@olb31 said:
Pete was probably guilty. But for the fans that watched him, they really enjoyed "Charlie Hustle".
Mays, AAron, Bonds, Williams, Musial, AROD, Rose, Schmidt, Pujols, Ruth. Probably the best 10 players of All-time.
"Probably guilty"?
Not sure how you can make that statement. Pete broke the #1 rule of baseball and it was both proven AND he openly admits it.
There's no doubt he was "entertaining". He played hard, as did most players. The "Charlie Hustle" nickname was given to him as a criticism, not a compliment. Mantle said "If I hit like that, I would wear a dress"!
"Best"? That is completely incorrect unless you are talking about career length, or maybe popularity.
Here's where Pete really ranks all time;
Batting Average, 180th.
On Base Percentage, 228th.
OPS, 625th.
SLG 982nd.
Stolen bases, 367th.
He's right in the Harold Baines area.
He did play almost every game for almost 20 years, which is amazing.
He's probably somewhere in the top 250 players of all time.
I get that people hate the guy but you are either under rating him or just forgot how good he was. Yes he lacked power but from the moment he came into the league he was a big deal. He won ROY and proceeded to be an MVP candidate for almost 20 years. He also went to 6 WS's and won 3.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
@1all said:
Yea.... saying Rose = Baines is getting into Troll territory. I know that Joe isn't a troll but he is definitely trying to stir the pot with that post.
I compared Baines and Rose and there's no "stirring the pot" here. Rose was a SLIGHTLY better hitter for average and Baines was the better hitter for power, having a higher OPS and OPS+ than Pete. Rose's numbers stand out because he played every day, for a LOT longer.
Saying Rose is anywhere near one of the top 10 players in the history of baseball is preposterous, he's MUCH closer to Harold Baines than to Babe Ruth or a couple of guys not even mentioned; Jimmy Foxx and Lou Gehrig.
Rose (as I said) was AMAZING in his ability to play nearly every game for about 18-19 of his 24 seasons. He also got many at bats in those years and didn't walk much. This means he SHOULD have the most hits if he's a good hitter.
The FACT is there have been about 179 better hitters for average than Pete and that's the single thing he was best at.
>
>
Pete was a 17 time all-star at an UNPRECEDENTED five different positions.
Somewhat like Killebrew, who was an all-star at three positions. Does this prove Killebrew was a great left fielder?
All star selections aren't the best way to evaluate players either. I see at least 3 times he had no business being on the all star team. That being said, I don't dispute that he was a great player, and he obviously played more games than anyone .
>
Pete actually played on a team that won championships 3 times and a world series MVP.
The W.S. MVP is nice, but because he was a guy who played on great teams, doesn't mean he was a great player.
>
44 game hit streak. 6th in runs scored, 9th in total bases, 1st in hits, 2nd in doubles.
Hitting streak? Nice 1/4 of a season! Not being sarcastic, that's what it proves, he got hot for 1/4 of a year.
6th in runs scored, great, he had great hitters hitting behind him, remember, there were 227 guys in the history of baseball with a higher OBP than Pete. Every one of them would likely have more runs scored had they played as long.
9th in total bases, almost all of them singles and doubles. Almost 1,000 MLB players had a higher SLG!
2nd in doubles, ok let's look at the 7 times Pete had 40 or more doubles in a season; he didn't hit more than 10 HR in any of those years, never slugged over .500 in any of them and actually slugged BELOW .400 in two of them.
>
Baines and Rose are not close.
No, they aren't in at bats.
For their careers Baines was 78 points above the league in OPS, Pete was only 63 points better than the players he completed with using OPS.
Pete's career breaks down nicely into three 8 year periods;
8 great years, especially 1968 & 1969.
8 good years with about a .300 BA, and no power.
8 pretty bad seasons where he wasn't anywhere near a HOF caliber player.
Rose played in more games and came to bat more than anyone in history. That's an incredible record of longevity and durability, especially when you factor in his very aggressive playing style. The fact that the only other record he holds is hits, actually proves he was not one of the best hitters of all time.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1all said:
Yea.... saying Rose = Baines is getting into Troll territory. I know that Joe isn't a troll but he is definitely trying to stir the pot with that post.
I compared Baines and Rose and there's no "stirring the pot" here. Rose was a SLIGHTLY better hitter for average and Baines was the better hitter for power, having a higher OPS and OPS+ than Pete. Rose's numbers stand out because he played every day, for a LOT longer.
Saying Rose is anywhere near one of the top 10 players in the history of baseball is preposterous, he's MUCH closer to Harold Baines than to Babe Ruth or a couple of guys not even mentioned; Jimmy Foxx and Lou Gehrig.
Rose (as I said) was AMAZING in his ability to play nearly every game for about 18-19 of his 24 seasons. He also got many at bats in those years and didn't walk much. This means he SHOULD have the most hits if he's a good hitter.
The FACT is there have been about 179 better hitters for average than Pete and that's the single thing he was best at.
>
>
Pete was a 17 time all-star at an UNPRECEDENTED five different positions.
Somewhat like Killebrew, who was an all-star at three positions. Does this prove Killebrew was a great left fielder?
All star selections aren't the best way to evaluate players either. I see at least 3 times he had no business being on the all star team. That being said, I don't dispute that he was a great player, and he obviously played more games than anyone .
>
Pete actually played on a team that won championships 3 times and a world series MVP.
The W.S. MVP is nice, but because he was a guy who played on great teams, doesn't mean he was a great player.
>
44 game hit streak. 6th in runs scored, 9th in total bases, 1st in hits, 2nd in doubles.
Hitting streak? Nice 1/4 of a season! Not being sarcastic, that's what it proves, he got hot for 1/4 of a year.
6th in runs scored, great, he had great hitters hitting behind him, remember, there were 227 guys in the history of baseball with a higher OBP than Pete. Every one of them would likely have more runs scored had they played as long.
9th in total bases, almost all of them singles and doubles. Almost 1,000 MLB players had a higher SLG!
