Was Dwight Gooden the best ever?

[del]

there were no rules about roids. there's been a sign in every MLB clubhouse for at least the past 80 years forbidding gambling and warning players of the penalties. pete rose was a great player and a piece of shit human being.

fuck him. he was warned.

 

[elvis]

there were no rules about roids. there's been a sign in every MLB clubhouse for at least the past 80 years forbidding gambling and warning players of the penalties. pete rose was a great player and a piece of shit human being.

fuck him. he was warned.

the hall of fame stipulation was put in during his investigation, though.

 

[DamnYankee]

Rose should be in the HoF, IMO

If there is no Shoeless Joe Jackson, there can be no Pete Rose.

Please let this thread disappear. No, Dwight is not the best ever, and I'm sick of seeing the question.

LOL! Someone twisting your keyboard to help keep the thread going?

 

[DamnYankee]

Forgot about Bob Feller. He was the man. I wish I could have seen the old times deal.

Adenhart is such a tragedy. The kid had such a bright future but at least he got to throw one good game before he died. He died a major league pitcher and his family should be proud.

The Sox are going to Anaheim to play the Angels tonight. I don't know if I can handle watching whatever they have planned for a pre-game ceremony.

Bob Feller...they called him "Rapid Robert"... my grandfather used to say Feller threw "aspirins" ...

As a baseball, Mickey Mantle and Yankee fan, I always said "heaven" for me would be reincarnation and being transported to NYC when the Yankees, Giants and Dodgers were all there. Almost every day, you could take the subway to Yankee Stadium, the Polo Grounds or Ebbets Field and see Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio, the Mick, Yogi Berra, Whitey Ford, Willy Mays, Duke Snider, Gil Hodges, Roy Campanella and Jackie Robinson.

I remember reading an interview with Leo "the Lip" Durocher talking about Willy Mays. Willy would arrive at the Polo Grounds early; go out in the street and play stickball with kids in the neighborhood, then take treat them to an ice cream before suiting up for the game...

Back then baseball WAS sports in America... I remember my grandmother watching the Saturday Game of the Week with Dizzy Dean and Pee Wee Reese on NBC...EVERYONE was a baseball fan...

My Mom tells me stories from back in the 60's when she and her friends would take the T to Fenway and get bleacher seats for like a buck. It's just what they'd do to hang out on any random lazy day. Can't do that anymore.

When you think about it, the same thing has happened with many a "hang out". The community movie house, or bowling alley, or soda fountain, or even the town ball field. Now, you practically have to spend a day, and a day's pay, to get where you want to go.

 

[DamnYankee]

Rose is banned for life from the sport and from being a Hall of Famer. Was his sin worse?

If Rose bet AGAINST the Reds, the sins are equal. If he didn't, the steroiders are worse.

That always irked me. Did he ever bet against his team? If not then I don't see a damn thing wrong with it.

I really don't see what difference it makes whether he bet against or for them if betting on THE GAME he was involved in was the sin. Why? Because he would have alledgedly been guilty of having them take a dive? How about if he bet FOR them and juiced them up to help ensure a win?

 

[DamnYankee]

there were no rules about roids. there's been a sign in every MLB clubhouse for at least the past 80 years forbidding gambling and warning players of the penalties. pete rose was a great player and a piece of shit human being.

fuck him. he was warned.

Interesting.... MLB began testing for use in 2003. Guessing that means that anyone who used subsequently was warned and, therefore, a "piece of shit human being".

 

[del]

there were no rules about roids. there's been a sign in every MLB clubhouse for at least the past 80 years forbidding gambling and warning players of the penalties. pete rose was a great player and a piece of shit human being.

fuck him. he was warned.

Interesting.... MLB began testing for use in 2003. Guessing that means that anyone who used subsequently was warned and, therefore, a "piece of shit human being".

you won't get an argument from me.

 

[manifold]

If Rose bet AGAINST the Reds, the sins are equal. If he didn't, the steroiders are worse.

That always irked me. Did he ever bet against his team? If not then I don't see a damn thing wrong with it.

How about if he bet FOR them and juiced them up to help ensure a win?

Or what if he left his starter in too long to save his bullpen for the next's days game...that he bet on.

 

[DamnYankee]

That always irked me. Did he ever bet against his team? If not then I don't see a damn thing wrong with it.

How about if he bet FOR them and juiced them up to help ensure a win?

