Pete Rose

[Weevil]

Re: Pete Rose was a Sparkplug and Kick your Ass Warrior...

He hit .300 almost every year...Was a Most Valuable Player...I can't believe people are knocking him for getting 200 hits a year, because so many were singles...He wasn't a Mark Maguire...

In his heyday, I'd take Pete on my team any day...Hall of Fame

The politics are becoming typical American bullshit

1) He was a .300 hitter? So was Harvey Kuenn. Cecil Travis hit .314 lifetime and played a good shortstop.

2) MVP? Sure but so was Zoilo Versailes. His Teammate, George Foster was a two time MVP. They ain't going in.

3) Lets look at your statement about singles hitters. Comparing a singles hitters worth to a homerun hitter

Lets use his 76 season which was a very good year for him

He hit .323 with 215 hits, 42 doubles, 6 triples and 10 dingers. He also had 86 walks. Real good year. OBP higher than 40%. He scored 130 runs.

You know who had a year that statistically produced about the same amount of runs? Rick Monday.

Rick hit .272 with 145 hits, 20 doubles, 5 triples and 32 homers. He scored 107 runs with an OBP of about 35%.

Rose's combined RBI's + Runs scored is 193

Monday's is 184

So Rose, in what was a great year for him, was slightly better than Rick Monday(Actually Monday would almost certainly have surpassed Rose if they had played an equal number of games. Rose played 25 more games than Monday did)

So an average homerun hitter is pretty much as valuable player than a "great" singles hitter. So yes, critiquing a player for his lack of power is very valid.

 

[Weevil]

BTW. Because I love beating a dead horse I thought I'd add two little notes to my above look at Pete vs. Rick

1) Rick Monday was a good defensive outfielder. He had more worth to his team in the field than Pete did.

2) Pete's MVP year was one where, to my surprise, he didn't play as well as he did in 1976. Worse stats. Looking casually at the numbers I found about 4 guys who I think would have made better MVP's than Pete(Darrel Evans, Bobby Bonds, Joe Morgan and Tom Seaver)

 

[miles]

ee-bee-dubya

You know, Miles, all the above posts as unregistered and Sports Historian were me. Not a troll. Lav figured it out right quick


You're right....I should have known it was you all along. Damn.

How stupid of me to think you were a troll just because you posted like one. I'm not worthy of this board.

 

[Weevil]

The real reason I shouldn't be allowed to talk Baseball is because it gets me over to my Total Baseball and acting like a moronic Bill James wannabe. Sheesh.


I'm still right though, sheesh.

 

[Weevil]

Re: ee-bee-dubya

You know, Miles, all the above posts as unregistered and Sports Historian were me. Not a troll. Lav figured it out right quick


You're right....I should have known it was you all along. Damn.

How stupid of me to think you were a troll just because you posted like one. I'm not worthy of this board.

Well I guess. When you type these long posts it screws up and puts you as Unregistered for some reason. I didn't notice it until your post. I thought you would have recognized that all of the Unregistereds were arguing the same thing I was but I certainly don't put fault upon thee for failing to pick up who I was. Just shouting that those were mine.

 

[registered "^^"]

Bring

back Marge Schott

 

[rambling man]

not a post backing Pete for the Hall, but I take issue with EBW's stance on singles hitters....

How do you think those home run guys get all those RBI's you're talking about? Only if they have good little ball hitters in front of them.

Look at the New York Yankees in the 90s, no major sluggers on a Griffey, Sosa, or MacGwire scale, (although they had some moderately good home run hitters) yet they were far and away the dominant team. They did it by playing disciplined little ball and striking out sluggers

These little guys are just as important as the sluggers. A great home run hitting team goes nowhere unless it has the guys in the one and two spot who can slap out singles

 

[Guest]

not a post backing Pete for the Hall, but I take issue with EBW's stance on singles hitters....

How do you think those home run guys get all those RBI's you're talking about? Only if they have good little ball hitters in front of them.

Look at the New York Yankees in the 90s, no major sluggers on a Griffey, Sosa, or MacGwire scale, (although they had some moderately good home run hitters) yet they were far and away the dominant team. They did it by playing disciplined little ball and striking out sluggers

These little guys are just as important as the sluggers. A great home run hitting team goes nowhere unless it has the guys in the one and two spot who can slap out singles

That's completely untrue on a few levels. First, getting singles isn't important for the guys who are coming up first. Getting on base and into scoring position is what is important. Singles are a part of that but a .250 lead off hitter who walks 100 times so his OBP is .400 is just as valuable as a lead off hitter who hits .350 but walks 25 times so his OBP is .400. Same thing. It will score the same number of runs. BTW how do you think those little guys score the runs they score? Would Pete really have scored 130 runs in 1976 if Foster, Morgan and Bench weren't putting the ball into the stands?

Secondly, I know the way we look at dingers has changed drastically over the last few years but the Yankees were such a good team for a number of reasons and power is one of them. Williams, O'Neill, Martinez, Jeter, Leyritz, Justice et al. could all go deep. Those teams, while not having any one super slugger, hit a lot of homeruns. Jesus, now you've gotten me thinking about it. Off to Total Baseball.

Okay. The 1998 yankees won 114 games with hitting 207 homeruns. I've always thought that 200+ homeruns make you a power team. Simple and plain they were a team that hit a lot of homeruns. Also, in looking over their numbers I am hardpressed to find one of their players I'd describe as a singles hitter. Jeter hit 19. Knoblauch hit 17. They were a power team with good fielding and good pitching. Homeruns won them the World Series.

 

[Mensa]

Pete Rose, Hali-of-Famer, R.I.P.

Pete Rose will be inducted but not until after he dies and the eulogies begin and everyone agrees that it was a shame he was excluded and things should now be set right. Wait and see!

 

[Weevil]

Re: Pete Rose, Hali-of-Famer, R.I.P.

Pete Rose will be inducted but not until after he dies and the eulogies begin and everyone agrees that it was a shame he was excluded and things should now be set right. Wait and see!

Naww. They said the same about Shoeless Joe.

 

[rambling man]

yeah, sometimes baseball really means it

Rose could go work for the Expos, they aren't a major league team anymore, are they?

 

[Weevil]

yeah, sometimes baseball really means it

Rose could go work for the Expos, they aren't a major league team anymore, are they?

In name only, In name only.

 

[Demian]

I'm Done Arguing...Hall of Fame

I sense some jealous Mets Fans here...Big Red Machine!!!

 

[Guest]

Re: I'm Done Arguing...Hall of Fame

I sense some jealous Mets Fans here...Big Red Machine!!!

First off, I'm not sure if you ever really "argued". You presented the same ol', same ol' that Rose supporters put forth which I(And my copy of Total Baseball) refuted to a degree and since no one has disputed my data or methods I think we can agree that I've conclusively proven that Rose wasn't as good as Rick Monday.

Also, I'm a Blue Jays fan. I could give two poos about the National League. I'm a stickler for correctitude however.

 

[Weevil]

Oops, me.

 

[Bob Peale]

Pete Rose, the Susan Lucci of baseball