2nd in doubles, ok let's look at the 7 times Pete had 40 or more doubles in a season; he didn't hit more than 10 HR in any of those years, never slugged over .500 in any of them and actually slugged BELOW .400 in two of them.
>
Baines and Rose are not close.
No, they aren't in at bats.
For their careers Baines was 78 points above the league in OPS, Pete was only 63 points better than the players he completed with using OPS.
Pete's career breaks down nicely into three 8 year periods;
8 great years, especially 1968 & 1969.
8 good years with about a .300 BA, and no power.
8 pretty bad seasons where he wasn't anywhere near a HOF caliber player.
Rose played in more games and came to bat more than anyone in history. That's an incredible record of longevity and durability, especially when you factor in his very aggressive playing style. The fact that the only other record he holds is hits, actually proves he was not one of the best hitters of all time.
Rose played in 6 WS, won 3, and you compare him to Baines that played in 1. Rose only played 5 season in Philadelphia, at the end of his career. They went to the WS twice and won their first WS in those 5 years. Al Davis said it best " Just Win Baby"
Rose was in the MVP voting 15 times: 10 times in the Top 10 and 5 times in the Top 5. He had to be better than you give him credit for.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
From 1965-1980 (16 seasons)...Pete Rose had 600+ ABs only missing in 1967 due to an outfield collision at Dodger Stadium during the summer of that season (I was listening to that late night Friday game on WLW radio). During that stretch of his career...Pete had 200+ hits in 10 of those seasons missing twice by just 2 hits (198) with a low of 176 hits during the injury season. To Rose's credit...the man was very durable and consistent as well as being able to keep his skillset late into his major league career all allowing Pete to pass Ty Cobb's hit record. It took a very special player to achieve this accomplishment of breaking Cobb's record. Again...Pete Rose is in my top 30 baseball players of all-time...
It’s funny… I don’t know squat about baseball or statistics… but I do know this…
I LOVED watching him play.
And I know why I loved watching him… Anyone that ever played sports knows someone that played sports that was all conference all state all everything… and when you watched them or played with them or against them… you were just in awe at how totally invested they were … 300% all the time…. And it always showed!!! Every minute they were playing. And when I watched him… that’s what he reminded me of…All in… All the time.
I hope someday he gets some recognition for that… but for now I’ll just enjoy remembering that feeling when I watched him… everything else aside….and let the experts figure out the rest.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one. Live long, and prosper.
Can't decide which discussion is sillier. The Stockton vs Trout or this Rose vs Baines. If you don't think Rose is an all time great, you don't know the game. If you think he's the 180th best player because he's listed 180th for some stat, again, you don't understand the game. Durability, passion, consistency used to be valued, now you're accused of being a compiler. Now you only have to be great for 5 peak years and you're on the all time list. Hell, just be a local hero of a new club. Right future HOFer Todd Helton?
@1all said:
Yea.... saying Rose = Baines is getting into Troll territory. I know that Joe isn't a troll but he is definitely trying to stir the pot with that post.
I compared Baines and Rose and there's no "stirring the pot" here. Rose was a SLIGHTLY better hitter for average and Baines was the better hitter for power, having a higher OPS and OPS+ than Pete. Rose's numbers stand out because he played every day, for a LOT longer.
Saying Rose is anywhere near one of the top 10 players in the history of baseball is preposterous, he's MUCH closer to Harold Baines than to Babe Ruth or a couple of guys not even mentioned; Jimmy Foxx and Lou Gehrig.
Rose (as I said) was AMAZING in his ability to play nearly every game for about 18-19 of his 24 seasons. He also got many at bats in those years and didn't walk much. This means he SHOULD have the most hits if he's a good hitter.
The FACT is there have been about 179 better hitters for average than Pete and that's the single thing he was best at.
>
>
Pete was a 17 time all-star at an UNPRECEDENTED five different positions.
Somewhat like Killebrew, who was an all-star at three positions. Does this prove Killebrew was a great left fielder?
All star selections aren't the best way to evaluate players either. I see at least 3 times he had no business being on the all star team. That being said, I don't dispute that he was a great player, and he obviously played more games than anyone .
>
Pete actually played on a team that won championships 3 times and a world series MVP.
The W.S. MVP is nice, but because he was a guy who played on great teams, doesn't mean he was a great player.
>
44 game hit streak. 6th in runs scored, 9th in total bases, 1st in hits, 2nd in doubles.
Hitting streak? Nice 1/4 of a season! Not being sarcastic, that's what it proves, he got hot for 1/4 of a year.
6th in runs scored, great, he had great hitters hitting behind him, remember, there were 227 guys in the history of baseball with a higher OBP than Pete. Every one of them would likely have more runs scored had they played as long.
9th in total bases, almost all of them singles and doubles. Almost 1,000 MLB players had a higher SLG!
2nd in doubles, ok let's look at the 7 times Pete had 40 or more doubles in a season; he didn't hit more than 10 HR in any of those years, never slugged over .500 in any of them and actually slugged BELOW .400 in two of them.
>
Baines and Rose are not close.
No, they aren't in at bats.
For their careers Baines was 78 points above the league in OPS, Pete was only 63 points better than the players he completed with using OPS.
Pete's career breaks down nicely into three 8 year periods;
8 great years, especially 1968 & 1969.
8 good years with about a .300 BA, and no power.
8 pretty bad seasons where he wasn't anywhere near a HOF caliber player.
Rose played in more games and came to bat more than anyone in history. That's an incredible record of longevity and durability, especially when you factor in his very aggressive playing style. The fact that the only other record he holds is hits, actually proves he was not one of the best hitters of all time.
Rose played in 6 WS, won 3, and you compare him to Baines that played in 1. Rose only played 5 season in Philadelphia, at the end of his career. They went to the WS twice and won their first WS in those 5 years. Al Davis said it best " Just Win Baby"
Rose was in the MVP voting 15 times: 10 times in the Top 10 and 5 times the Top 5. He had to be better than you give him credit for.
I give Pete a LOT of credit!
I'll say it again, it's AMAZING that he played almost every single game for 18-19 seasons. It's INCREDIBLE! Especially when you look at how hard he played.