Or what if he left his starter in too long to save his bullpen for the next's days game...that he bet on.

Huh? Don't you have that backwards?

And even the argument is contrary to everything I've heard/read about this. "Blowing out a relief pitcher" was never proven to have been the case when the scenario was that Rose bet on them TO WIN.

 

[manifold]

How about if he bet FOR them and juiced them up to help ensure a win?

Or what if he left his starter in too long to save his bullpen for the next's days game...that he bet on.

Huh? Don't you have that backwards?

And even the argument is contrary to everything I've heard/read about this. "Blowing out a relief pitcher" was never proven to have been the case when the scenario was that Rose bet on them TO WIN.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm saying his bet is on the next day's game. And his managerial decisions are geared to trying to win that game at the expense of the game the day before.

 

[DamnYankee]

Or what if he left his starter in too long to save his bullpen for the next's days game...that he bet on.

Huh? Don't you have that backwards?

And even the argument is contrary to everything I've heard/read about this. "Blowing out a relief pitcher" was never proven to have been the case when the scenario was that Rose bet on them TO WIN.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm saying his bet is on the next day's game. And his managerial decisions are geared to trying to win that game at the expense of the game the day before.

Okay... I understood the bet on the next day's game, and now the rest is clear, ty. Still, it doesn't fit his personal profile. He played each and every game to win. I see no reason why he would / could change his style for the sake of A game -- for the sake of $$.

 

[manifold]

Huh? Don't you have that backwards?

And even the argument is contrary to everything I've heard/read about this. "Blowing out a relief pitcher" was never proven to have been the case when the scenario was that Rose bet on them TO WIN.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm saying his bet is on the next day's game. And his managerial decisions are geared to trying to win that game at the expense of the game the day before.

Okay... I understood the bet on the next day's game, and now the rest is clear, ty. Still, it doesn't fit his personal profile. He played each and every game to win. I see no reason why he would / could change his style for the sake of A game -- for the sake of $$.

Really? I don't think it's a stretch at all. He was an addict.

 

[elvis]

If Rose bet AGAINST the Reds, the sins are equal. If he didn't, the steroiders are worse.

That always irked me. Did he ever bet against his team? If not then I don't see a damn thing wrong with it.

I really don't see what difference it makes whether he bet against or for them if betting on THE GAME he was involved in was the sin. Why? Because he would have alledgedly been guilty of having them take a dive? How about if he bet FOR them and juiced them up to help ensure a win?

because "taking a dive" is the absolute worst thing one can do in sports. juicing up is cheating and affects the statistics, which are golden in baseball. betting against the reds would be equivalent to juicing imo because the stats become artificial. betting on the reds was wrong because it was against the rules and bad for baseball, but I don't think its ramifications are equal to betting against the reds or steroid use.
having said that, I don't think Pete should be allowed back into baseball because he STILL gambles. He bets on racehorses which means if allowed back in, he will bet on baseball again. But I think he should be in the hall of fame because of his record as a player. As far as I know, he didn't start betting until AFTER he was done playing.

 

[elvis]

Huh? Don't you have that backwards?

And even the argument is contrary to everything I've heard/read about this. "Blowing out a relief pitcher" was never proven to have been the case when the scenario was that Rose bet on them TO WIN.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm saying his bet is on the next day's game. And his managerial decisions are geared to trying to win that game at the expense of the game the day before.

Okay... I understood the bet on the next day's game, and now the rest is clear, ty. Still, it doesn't fit his personal profile. He played each and every game to win. I see no reason why he would / could change his style for the sake of A game -- for the sake of $$.

the problem is a gambler gets in a position where hes lost too much money and is in over his head. The "bookie" comes to him and says, "you want out of this debt, throw the next game(s).

 

[DamnYankee]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm saying his bet is on the next day's game. And his managerial decisions are geared to trying to win that game at the expense of the game the day before.

Okay... I understood the bet on the next day's game, and now the rest is clear, ty. Still, it doesn't fit his personal profile. He played each and every game to win. I see no reason why he would / could change his style for the sake of A game -- for the sake of $$.

the problem is a gambler gets in a position where hes lost too much money and is in over his head. The "bookie" comes to him and says, "you want out of this debt, throw the next game(s).

So, everyone, including the "bookies", knows he has a gambling problem, and presumes that throwing a game is his only "out".... How about the "bookie" sets him up?

Pete Rose Page