Girardi/ARod double dip ejection

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

Okay, if you never heard of it, then you chose not to.

That's absurd. I'm reporting my experience, not my choices. If you think I'm lying about what I heard, then I'll merely say that you're entitled to your opinion.

[Kevin Finnerty]

I apologize. I didn't mean to demean your personal feelings.

I think what I was trying to touch on is the natural unwillingness anyone can be expected to have to know the things about Rose that would tarnish the image of that all-out-all-the-time scrapper that we admired so much for his style of play and his being a big-time winner. I had it too, and I wasn't from Ohio. When I found out about him, it was a crusher, because I loved the game, and he played like I tried to play. I didn't dive all the time, but I learned to push the envelope by watching him. If I was a Reds fan, I would have been that much more devastated. So, I didn't mean to seem that haughty about it.

I have had to shut myself off to a lot of stuff about some guys just to admire them at all. And with all the cheating going on within the game now, it's even harder than ever before. Growing up worshiping guys like Roberto Clemente and Harmon Killebrew, I guess my standard got set too high. Today, you see guys like Torii Hunter and Vlad Guerrero and you have to hope that they're really as cool as they seem, because, in my case, my son worships them. They don't come any better than those two--or so it would appear.

But it all comes down to how guys go about keeping their private lives private. Public figures have a right to a private life. We have a right to be spared from knowing about their private lives. But when Rose went about his private life, he was far too reckless, and he disappointed a vast legion of admirers. On a smaller scale than you, I was one.

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

(A)Okay, if you never heard of it, then (B)you chose not to.

1. B does not logically follow A.

2. I would bet that the majority of baseball fans, much like MByron and me, did not know of Pete's many flaws until his retirement. I know of sportswriters who have written that they did not know of these accusations during his playing days.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by Ump153

1. B does not logically follow A.

2. I would bet that the majority of baseball fans, much like MByron and me, did not know of Pete's many flaws until his retirement. I know of sportswriters who have written that they did not know of these accusations during his playing days.

It was part of common baseball conversation as of the mid-70s. It became a hot topic when Rose was mysteriously allowed to sign elsewhere, and Sparky Anderson was mysteriously let go. That was a full seven years before he was done playing.

It's no crime to choose to ignore it, I just covered that rather extensively. Pete Rose was one of the iconic players of any generation. It's disappointing when any icon's a scumbag. Ask any former fan of Barry Bonds.

Rose's loose behavior was common knowledge. I would expect you to differ.

You know of sportswriters who didn't know ... That's a good one.

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

It was part of common baseball conversation as of the mid-70s. It became a hot topic when Rose was mysteriously allowed to sign elsewhere, and Sparky Anderson was mysteriously let go. That was a full seven years before he was done playing.

It's no crime to choose to ignore it, I just covered that rather extensively. Pete Rose was one of the iconic players of any generation. It's disappointing when any icon's a scumbag. Ask any former fan of Barry Bonds.

Rose's loose behavior was common knowledge. I would expect you to differ.

You know of sportswriters who didn't know ... That's a good one.

{sigh}

Yes, I do. And it would be easy to quote them. It would be easy to cite his Sportsman of the Year and Man of the Year awards voted by sportswriters in the 70's. It would easy to quote from articles from the 70's. And it would easy to quote honest fans from the 70's.

It would be easy to debunk, to thinking people, you allegation of what was "common knowledge." It would be easy to quote fellow players from the 70's Reds who referred to him, pre manager days, as one of the greatest men then knew.

None of this says he was what people thought. We all know now that he wasn't. But, it would be easy to show that more didn't know that then, than did.

It would all be easy. But senseless. You still have this need to have the last word, to prove to the world that you are right and everyone else is wrong. So have it.

Or maybe this is just one of those times where, as you have said, we're "not even in the same league" as you. Maybe this is one of the many times you were better informed than the rest of the world. You knew more and better than most everyone else. Maybe that's so commonplace, you just assumed everyone knew what you knew.

I don't know.

I do know you can't tell people what they knew and what they didn't. Let me correct that, I guess you can tell them that, it just can't be done with certainty.

So, go ahead now. We're all waiting breathlessly for your final word and confirmation of how right you are and how wrong everyone else is.

[SAump]

Common sportswriter knowledge of the day. "That guy will make a great manger one day." BTW, Pete was an outstanding manager considering what he did with 1/2 the talent.

Sparky was let go? I say he stepped down at the right time. The guy who replaced him was 0 for 3 in the playoffs. His next assignment only improved Sparky's fine reputation as a manager.

Sparky wrote in his journal: "... I think they made a big mistake when they did that. Now no one will ever question me again."

1984 Detroit Tigers season - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Ump153

I do know you can't tell people what they knew and what they didn't. Let me correct that, I guess you can tell them that, it just can't be done with certainty.