He's still closer to Baines than he is to Ruth.
Of course if it wasn't for Pete's foolishness, I would pick him for the HOF over Harold, but he has no one to blame but himself for not being eligible.
People keep pointing out he played on World Series winners, that just means he was lucky enough to be on some great TEAMS. He wasn't the best player on any of those Reds teams, that's for sure. Morgan and Bench were way better.
He wasn't even the best player on his own team the year he won MVP, Joe Morgan was.
The only reason he surpassed Cobb (a VASTLY SUPERIOR HITTER) was because he played about 5 years when he should have been retired, so of course he was a compiler.
My ENTIRE objection was started when he was said to be one of the top 10 players in MLB history, NO WAY.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
All I have to say is that if the comparison between Baines and Rose has any validity, then Baines is a no doubt HoFer.
The idea that Rose was a compiler is equally silly. If the argument is that Rose wasn't a very good player anymore after 1979, I'll disagree but respect the argument, but the fact that he hung around until he was 45 doesn't make him a compiler. Only the most unschooled think that Rose needed 4256 hits to make it to Cooperstown. He had done enough by 1979 to, on the field, deserve to be enshrined. Similarly, Albert Pujols was a HoFer when he left St. Louis. His lost decade in California just doesn't help his case. He wasn't a compiler.
A compiler is someone like Don Sutton who scattered four good, not great or really even very good, seasons throughout a 23 year career and was good enough to pitch that long, but one day people woke up and saw that he had 324 wins and over 3500 strikeouts and decided that he wouldn't have gotten those numbers if he weren't great, even though he was likely no better than Ron Guidry, or even David Price. Jamie Moyer may even be a better example.
A compiler is someone like Don Sutton who scattered four good, not great or really even very good, seasons throughout a 23 year career and was good enough to pitch that long, but one day people woke up and saw that he had 324 wins and over 3500 strikeouts and decided that he wouldn't have gotten those numbers if he weren't great, even though he was likely no better than Ron Guidry, or even David Price. Jamie Moyer may even be a better example.
Bad example. It's natural for a player to want to reach a milestone 300 wins, 3000 K's, 3000 hits, 400, 500 HRs, IF (big IF) that is what Sutton was doing, but I doubt it. Sutton wasn't just compiling, he was still a contributor when reaching his 300th win. He was an important part of the 1st place Angels when he went 15-11 at age 41. The Angels' ace of that year was 25yo Witt at only 18-10. The Angels went 92-70 (.568) and Sutton was 15-11 (.577). A pitching staff full of Suttons and you're in first place.
I don't understand the hate toward longevity, consistency, and predictable production. So he didn't dominate with 25 win seasons, but he was rock solid dependable. You say 4 scattered "good seasons", meanwhile he had a string of 5 years with Top 5 Cy Young votes.
At 39, Sutton went 14-12 for the last place '84 Brewers.
At 40, he went 15-10 for the '85 A's/Angels.
And at 41, he went 15-11 for the first place '86 Angels.
After the '86 season, of course he'll try to continue playing, and why not?
He wasn't compiling, as you claim, because he already had the stats at that point.
@RonSportscards said:
Can't decide which discussion is sillier. The Stockton vs Trout or this Rose vs Baines. If you don't think Rose is an all time great, you don't know the game. If you think he's the 180th best player because he's listed 180th for some stat, again, you don't understand the game. Durability, passion, consistency used to be valued, now you're accused of being a compiler. Now you only have to be great for 5 peak years and you're on the all time list. Hell, just be a local hero of a new club. Right future HOFer Todd Helton?
The "silliest" comment made on this entire thread (and possibly anywhere ever) was;
"Pete Rose was the best player that played the game, hall or not".
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@daltex said:
All I have to say is that if the comparison between Baines and Rose has any validity, then Baines is a no doubt HoFer.
I was trying to make a point. Rose was listed with Mays, Aaron, Bonds, Williams, Musial, Arod, Schmidt, Pujols' and Ruth, being one of the top 10 players of all time, and you think my comment has less validity?
When there's nearly 1,000 guys with a higher SLG in MLB history, your name shouldn't be mentioned in that company.
>
The idea that Rose was a compiler is equally silly. If the argument is that Rose wasn't a very good player anymore after 1979, I'll disagree but respect the argument, but the fact that he hung around until he was 45 doesn't make him a compiler. Only the most unschooled think that Rose needed 4256 hits to make it to Cooperstown. He had done enough by 1979 to, on the field, deserve to be enshrined. Similarly, Albert Pujols was a HoFer when he left St. Louis. His lost decade in California just doesn't help his case. He wasn't a compiler.
Pete obviously wanted to become the "all time hit king". I don't blame him for that.
He was done in 1980 even though he played in every game with an OPS+ of 94.
He was a little better playing every game in 1981 (playing in 107 games in a shortened season). OPS+ of 119.
In 1983 his OPS+ was 69. Nothing more needs to be said.
1984,85,86, he was a part time player, should not have played.
Seems to me, and I do remember the time and the discussions, Pete needed those final 4 years to break Cobb's record.
I see that as being a "compiler". He was no longer a good ballplayer, he was playing for the record. I probably would have done the same.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
^^^^^ I agree completely. in his last 4 seasons, Rose was the definition of compiler. He was no longer even league average and was inserting himself into the lineup for no other reason than to get the hit record. I am sure there were better options sitting on the bench if winning a game was the top priority.
I also agree that I would have done the same exact thing. Only one guy can have the most hits ever.
All of this talk aside, my original question was if you thought his rookie card would go up or down in value. But if I had to put my two sense in, I'd have Rose on my team any day over Baines.
@RonSportscards said:
Can't decide which discussion is sillier. The Stockton vs Trout or this Rose vs Baines. If you don't think Rose is an all time great, you don't know the game. If you think he's the 180th best player because he's listed 180th for some stat, again, you don't understand the game. Durability, passion, consistency used to be valued, now you're accused of being a compiler. Now you only have to be great for 5 peak years and you're on the all time list. Hell, just be a local hero of a new club. Right future HOFer Todd Helton?
