Options
Was Ichiro better than Rose?
doubledragon
Posts: 23,048 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Ichiro had 3089 MLB hits plus 1278 in his Japan years which totals 4367, and of course Pete had 4256 in his career. Ok, who is the real all time hit king?
1
Comments
Simply fascinating.
I don't give Ichiro any credit for his Japan years. Makes no sense to include them. Why count the numbers from an inferior league?
That said, Pete Rose was better overall, depending on how much you credit Ichiro for his defense. Pete hit for more power but Ichiro was better defensively.
Neither guy was of much interest to me.
To answer the question, I would take Ichiro. Hitting wise they were both anemic, Pete hit a few more doubles, Ichiro stole A LOT more bases while getting caught a lot less, and was a better defender.
Rose is the hit king, don't care about what Ichiro did before MLB.
edited to add; nice to see you feel your posts are "Simply fascinating" ;-)
The subject is simply fascinating, not my post.
Furthermore, I would have to disagree with Mr. Banzai's above post, I believe both Ichiro and Rose to be very interesting to watch and both players could hit the wings off of a fly.
If ichiro gets credit for his hits before MLB, we need to give Pete credit for his minor league hits.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
This is a joke, right? One where we pretend that hitting in Seattle in the 2000's is the same as hitting in Cincinnati in the 1960's-1970's? One where we pretend that having 17 seasons better than an average player is the same as having 10? One where we pretend that being 33rd all time in Win Probability added (between DiMaggio and Stargell) is the same as being 451st (between Dick Dietz and Bernie Carbo)? One where we pretend a guy who played RF his entire career is more valuable defensively than a guy who can play every position and who also won Gold Gloves when he did play OF?
Well, I don't get it. Rose was so much better than Ichiro that nobody could possibly fall for this joke anyway.
I feel like I've read this thread title before..
The answer is still No.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Ichiro was a great hitter though, he had 10 consecutive seasons of 200 hits and still has the record for most hits in a season at 262. I believe he was also the second fastest to reach the 2,000 hit milestone. It would have been interesting to see what his numbers would have been had he played his entire career in MLB.
lets do a poll and place a bet on the result
No more polls, I can still smell the stench coming from the other Pete Rose poll!
Sure, but it's no match for the stench of the second half of Ichiro's career
I based my answer not on their career totals, but on their overall ability to play the game. Of course Rose with his 17 seasons is going to be better than a guy with 10.
Either way, I still don't care about hitters like this. It's not only NOT fascinating, it's barely interesting.
Carry on.
Yes it would be a BIT interesting if he had played his entire career in the MLB.............but not much.
Whoa, let's not get our panties in a bunch here dallas, I never said Ichiro was the better hitter. In fact, I believe Rose was clearly the better hitter, I'm simply daying that both of these guys were great hitters, and it would have been interesting to see Ichiro's numbers had he played his entire career in MLB.
And the point of my post was try to stop people from comparing a great hitter like Rose to a barely adequate hitter like Ichiro. I mentioned that Dick Dietz added more Win Probability over his career than Ichiro, but so did Cesar Tovar; Pee Wee Reese added twice as much.
"Hitters like this" simply does not apply to Rose and Ichiro; there are hitters like Ichiro, and there are hitters like Rose - they do not intersect. Rose was in the top 10 in the NL six times in extra base hits; I don't know if Ichiro ever made the top 50. Rose was in the top 10 eleven times in total bases and in the top 5 four times; Ichiro twice and never. Ichiro's top season in OPS+ was 130; that ties for Rose's seventh-best season.
Rose is human scum and I switch sides rapidly when the topic of admitting him to the HOF comes up, but Rose was a great hitter and Ichiro was not. As it would be a disgrace to baseball to admit Rose to the HOF, it is a disgrace to Rose to be compared to Ichiro.
DD your dyslexia strikes again.
You meant to say:" No more polls, I can still smell the stench coming from my thread,'Was Ichiro better than Rose?'
Try to follow along people. The implied joke was that if we put a bet on it , Pete Rose would register an account and bet the under or summat .
