Page 6 of 9

Re: Guillen and Rose

PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 6:33 pm
by Minor League Skilz
bigjimblue wrote:Guillen has been a jerk everywhere he's played, including Cincinnati. Why didn't his anger management classes he took last year do him any good?

Now as for Rose: Ask his own teammates and almost unanimously they will tell you he belongs in the HOF. He didn't get the tag "Charlie Hustle" for nothing! I don't intend to open a can of worms here, but notice the geographical location of the posters who are for and against Rose. North - anti, South - pro.

I smell Civil War II! <img src=/forums/images/smiles/kiss.gif>

PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 6:38 pm
by BobbyRoberto
Regarding The Great Pete Rose Debate, I feel like I'm on the outskirts of a junior high fight and I really want to jump in and start pounding someone, but I'm trying not to.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 6:54 pm
by Dawgpound 1613
Hank Aaron - career OPS of .929 in 3298 games (12364 AB); 1477 XBH; 240 SB (77% success).

Babe Ruth - career OPS of 1.164 in 2503 games (8399 AB); 1356 XBH; 123 SB (51% success).

Pete Rose - career OPS of .784 in 3562 games (14053 AB); 1041 XBH; 198 SB (57% success).

In 2004, MLB average OPS was .763.

By today's standards, Rose is barely above average in terms of OPS. Based on the number of steals and his SB percentage, Rose cannot be said to have had great speed. Lastly, in fewer games and ABs, Aaron and Ruth both had many more XBH, such that Rose cannot be said to have had great power.

As for his records, they are mostly based on longevity. Which simply means he didn't suffer any major injuries and he played hurt - something he shared with Ripken, but does not equate to "greatness" in my book.

And, yes, I understand that most records are based on longevity, but if Aaron had the same number of ABs as Ruth, he would have still had over 500 HR. However, had Rose had the same ABs, he would have had fewer than 2600 hits - a feat that while good, is not nearly as impressive. Heck, Julio Franco will get his 2500th hit in the near future - and with a career OPS of .786 (higher than Rose's). If he played at this level for the next 10 years, and ended his career with 3500+ hits, I would not be talking about how "great" a player that Julio Franco was.

As for the doubles, the 746 is impressive to some extent, except that many of those were caused from him stretching a single into a double. Again, admirable for the hustle, but does not equate to him being a great player. And, honestly, with 4256 hits, he had to have a decent number of doubles, especially with so few other XBH. E.g. Jimmy Rollins has a higher 2B% (165 2B in 824 hits - 20%), higher 3B% (48 3B - 5.8%) and HR% (55 HR - 6.7%) than Rose (17.5 2B%, 3.2 3B%; 3.8 HR%) - and I surely don't consider Rollins to be a great player.

Also, the fact that he played 500 games at so many positions supports the argument that he was so bad defensively, he was moved around to try and limit the damage. And, on the defensive spectrum, 1st base is the lowest rung - meaning that when all else failed, they put him at the position at which he could do the least damage.

As SouthBronx said, Rose was a glorfied singles hitter who was fortunate to avoid serious injury and played for an exceptionally long time - and in many instances for good teams. He played with a lot of hustle, and turned many singles into doubles and doubles into triples due to this hustle. However, he did not hit for power (isolated slugging of just .106) and he did not possess good speed. He simply took average talent and parlayed that into great numbers. While that is impressive to some extent, it does not, IMHO, make him a great player. Great players, IMHO, have a career OPS above .800 (and, in reality, above .900).

PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:05 pm
by thehat
This is truly insane.

Anyone who doesn't think Pete Rose was a great ballplayer knows nothing about the game. Either that or personal dislike for the guy is completely clouding their judgement.

No offense (particularly to South Bronx, who also doesn't think much of Ripken), but when you offer such inane commentary, you make yourself seem foolish.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:17 pm
by Tavish
thehat wrote:This is truly insane.

Anyone who doesn't think Pete Rose was a great ballplayer knows nothing about the game. Either that or personal dislike for the guy is completely clouding their judgement.

I guess it depends on your definition of a great ballplayer. I don't think Rose was a great player, just a very good player who played for a very long time.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:21 pm
by SouthBronxBombers
I said I don't think much of Ripken's streak. All it is a testament to not having a majpr injury. There were plenty of times his play was not good enough to keep him on the field, but the streak did, to the detriment of the team.

Rose is simply not a great player. He did one thing well, and even that was not at the level of the greats of the game. That is not a hallmark of a great player, especially when that one thing is nowhere near the level of the actual greats. What is his claim to fame. Hits. Yet he only has a career batting average of just over .300. That's not a great hitter. Staying healthy for a long time and hitting lots of singles does not make one a great player.

