Tracer said:
I’ll choose to take that as a compliment. 
Ahhh, but the fact that Pete Rose has seen and touched the evidence is what makes him different from David B.
pat
Yes, well it is nice to be able to say show me the evidence when you know you could probably sue MLB for releasing it from their locked boxes.
The evidence is there. Pete Rose is a lying scumbag, but that does not excuse Gray from his inappropriate actions AT THAT TIME and AFTER THAT EVENT.
Satan,
Reading the full transcript, I agree, Gray went too far. BUT, I really respect the fact that he asked those questions. I wish he would have asked them once, then said something about the ceremony.
I respect that he asked journalistic questions. He didn’t try to be Pete’s friend. Like alot of TV guys try to do.
He asked the same questions the newspaper guys asked, the ones I wanted to see Pete answer.
Ok, He should have stopped, and he went to far, I agree with that.
But, my question is, Satan, (I am directing this at you, because you started the thread) Do you think he was wrong simply for asking these questions? Or do you agree with me that he went way too far.
Let me put my argument for why I think he should ask those questions. This was the first time in 10 years Pete was in the national spotlight, these questions have been stirring for all of that time.
If Pete Rose would ever in a million years admit it, this would have been a PERFECT time for him to turn around and apoligize for his acts.
As a journalist, these were questions he should have asked. As a human being, I think he should have recognized the line and changed the subject.
pat
Or maybe asked where Rose was during the press conference earlier in the day, when the rest of the century players answered questions. I heard on the radio that he was at an autograph signing. Seems like the press conference would have been a much more appropriate venue to ask him these questions. Did MLB not invite him or did he skip it?
pricciar:
As someone who has interviewed hundreds of people in my time, I think I know a little bit about how those exchanges work.
(1) Asking the questin once would have been fine. When irt was obvious that the subject wasn’t thrilled with that direction, continuing on that subject only makes you antagonistic.
(2) The WAY he worded the first question was also very antagonistic. “When are you going to come clean and admit that you gambled on baseball” is not the greatest way to start off an interview.
Ultimately, the timing was bad more than anything. I’m all for reporters who don’t kiss their subjects asses, but there is a time and a place. To me (and many others), that was neither.
That was EXACTLY the time and place to ask Rose about his betting. He might have chosen to ride the wave of sentiment and apologize for betting on baseball, beginning a real campaign to end his suspension.
Then Grey did exactly the right thing by refusing to accept the pat denial. He asked follow up questions and approached the subject from new angles.
Also, drop the ``Rose was ambushed’’ crap. Rose had been asked much the same questions at an earlier press conference – and at almost every other public event he attends, I imagine. He had every reason to believe he would be asked about it. What surprised everyone is that Grey refused to roll over and quietly accept the same old answers. He did his job, and very few sports reporters do that.
It galls me that Rose fans admire his hustle and take-no-prisoners attitude but lambaste Grey for showing the same traits in his line of work.
All that said, I can understand why people might be uncomfortable with the interview. It’s difficult to watch tough questions being asked, and Grey probably made a mistake in pressing so hard on live TV. But there’s no need for the personal attacks on Grey. He wasn’t out to ``get’’ anything except some straight answers.
And I think Rose should be admitted to the Hall of Fame.
Up, up and away!
So what you’re saying, Clark, is that if Pete was interviewed outside of the church for, say, Johnny Bench’s funeral, that interview would be okey dokey in your book?
The ‘greatest’ hitter has always been a subjective term. A science (OK, a methodology) named sabermetrics has been developed by Bill James, Pete Palmer, and others to quantify the term. To determine their pantheon of batting prowess, they try to incorporate in a consistent and ordered way all batting attributes, positive and negative, and place them in context. I should note that they do this independently. Latest results have Williams edging the Babe as ‘greatest hitter ever’. People like Mantle, Mays and Morgan, and Gehrig, Simmons and Hornsby are in the mix, but definitely below the top 2. I figure you couldn’t go wrong with any of these guys on your team, but my outfield would have to include Ruth, Musial and Mantle.
If Pete Rose had agreed to do an exclusive interview with Jim Gray, then Gray would have had carte blanche to grill him, roast him, skewer him. But this was ** not ** an interview.
Rose was at an event honoring his athletic achievements. It was a celebration for a lot of people, not just Pete Rose. By grilling one of the HONOREES on national television, Gray soured the event for * everyone * and that included the other nominees and the fans.
The problem is that the majority of viewers who tuned into the World Series game and the ceremony honoring the players were not interested in a 60-minutes’ style grilling of Pete Rose. Gray’s interview is a classic example of an egotistical reporter not giving the viewers what they wanted. The World Series and was supposed to be entertainment for the masses, not Gray’s opportunity to show that he’s a real tough journalist. Gray’s interview is a classic example of why many polls show that reporters are as unpopular as lawyers and used car salesmen.
I agree with hating used car dealers.
But lawyers and reporters? nah.
Thats probably another thread in itself.
And so is this, but I don’t think it will have much interest.
I think it is impossible to say that someone is the greatest hitter ever. Its comparing different eras with different picthes and different situations. Many people today would say that the game isn’t as good as it used to be, that the talent is diluted. My response to that is, that they are drawing from a bigger talent pool. Black people are allowed to play, people from other countries are playing more often. So I don’t think the talent is diluted, I think it is improving. Ted Williams said before he retired that one of the reasons he was retiring he was leaving was because he couldn’t handle the slider.
New pitches made things more difficult.
Although, if he were younger I have no doubt he could have figured out the slider.
So, what I am saying is that to pick one BEST hitter is near impossible, because you are comparing things that are not comparable. To make a list of a best of their time, now that is doable.
pat
[[zoony: Ted Williams was (is) the greatest hitter in Major League history.]] Rousseau
By a slim consensus, it seems, although a good argument can bemade for Ruth (and an argument can also be made for Cobb). Rose, his record notwithstanding, isn’t even remotely arguable as one of the top ten in history. Indeed, you’d be hard-pressed to credibly argue that he was one of the top 25.
Since this thread has already been hijacked into a “who’s the best hitter” debate, I’ll chime in with the fact that I have often wondered if the great hitters of the past could handle the pitching of today as well as what they faced in their day and age.
Back in the Cobb and Ruth days there weren’t any relief specialists. Also there weren’t any split-finger fastballs and sliders being thrown. I think that the athelete of today is stronger and faster (on average) and that affects hitting from the standpoint of better velocity on the part of the pitchers (on average) and better defensive range by the outfielders, taking away some hits…
I think the fact that .400 seems almost unattainable these days proves the point.