Agreed, but it has to be the Stockton vs Trout discussion. This discussion was originally about Pete Rose cards heating up, not comparing him to Baines.
In the Stockton vs Trout discussion I tried to explain the difference between the two and it led to me being asked if I had ever played sports. It felt condescending so I never replied.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
SO Rose was an All-star at second base. Would rather have Jeff Kent, Ryne Sandberg, joe morgan or PEte rose at second base? I think it's the same answer as which PSA 10 rookie card would you like to have of these 5.
Be what it is. I think it's a fun article of point- counter-point on Pete. I have him 10th, someone else in the thread thinks he's 180th. nobody is right and nobody is wrong.
@olb31 said:
SO Rose was an All-star at second base. Would rather have Jeff Kent, Ryne Sandberg, joe morgan or PEte rose at second base? I think it's the same answer as which PSA 10 rookie card would you like to have of these 5.
Be what it is. I think it's a fun article of point- counter-point on Pete. I have him 10th, someone else in the thread thinks he's 180th. nobody is right and nobody is wrong.
To be clear, I never said he was 180th.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I've heard it said that since his ban is a "lifetime ban" he'll be eligible for HOF induction posthumously. So, he won't get to see it but he'll make it in one day.
Baseball has always been a game of stats. More people look at WAR and less at impact on the game. Pete was beyond stats. He was a disruptor, like when Rickey Henderson got on base, you can feel the game change. Pete was a leader, also by example. He was a lightning rod, taking the heat off teammates. Many things not measured by stats takes him to next level. Guys here are stats only and punish him for not being a power hitter. They'll never get it. Understanding the game, understanding your role on a team sport and making your teammates better. That was Pete. And oh yeah, he had some pretty good stats too.
@Cladiator said:
I've heard it said that since his ban is a "lifetime ban" he'll be eligible for HOF induction posthumously. So, he won't get to see it but he'll make it in one day.
I don't think that is correct. He is not on the eligible list, so his death won't automatically make him eligible.
Joe Jackson (another player far superior to Pete) hasn't gotten in and he claimed he never took money and didn't throw any games. Ted Williams brought up letting him in and it went nowhere.
Don't get your hopes up.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Cladiator said:
I've heard it said that since his ban is a "lifetime ban" he'll be eligible for HOF induction posthumously. So, he won't get to see it but he'll make it in one day.
I don't think that is correct. He is not on the eligible list, so his death won't automatically make him eligible.
Joe Jackson (another player far superior to Pete) hasn't gotten in and he claimed he never took money and didn't throw any games. Ted Williams brought up letting him in and it went nowhere.
Don't get your hopes up.
No hopes here, I don't have a dog in this fight lol. Just relaying what I heard is all.
Pete Rose's obituary will have the words "All-time Great" in it. The obituary for Baines will have to list the teams he played for just so people remember him. Stats be damned.
@Mozzie22 said:
Pete Rose's obituary will have the words "All-time Great" in it. The obituary for Baines will have to list the teams he played for just so people remember him. Stats be damned.
Baines' obit will say "Not even the best DH", but someone here thinks he's better than Rose. LOL
A compiler is someone like Don Sutton who scattered four good, not great or really even very good, seasons throughout a 23 year career and was good enough to pitch that long, but one day people woke up and saw that he had 324 wins and over 3500 strikeouts and decided that he wouldn't have gotten those numbers if he weren't great, even though he was likely no better than Ron Guidry, or even David Price. Jamie Moyer may even be a better example.
Bad example. It's natural for a player to want to reach a milestone 300 wins, 3000 K's, 3000 hits, 400, 500 HRs, IF (big IF) that is what Sutton was doing, but I doubt it. Sutton wasn't just compiling, he was still a contributor when reaching his 300th win. He was an important part of the 1st place Angels when he went 15-11 at age 41. The Angels' ace of that year was 25yo Witt at only 18-10. The Angels went 92-70 (.568) and Sutton was 15-11 (.577). A pitching staff full of Suttons and you're in first place.
I don't understand the hate toward longevity, consistency, and predictable production. So he didn't dominate with 25 win seasons, but he was rock solid dependable. You say 4 scattered "good seasons", meanwhile he had a string of 5 years with Top 5 Cy Young votes.
At 39, Sutton went 14-12 for the last place '84 Brewers.
At 40, he went 15-10 for the '85 A's/Angels.
And at 41, he went 15-11 for the first place '86 Angels.
After the '86 season, of course he'll try to continue playing, and why not?
He wasn't compiling, as you claim, because he already had the stats at that point.
I had thought we were past the point of determining success by win-loss record. I assume any Cy Young votes in 1974, and almost any in 1975 or 1976 were a function of pitching in Dodger Stadium. I'm skeptical of any stats a fourth grader can calculate on a four function calculator, but I'll claim 1972 and 1980 as his only seasons that are worth consideration for Cy Young votes, with 1973 and 1977 also being good seasons. None were very good, certainly not great.
Sutton was a compiler not because he hung on until he was 43 adding counting stats, but because he had an extremely low peak and lasted forever. That's all.
@RonSportscards said:
Baseball has always been a game of stats. More people look at WAR and less at impact on the game. Pete was beyond stats. He was a disruptor, like when Rickey Henderson got on base, you can feel the game change. Pete was a leader, also by example. He was a lightning rod, taking the heat off teammates. Many things not measured by stats takes him to next level. Guys here are stats only and punish him for not being a power hitter. They'll never get it. Understanding the game, understanding your role on a team sport and making your teammates better. That was Pete. And oh yeah, he had some pretty good stats too.
@Mozzie22 said:
Pete Rose's obituary will have the words "All-time Great" in it. The obituary for Baines will have to list the teams he played for just so people remember him. Stats be damned.
Baines' obit will say "Not even the best DH", but someone here thinks he's better than Rose. LOL
If you are referring to me, I clearly stated I would pick Rose over Raines for the HOF if Rose hadn't gambled on baseball.