The worthless pus-bag
Its a disgrace that he is not in.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Oh come on dallas, yes Pete Rose was the better hitter, but to say Ichiro wasn't great is absurd. Ichiro basically spent the second half of his career in the bathroom powdering his nose, yet he still landed on a .311 career batting average and 3,089 hits.
The other Pete Rose thread was awesome and a lot of fun, my comment wasn't a knock on your thread, I just meant your thread was a barroom brawl, and evertime I enter that thread, I leave with a black eye and a busted lip.
Yes, he was better.
Erik
Who are they?
First, had Ichiro spent those years in the bathroom powdering his nose, he would have helped his teams far more. But no, he spent those years in the lineup and in so doing dragged his teams down. You are asking that I pretend that didn't happen, that I just ignore how putrid he was for all those years, and my answer is "no".
Second, if a high batting average was all it took to be a great hitter, then Ichiro would be a great hitter. But it takes more than that, and Ichiro was not a great hitter. He was a great singles hitter, if that's even a thing, but great hitters win more games for their teams than Dick Dietz did. As low a bar as that is, Ichiro didn't clear it.
An OPS+ of 107 from a career outfielder may even be below average. Find me another outfielder with an OPS+ of 107 or less that you consider "great". I bet you can't find one even close to that, but you can prove me wrong. Or, for the part of his career where Ichiro wasn't putrid, his OPS+ was 117. Even ignoring his putrid years, find me another outfielder that you consider great with an OPS+ of 117 or less. It can't be done using my definition of "great", but I'd like to see just how far you're stretching that word.
I can't believe you can sit there and say Ichiro wasn't great. He is a LOCK for the Hall of Fame. He was a hitting machine. He is the only player to have 10 consecutive seasons of 200 hits, he holds one of the best records in all of sports, the single season hits record, he has a better career batting average than Rose, and he didn't enter the league until he was 28 years old. I don't know what your definition of greatness is, I guess he should have hit a few more doubles.
My challenge stands to identify any other outfielder you consider a great hitter with a career OPS+ of 117 or less. I'm pretty sure no such player exists, but the exercise of looking for one would inevitably open your eyes to what I'm talking about.
Ichiro is a lock for the HOF, and he will join Harold Baines and Highpockets Kelly and the other far less than great hitters that already pollute the place. If your argument is that being elected to the HOF transforms less than great players into great ones, then you're wrong, but at least I follow your point. If that isn't your argument, then I don't even know why you mentioned it.
And no matter how often you repeat it, it won't become true. Ichiro was a singles machine, not a hitting machine. He was a more durable Matty Alou, on a better team, and he got to come to the plate 5 times almost every game he played. And in those games he slapped a single or two while making 3 or 4 outs. If you had a whole team of Ichiros, hitting like that would be expected to get you a .565 winning percentage. That's not bad, but it's far from great; it's tied for 715th all time with, among others, Matty Alou, who was essentially the same player as Ichiro. Get yourself a lineup of Pete Roses, though, and you'll win at a .644 clip, and for a lot more years. That's the difference between a great hitter and a great singles hitter.
I have to hand it to you dallas, you know your stuff. I'm not about to challenge you on the subject, because you are very knowledgable about this stuff. You have a mathematical gift about this kind of stuff, and I tip my hat to you. I miss the debates between you and 1970s. I will say this, I believe Ichiro was a great player, and if he had played his entire career in MLB, he would have had at least reached 3,800 hits.
Ichiro averaged 31 SB a season and was a great defensive outfielder (10GG), with a cannon for an arm, so he DID do a bit more than hit singles.
Rose was slightly better at the plate hitting the ball and walked more. Ichiro stole 22 more bases per year.
Both guys SLG were barely over .400............Yawn.
everything that can be measured by statistics accepted, Pete Rose brought more "intangible Qualities" to the game than most other players and was more fun to watch. I would think most who give an edge to Ichiro have only seen highlight film of Pete Rose.
I saw a lot of Rose when he played. He was a super "hard nosed" player who gave everything he had. You are correct that I failed to give him credit for his intangibles. In the "fun to watch" category, he wins hands down.
I still like Ichiro a little better. His base stealing more than makes up for Rose's "intensity" imo, but they are very close for a couple of "banjo" hitters.
I also probably have some resentment towards Pete, he was one of my favorite players and he turned out to be blech.