He was not a good baserunner. He was sub-par defensively. He had no power. He could not throw worth a darn. He could hit singles, and didn't even hit those at a rate that would rank anywhere near to the best in the game. He was not a great hitter. One would think that a great hitter, who has no power, would hit far better than .303 for his career.

He simply was not a great hitter. And since there was no other facet of his game that was even close to being above average, he was not a great player. He hustled and played to the fans. That is not the same thing as being a great player.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 8:09 pm
by BobbyRoberto
Alright, I'll jump in. If you go over to the great website, you can find out how good a player Pete Rose was. They have a stat there called OPS+ which adjusts for the league-wide hitting era the player played in, the ballpark, etc. I think it's a good, unbiased number to judge a hitter. For example, in a post above someone compared Pete Rose to Jimmy Rollins. You can't compare the two based only on OPS because Pete Rose played all through the 60's and early 70's, in an era of very low offense, while Jimmy Rollins has been lucky enough to play during the high-offense era from 1995 to now. OPS+ takes this into consideration.

For Pete Rose, his lifetime OPS+ is 118 (Jimmy Rollins came into the season with an OPS+ of 93, 7 % below average). That means Rose's OPS was 18% higher than the average player during the years he played (1963-1986). One of the valid criticisms of Rose is that he hung on too long. He did. Many players do.

Anyway, from 1965 to 1979 (15 years), Pete Rose was between 15% and 58% better than the average player every year. That's a good, long stretch of being a valuable player. His 3 highest years were 152, 158, and 141, which is nothing compared to Babe Ruth (255, 239, 227) or Barry Bonds (275, 262, 260), but still a very good hitter. During this 15-year peak, Rose's OPS+ was 127.

So, for his career, Rose's OPS was 118. How does that compare to other Hall of Famers?

Hank Aaron--155
Babe Ruth--207
Lou Gehrig--179
Ted Williams--190

Those are some of the all-time greats, and Rose isn't close to them. Who are comparable Hall of Famers to Rose?
Ernie Banks--122
Gary Carter--115
Joe Cronin--119
Carlton Fisk--117
Robin Yount--115
Bobby Doerr--115

How about if we take Pete Rose's 15-year stretch, with an OPS+ of 127. Who does he compare to?
Yogi Berra--125
Kiki Cuyler--125
Eddie Murray--129
Kirby Puckett--124

So, Pete Rose was a valuable player. If you go by OPS+ and include his entire career, he's right there with Ernie Banks, Carlton Fisk, Robin Yount, etc.

Are Ernie Banks, Carlton Fisk, and Robin Yount great hitters? If so, then Pete Rose is right there with them, with bonus points for doing it for a longer period of time.

There are plenty of Hall of Famers who were much, much worse than Pete Rose.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 11:13 pm
by jblank
Bobby, you are just wasting your time. Just let their own words speak for them. They are saying a guy thats the all time hits leader, and holds about 20 other records, isnt a great player. The sheer stupidity of that and the fact that they feel confident enough in their belief to actually SAY THAT, says everything about how much they really know about Rose's abilities, performance, and career.

PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 10:14 am
by SouthBronxBombers
I'm quite happy with my words standing for me. Rose was not a great player. Again, the only thing that elevates him is longevity. He was not a great hitter. A lifetime average of just over .300 with no power is not a great hitter. Holding records that depend on no talent, just on staying around a long time does not make one a great player. In no single year was he the best player on his team, let alone among the top ten of players in the league. At no position he played would he be in the top ten or all time at that position. Not even among the top 25, taking him at his peak years at that position and taking every other player in their peak year at that position. Or even their respective average years at each position. He was subpar in every aspect of the game, other than hitting, and at that, he was not among the greats. With no power and only slightly above .300, not even close to being an all time great. He was able to sustain his production over a long period of time. That by itself does not elevate a player to greatness.

I'm very happy with my words speaking for me. That you or any other Rose kool-aid drinker does not agree with me does not really matter. By the measure of the game, Rose was not an all-time great.

PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 10:46 am
by Chicago RedSox
Dawgpound 1613 wrote:As for his records, they are mostly based on longevity. Which simply means he didn't suffer any major injuries and he played hurt - something he shared with Ripken, but does not equate to "greatness" in my book.

What records aren't based on longevity? To have the all time record you have to balance longevity and talent. If you're gifted enough to play for 24 years, then you can there with a bit less talent. If you're a talent phenom you can get there a few less years. Either way you have to play for a long time and be consistant.
If Rose wasn't good enough for the HOF they wouldn't of felt it necessary to ban him from the HOF.