If you're not referring to me, I still say Rose would be a better choice for the HOF than Baines, had he not bet on baseball.
The tax evasion and child molestation would probably be deal breakers too.
But be my guest and idolize a truly horrible human being.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Sutton had a really good long career. Compiler, if you will. Hard to accomplish that. Heck Kershaw can barely make it through half a season anymore. So there is something to be said for steady. Slow and steady wins the race, is the old saying.
He was not an A++ pitcher like Randy or Nolan, but he was dependable and that means a lot. Tommy john and Jamie Moyer were of the same mold.
@olb31 said:
Sutton had a really good long career. Compiler, if you will.
Huh? So how are you guys defining 'compiler'. A couple of you are equating long careers to compiling. So Musial, Robinson, Yaz, Henderson, Ryan, Carlton are all compilers, I guess. How about Mays, playing WAY past his prime in a couple embarrassing final years.
I take 'compiling' to mean, playing only to achieve personal goals, to the detriment of the team. Where are the accusations of Aaron chasing Ruth? COMPILER!! SHAME!! SHAME!!
At least Sutton, past age 40, was still contributing to his team's success as he's done his whole career, and not out there just for personal gain. One guy said, Sutton was a compiler not because he hung on until he was 43, but because he lasted forever. Well, you can't argue with THAT logic. LOL
Every player eventually plays past his prime. Even Ruth and Cobb, those darn compilers.
I've never understood discounting a guy's stats because he has a long career. Everyone that's ever played will tell you they wished they could have played longer that whatever level they stop at. They don't keep guys in the Majors because they're good guys. If they're not producing in some way they're not staying. As far as I'm concerned it's more impressive that guys stay longer.
@craig44 said:
^^^^^ I agree completely. in his last 4 seasons, Rose was the definition of compiler. He was no longer even league average and was inserting himself into the lineup for no other reason than to get the hit record. I am sure there were better options sitting on the bench if winning a game was the top priority.
I also agree that I would have done the same exact thing. Only one guy can have the most hits ever.
Maybe he bet someone that he would break Cobb's record.
well if you want to know the difference compare the sutton rookie against other hof rookie pitchers.
fergie is worth 1500 in psa 9
sutton is worth $1400 in psa 9
niekro is worth $1600 in psa 9
perry is worth $1500 in psa 8
seaver is worth $1500 in psa 6
ryan is worth$1375 in psa 5
fingers is worth$1400 in psa 9
carlton is worth $2800 in psa 9
as you can see sutton is just one of the guys when compared to other hofers. nothing really standsout. he was very good, just not great. a ryan 5 is worth as much as sutton's 9. they tied in wins.
@olb31 said:
well if you want to know the difference compare the sutton rookie against other hof rookie pitchers.
fergie is worth 1500 in psa 9
sutton is worth $1400 in psa 9
niekro is worth $1600 in psa 9
perry is worth $1500 in psa 8
seaver is worth $1500 in psa 6
ryan is worth$1375 in psa 5
fingers is worth$1400 in psa 9
carlton is worth $2800 in psa 9
as you can see sutton is just one of the guys when compared to other hofers. nothing really standsout. he was very good, just not great. a ryan 5 is worth as much as sutton's 9. they tied in wins.
The Sutton RC in PSA 9 has been selling for around $2,000.
@olb31 said:
well if you want to know the difference compare the sutton rookie against other hof rookie pitchers.
fergie is worth 1500 in psa 9
sutton is worth $1400 in psa 9
niekro is worth $1600 in psa 9
perry is worth $1500 in psa 8
seaver is worth $1500 in psa 6
ryan is worth$1375 in psa 5
fingers is worth$1400 in psa 9
carlton is worth $2800 in psa 9
as you can see sutton is just one of the guys when compared to other hofers. nothing really standsout. he was very good, just not great. a ryan 5 is worth as much as sutton's 9. they tied in wins.
Really? Next you'll compare him to Stockton and Trout.
@olb31 said:
Sutton had a really good long career. Compiler, if you will.
Huh? So how are you guys defining 'compiler'. A couple of you are equating long careers to compiling. So Musial, Robinson, Yaz, Henderson, Ryan, Carlton are all compilers, I guess. How about Mays, playing WAY past his prime in a couple embarrassing final years.
I take 'compiling' to mean, playing only to achieve personal goals, to the detriment of the team. Where are the accusations of Aaron chasing Ruth? COMPILER!! SHAME!! SHAME!!
At least Sutton, past age 40, was still contributing to his team's success as he's done his whole career, and not out there just for personal gain. One guy said, Sutton was a compiler not because he hung on until he was 43, but because he lasted forever. Well, you can't argue with THAT logic. LOL
Every player eventually plays past his prime. Even Ruth and Cobb, those darn compilers.
Reading for comprehension still counts for something.
@BBBrkrr said:
I've never understood discounting a guy's stats because he has a long career. Everyone that's ever played will tell you they wished they could have played longer that whatever level they stop at. They don't keep guys in the Majors because they're good guys. If they're not producing in some way they're not staying. As far as I'm concerned it's more impressive that guys stay longer.
Not arguing against this. Merely arguing that a player who plays at a B+ level for a really, really long time doesn't make him an A+ Hall of Famer. And I think it's fair to say that all legitimate HoFers are A+ players given the number of them versus the number of men who have played MLB. If you take a guy like Baines or Omar Vizquel, or Sutton, John, Kaat or Moyer, though Kaat was better in both 1974 and 1975 than Sutton was in any season, who bopped along for years being average, or a little better, and suddenly realize "Hey, this guy has 2866 hits, 384 home runs, and 1628 RBI. He must be an all-time great. We've got to put him in the Hall of Fame. This is, again, what I deride as a compiler.
@BBBrkrr said:
I've never understood discounting a guy's stats because he has a long career. Everyone that's ever played will tell you they wished they could have played longer that whatever level they stop at. They don't keep guys in the Majors because they're good guys. If they're not producing in some way they're not staying. As far as I'm concerned it's more impressive that guys stay longer.
