case the legitimacy of
the outcome of a particular game into doubt the way that gambling
does. Any time a participant has money riding on a particular game,
the results are inherently suspect.
Leo the Lip put a man with binoculars in center field to read the
Yeah, and some pitchers tip their pitches, and some guys steal signs.
Some guys do steroids and other guys cork their bats. But as bad
as all that stuff is, it doesn't call the integrity of the contest
itself into question -- the players on the field are still giving a
genuine effort. You can't be assured of that when participants are
betting on the outcome, however.
Still one of the greatest managers every and a fine
Hernandez was a coke head, like so many Mets.
So what? This isn't a morality issue. The legitimacy of the
outcome of a game has nothing to do with the morality of the
participants. The point is to ensure an honest competition where
the public can be assured that all the athletes involved are trying to
win. The moment anyone involved places a bet on the outcome,
whether it's to win or lose, that assurance goes right out the window.
Pete Rose learned his lesson and only existed to win.
Pete Rose is a liar and a cheat. Like Joe Jackson and other
disgraced cheats before him, he'll die before he ever gets to
Cooperstown. And that's as it should be.
26*!! 26*!! 26*!!
- Re: Brad van Pelt's Last Words ...
- From: Element
- Re: Brad van Pelt's Last Words ...