You can't tell people what they know, but we most certainly can tell you what you don't know, and in this case, you certainly don't know. And I say that with certainty.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by Ump153

{sigh}

Yes, I do. And it would be easy to quote them. It would be easy to cite his Sportsman of the Year and Man of the Year awards voted by sportswriters in the 70's. It would easy to quote from articles from the 70's. And it would easy to quote honest fans from the 70's.

It would be easy to debunk, to thinking people, you allegation of what was "common knowledge." It would be easy to quote fellow players from the 70's Reds who referred to him, pre manager days, as one of the greatest men then knew.

None of this says he was what people thought. We all know now that he wasn't. But, it would be easy to show that more didn't know that then, than did.

It would all be easy. But senseless. You still have this need to have the last word, to prove to the world that you are right and everyone else is wrong. So have it.

Or maybe this is just one of those times where, as you have said, we're "not even in the same league" as you. Maybe this is one of the many times you were better informed than the rest of the world. You knew more and better than most everyone else. Maybe that's so commonplace, you just assumed everyone knew what you knew.

I don't know.

I do know you can't tell people what they knew and what they didn't. Let me correct that, I guess you can tell them that, it just can't be done with certainty.

So, go ahead now. We're all waiting breathlessly for your final word and confirmation of how right you are and how wrong everyone else is.

So that's how you think it is? Now I know, through your very words, why you didn't know: You are quite naive.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

So that's how you think it is? Now I know, through your very words, why you didn't know: You are quite naive.

He appears quite accurate on two accounts to me. First, Rose's numerous flaws were not well publicized in the early and mid 70's. That can be documented.

Secondly, he knew, along with MByron and many others, that you would just have to have the last word. Always. Every time. Whether right or wrong. It's like you think that the longer you argue, the more correct you are.

[Kevin Finnerty]

I was speaking directly to his naive belief that people would make public quotations of what they know about their teammates' or colleagues' private lives. Or that journalists would publish anywhere near everything they know about someone--especially someone they like. That's naive. That's all I was referring to.

However, many of those same people may make private statements to many people. That's how it is or was.

My only contention all along is that Rose was so reckless with his private life that it became public knowledge during the 1970s. It did. I also defended anyone's tendency to not want to know about the misbehavior and misdeeds of one of the game's icons.

But this 153 guy went on about how if it wasn't heard by his ears or read by his eyes that it wasn't public knowledge. How did I know, if it wasn't public knowledge? I was hanging out in and around ballplayers in Los Angeles for crying out loud. It doesn't get much more public than that. I didn't see anyone else behave the way Rose did.

This is late in his run, but it speaks to his recklessness: In June of 1989, during the time Pete was being investigated by the commissioner's office, but still managing, he left the dugout during an inning and went to the clubhouse to watch the running of the Belmont Stakes! Tony Perez took over for a little while. It happened in a stadium full of people and hundreds, if not thousands saw him leave and come back right about the time that the results of the Belmont were posted on the message board. So that reckless bit of conduct was typical of Rose's style. And he pulled that beauty while they were investigating his gambling ties!

That reckless act was public knowledge. Did you know about it? I did; I watched it up close. So did a significant number of other members of the general public. Thousands, maybe. That makes it public knowledge. I watched it and many other reckless things that Rose did very publicly as far back as 1972. I read and heard of his paternity woes right then, in the mid-70s. That part of his little rampage through history is what made me stop admiring him. Other misdeeds of his that attracted the attention of baseball's leadership in the first place were also committed while he was still playing and managing, and were also widely known. Almost everybody I knew in baseball knew about most of the stuff that he was doing, but it was Pete Rose, for crying out loud! They weren't going to let that ruin the guy. It's the same brand of resistance that we have to have about any star or artist whose work we admire, but they're a scumbag in everyday life.

This debate sounds like ones that took place in our corner sports bar in 1989 and '90.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

TRANSLATED:

"I'm right dammit, I'm right, I"m right, I'm right."

[Adam]

Lmao

[LDUB]

You don't understand what public knowledge means. It is defined as "knowledge that is available to anyone".

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

I was speaking directly to his naive belief that people would make public quotations of what they know about their teammates' or colleagues' private lives.

A teammate knowing something about Rose and not telling the pubic does not make it public knowledge.

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

Or that journalists would publish anywhere near everything they know about someone--especially someone they like. That's naive. That's all I was referring to.

A journalist who interviews Rose and then never prints what he said does not make what he said public knowledge.

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

However, many of those same people may make private statements to many people. That's how it is or was.

A private statement to someone does not make it public knowledge. See the definition above.

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

But this 153 guy went on about how if it wasn't heard by his ears or read by his eyes that it wasn't public knowledge. How did I know, if it wasn't public knowledge? I was hanging out in and around ballplayers in Los Angeles for crying out loud. It doesn't get much more public than that. I didn't see anyone else behave the way Rose did.

Once again that is a private statement. What the ballplayer said to you was not available for anyone to hear.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

This debate sounds like ones that took place in our corner sports bar in 1989 and '90.

It, like most of the discussions involving the same posters, sounds like something you hear everday on the playgrounds when the second graders are out for recess.

Apologies in advance for insulting second graders.