Not arguing against this. Merely arguing that a player who plays at a B+ level for a really, really long time doesn't make him an A+ Hall of Famer. And I think it's fair to say that all legitimate HoFers are A+ players given the number of them versus the number of men who have played MLB. If you take a guy like Baines or Omar Vizquel, or Sutton, John, Kaat or Moyer, though Kaat was better in both 1974 and 1975 than Sutton was in any season, who bopped along for years being average, or a little better, and suddenly realize "Hey, this guy has 2866 hits, 384 home runs, and 1628 RBI. He must be an all-time great. We've got to put him in the Hall of Fame. This is, again, what I deride as a compiler.
Ok, so you're using the wrong definition. Got it. Makes sense now. LOL
Candelaria had a dominant season in '77, better than Sutton or Kaat. HOFer right?
And Guidry had a couple of dominant seasons. Put him in too.
Vida Blue and a few dominant seasons. Hold the door, got another one.
JR Richard was dominant until tragedy struck him. If Koufax is in, why not JR, right?
Hell, you probably think Fidrych should be in too.
To you, a player has a few dominant seasons and they're HOFers and "better" than productive long term players, oops, I mean compilers LOL.
Stats are fun, but it sounds like you've never seen a baseball game in your life.
In his final 7 seasons Pete slugged an anemic .333 with an OPS of .687 and an OPS+ of 92.
Not every player hangs on too long. Three that immediately come to mind are Ted Williams, Mike Schmidt, and Larry Walker.
Most HOFers play one or two year too long, not 7-8.
Pete's decision to play several years too many to achieve a record is understandable, however, there's no way you can ignore he was a below average player for about 1/3 of his time in the majors.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
i was asked to compare sutton vs stockton vs trout by another board member above. LOL!!
Im a dodger fan so i am a fan of Don. Reliable, above average, compiler.
Stockton - top 25, top 5 PG, leader of two major all-time statistical categories
Trout - mantle type comparisons, but hasn't lived up to the hype. Great player but ...
Cards wise -
Sutton, based on his all-time accolades and HOF designation, cards are not that heavily collected. Could say he is a little undervalued. I think most people do not view him as all-time great. Not a lot attention paid to his cards unless they are 10's or his rookie.
Stockton, majorly undervalued, unbelievable all-time stats should garner a more attention
Trout, over priced (not because he's not good, but because he's not mantle). Needs to stat healthy.
@BBBrkrr said:
I've never understood discounting a guy's stats because he has a long career. Everyone that's ever played will tell you they wished they could have played longer that whatever level they stop at. They don't keep guys in the Majors because they're good guys. If they're not producing in some way they're not staying. As far as I'm concerned it's more impressive that guys stay longer.
Not arguing against this. Merely arguing that a player who plays at a B+ level for a really, really long time doesn't make him an A+ Hall of Famer. And I think it's fair to say that all legitimate HoFers are A+ players given the number of them versus the number of men who have played MLB. If you take a guy like Baines or Omar Vizquel, or Sutton, John, Kaat or Moyer, though Kaat was better in both 1974 and 1975 than Sutton was in any season, who bopped along for years being average, or a little better, and suddenly realize "Hey, this guy has 2866 hits, 384 home runs, and 1628 RBI. He must be an all-time great. We've got to put him in the Hall of Fame. This is, again, what I deride as a compiler.
Stats are fun, but it sounds like you've never seen a baseball game in your life.
Yes, I've repeatedly suggested that it would certainty be an immense help for all of our forum's so called "baseball experts" to actually watch some real, live, MLB games.
@BBBrkrr said:
I've never understood discounting a guy's stats because he has a long career. Everyone that's ever played will tell you they wished they could have played longer that whatever level they stop at. They don't keep guys in the Majors because they're good guys. If they're not producing in some way they're not staying. As far as I'm concerned it's more impressive that guys stay longer.
Not arguing against this. Merely arguing that a player who plays at a B+ level for a really, really long time doesn't make him an A+ Hall of Famer. And I think it's fair to say that all legitimate HoFers are A+ players given the number of them versus the number of men who have played MLB. If you take a guy like Baines or Omar Vizquel, or Sutton, John, Kaat or Moyer, though Kaat was better in both 1974 and 1975 than Sutton was in any season, who bopped along for years being average, or a little better, and suddenly realize "Hey, this guy has 2866 hits, 384 home runs, and 1628 RBI. He must be an all-time great. We've got to put him in the Hall of Fame. This is, again, what I deride as a compiler.
Stats are fun, but it sounds like you've never seen a baseball game in your life.
Yes, I've repeatedly suggested that it would certainty be an immense help for all of our forum's so called "baseball experts" to actually watch some real, live, MLB games.
I don't know. You've claimed to watch every game but still don't understand that MLB hitters make outs more frequently than they get hits.
Perhaps you should pick up a bat and see how it is to actually hit a baseball .
Because in your same vein, every former player and analyst who spend their life/career following/playing the current game ALL disagree with you about your assessments on Trout, lol.
@JoeBanzai said:
In his final 7 seasons Pete slugged an anemic .333 with an OPS of .687 and an OPS+ of 92.
Not every player hangs on too long. Three that immediately come to mind are Ted Williams, Mike Schmidt, and Larry Walker.
Most HOFers play one or two year too long, not 7-8.
Pete's decision to play several years too many to achieve a record is understandable, however, there's no way you can ignore he was a below average player for about 1/3 of his time in the majors.
That is one way to view it. In hindsight he could have retired after losing in the 83 WS but he would never have broken Cobb's hits record. The 2.5 seasons as Player Manager created an odd situation that allowed him to play an 2.5 extra seasons.
To elaborate on his final 7 seasons, specifically the 4 when he was only a player:
1980 Age 39 All Star Phillies win their FIRST World Series in 90 years.
1981 Age 40 All Star 10th in the MVP voting. Phillies lost in NL Divisional Series.
1982 Age 41 All Star Phillies missed playoffs.
1983 Age42 No All Star Phillies lose in the World Series
1984-1986 Ages 43-45 Player Manager.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
@BBBrkrr said:
I've never understood discounting a guy's stats because he has a long career. Everyone that's ever played will tell you they wished they could have played longer that whatever level they stop at. They don't keep guys in the Majors because they're good guys. If they're not producing in some way they're not staying. As far as I'm concerned it's more impressive that guys stay longer.
Not arguing against this. Merely arguing that a player who plays at a B+ level for a really, really long time doesn't make him an A+ Hall of Famer. And I think it's fair to say that all legitimate HoFers are A+ players given the number of them versus the number of men who have played MLB. If you take a guy like Baines or Omar Vizquel, or Sutton, John, Kaat or Moyer, though Kaat was better in both 1974 and 1975 than Sutton was in any season, who bopped along for years being average, or a little better, and suddenly realize "Hey, this guy has 2866 hits, 384 home runs, and 1628 RBI. He must be an all-time great. We've got to put him in the Hall of Fame. This is, again, what I deride as a compiler.
That's an argument for whether a HOFer deserves to be in for continued dominance or the evaluation of an entire career.
I'm just one that thinks your stats at the end of your career are just as important as how dominant you were every season. I don't necessarily think being dominant for several years has anymore weight than someone who was consistently good/great for a career.
@olb31 said:
i was asked to compare sutton vs stockton vs trout by another board member above. LOL!!
Im a dodger fan so i am a fan of Don. Reliable, above average, compiler.
Stockton - top 25, top 5 PG, leader of two major all-time statistical categories
Trout - mantle type comparisons, but hasn't lived up to the hype. Great player but ...
Cards wise -
Sutton, based on his all-time accolades and HOF designation, cards are not that heavily collected. Could say he is a little undervalued. I think most people do not view him as all-time great. Not a lot attention paid to his cards unless they are 10's or his rookie.
Stockton, majorly undervalued, unbelievable all-time stats should garner a more attention
Trout, over priced (not because he's not good, but because he's not mantle). Needs to stat healthy.
Ummm...nobody "asked" you. LOL
You were equating RC value to a player's value on the field. That just because a Carlton RC in a 9 goes for twice the price of a Sutton RC, therefore Carlton was 2x better than Sutton, disregarding the year of the RC, high/low series, pop report, difficulty in finding a high grade, and the many other factors determining a cards value.
The Seaver and Ryan RC would never be so highly valued if it weren't for the some the factors listed above.
And Seaver, the compiler, playing the final 5 years for 4 different clubs with a 52-62 W/L record and ERA near 4, just to reach 300 wins. Not so Terrific. Where are the compiler accusations?
These are all great conversations about Rose, Trout, Baines, Stockton, etc., but I wanted to know if the board thinks Rose rookie cards will rise, fall, or stay the same in value.
@mexpo75 said:
These are all great conversations about Rose, Trout, Baines, Stockton, etc., but I wanted to know if the board thinks Rose rookie cards will rise, fall, or stay the same in value.
as your card broker, (lol) i suggest hoarding the rose rookies. can't get enough.
@mexpo75 said:
These are all great conversations about Rose, Trout, Baines, Stockton, etc., but I wanted to know if the board thinks Rose rookie cards will rise, fall, or stay the same in value.
as your card broker, (lol) i suggest hoarding the rose rookies. can't get enough.
Agreed.
Would also predict that his cards in PSA 10 would be good investments.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Comments
I get that people hate the guy but you are either under rating him or just forgot how good he was. Yes he lacked power but from the moment he came into the league he was a big deal. He won ROY and proceeded to be an MVP candidate for almost 20 years. He also went to 6 WS's and won 3.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
I compared Baines and Rose and there's no "stirring the pot" here. Rose was a SLIGHTLY better hitter for average and Baines was the better hitter for power, having a higher OPS and OPS+ than Pete. Rose's numbers stand out because he played every day, for a LOT longer.
Saying Rose is anywhere near one of the top 10 players in the history of baseball is preposterous, he's MUCH closer to Harold Baines than to Babe Ruth or a couple of guys not even mentioned; Jimmy Foxx and Lou Gehrig.
Rose (as I said) was AMAZING in his ability to play nearly every game for about 18-19 of his 24 seasons. He also got many at bats in those years and didn't walk much. This means he SHOULD have the most hits if he's a good hitter.
The FACT is there have been about 179 better hitters for average than Pete and that's the single thing he was best at.
>
>
Somewhat like Killebrew, who was an all-star at three positions. Does this prove Killebrew was a great left fielder?
All star selections aren't the best way to evaluate players either. I see at least 3 times he had no business being on the all star team. That being said, I don't dispute that he was a great player, and he obviously played more games than anyone .
>
The W.S. MVP is nice, but because he was a guy who played on great teams, doesn't mean he was a great player.
>
Hitting streak? Nice 1/4 of a season! Not being sarcastic, that's what it proves, he got hot for 1/4 of a year.
6th in runs scored, great, he had great hitters hitting behind him, remember, there were 227 guys in the history of baseball with a higher OBP than Pete. Every one of them would likely have more runs scored had they played as long.
9th in total bases, almost all of them singles and doubles. Almost 1,000 MLB players had a higher SLG!
2nd in doubles, ok let's look at the 7 times Pete had 40 or more doubles in a season; he didn't hit more than 10 HR in any of those years, never slugged over .500 in any of them and actually slugged BELOW .400 in two of them.
>
No, they aren't in at bats.
For their careers Baines was 78 points above the league in OPS, Pete was only 63 points better than the players he completed with using OPS.
Pete's career breaks down nicely into three 8 year periods;
8 great years, especially 1968 & 1969.
8 good years with about a .300 BA, and no power.
8 pretty bad seasons where he wasn't anywhere near a HOF caliber player.
Rose played in more games and came to bat more than anyone in history. That's an incredible record of longevity and durability, especially when you factor in his very aggressive playing style. The fact that the only other record he holds is hits, actually proves he was not one of the best hitters of all time.
Rose played in 6 WS, won 3, and you compare him to Baines that played in 1. Rose only played 5 season in Philadelphia, at the end of his career. They went to the WS twice and won their first WS in those 5 years. Al Davis said it best " Just Win Baby"
Rose was in the MVP voting 15 times: 10 times in the Top 10 and 5 times in the Top 5. He had to be better than you give him credit for.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
From 1965-1980 (16 seasons)...Pete Rose had 600+ ABs only missing in 1967 due to an outfield collision at Dodger Stadium during the summer of that season (I was listening to that late night Friday game on WLW radio). During that stretch of his career...Pete had 200+ hits in 10 of those seasons missing twice by just 2 hits (198) with a low of 176 hits during the injury season. To Rose's credit...the man was very durable and consistent as well as being able to keep his skillset late into his major league career all allowing Pete to pass Ty Cobb's hit record. It took a very special player to achieve this accomplishment of breaking Cobb's record. Again...Pete Rose is in my top 30 baseball players of all-time...
Love this discussion….
It’s funny… I don’t know squat about baseball or statistics… but I do know this…
I LOVED watching him play.
And I know why I loved watching him… Anyone that ever played sports knows someone that played sports that was all conference all state all everything… and when you watched them or played with them or against them… you were just in awe at how totally invested they were … 300% all the time…. And it always showed!!! Every minute they were playing. And when I watched him… that’s what he reminded me of…All in… All the time.
I hope someday he gets some recognition for that… but for now I’ll just enjoy remembering that feeling when I watched him… everything else aside….and let the experts figure out the rest.
Live long, and prosper.
Can't decide which discussion is sillier. The Stockton vs Trout or this Rose vs Baines. If you don't think Rose is an all time great, you don't know the game. If you think he's the 180th best player because he's listed 180th for some stat, again, you don't understand the game. Durability, passion, consistency used to be valued, now you're accused of being a compiler. Now you only have to be great for 5 peak years and you're on the all time list. Hell, just be a local hero of a new club. Right future HOFer Todd Helton?
I give Pete a LOT of credit!
I'll say it again, it's AMAZING that he played almost every single game for 18-19 seasons. It's INCREDIBLE! Especially when you look at how hard he played.
He's still closer to Baines than he is to Ruth.
Of course if it wasn't for Pete's foolishness, I would pick him for the HOF over Harold, but he has no one to blame but himself for not being eligible.
People keep pointing out he played on World Series winners, that just means he was lucky enough to be on some great TEAMS. He wasn't the best player on any of those Reds teams, that's for sure. Morgan and Bench were way better.
He wasn't even the best player on his own team the year he won MVP, Joe Morgan was.
The only reason he surpassed Cobb (a VASTLY SUPERIOR HITTER) was because he played about 5 years when he should have been retired, so of course he was a compiler.
My ENTIRE objection was started when he was said to be one of the top 10 players in MLB history, NO WAY.
All I have to say is that if the comparison between Baines and Rose has any validity, then Baines is a no doubt HoFer.
The idea that Rose was a compiler is equally silly. If the argument is that Rose wasn't a very good player anymore after 1979, I'll disagree but respect the argument, but the fact that he hung around until he was 45 doesn't make him a compiler. Only the most unschooled think that Rose needed 4256 hits to make it to Cooperstown. He had done enough by 1979 to, on the field, deserve to be enshrined. Similarly, Albert Pujols was a HoFer when he left St. Louis. His lost decade in California just doesn't help his case. He wasn't a compiler.
A compiler is someone like Don Sutton who scattered four good, not great or really even very good, seasons throughout a 23 year career and was good enough to pitch that long, but one day people woke up and saw that he had 324 wins and over 3500 strikeouts and decided that he wouldn't have gotten those numbers if he weren't great, even though he was likely no better than Ron Guidry, or even David Price. Jamie Moyer may even be a better example.
No question Rose is one of the best, and most popular players to ever play the game. He holds a ton of records to back it up.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Bad example. It's natural for a player to want to reach a milestone 300 wins, 3000 K's, 3000 hits, 400, 500 HRs, IF (big IF) that is what Sutton was doing, but I doubt it. Sutton wasn't just compiling, he was still a contributor when reaching his 300th win. He was an important part of the 1st place Angels when he went 15-11 at age 41. The Angels' ace of that year was 25yo Witt at only 18-10. The Angels went 92-70 (.568) and Sutton was 15-11 (.577). A pitching staff full of Suttons and you're in first place.
I don't understand the hate toward longevity, consistency, and predictable production. So he didn't dominate with 25 win seasons, but he was rock solid dependable. You say 4 scattered "good seasons", meanwhile he had a string of 5 years with Top 5 Cy Young votes.
At 39, Sutton went 14-12 for the last place '84 Brewers.
At 40, he went 15-10 for the '85 A's/Angels.
And at 41, he went 15-11 for the first place '86 Angels.
After the '86 season, of course he'll try to continue playing, and why not?
He wasn't compiling, as you claim, because he already had the stats at that point.
I can see both sides of this discussion. No, Rose was not a top 10 player. No way.
There is, however, great value to longevity and consistency. It takes a very skilled player to be able to contribute from ages late 30's into 40's.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
>
Correct.
>
>
Also correct.
The "silliest" comment made on this entire thread (and possibly anywhere ever) was;
"Pete Rose was the best player that played the game, hall or not".
I did not know about the underage girls. I don’t care if she was 14 or 16, if it were my daughter I’d be in jail for beating him to death
I was trying to make a point. Rose was listed with Mays, Aaron, Bonds, Williams, Musial, Arod, Schmidt, Pujols' and Ruth, being one of the top 10 players of all time, and you think my comment has less validity?
When there's nearly 1,000 guys with a higher SLG in MLB history, your name shouldn't be mentioned in that company.
>
Pete obviously wanted to become the "all time hit king". I don't blame him for that.
He was done in 1980 even though he played in every game with an OPS+ of 94.
He was a little better playing every game in 1981 (playing in 107 games in a shortened season). OPS+ of 119.
In 1983 his OPS+ was 69. Nothing more needs to be said.
1984,85,86, he was a part time player, should not have played.
Seems to me, and I do remember the time and the discussions, Pete needed those final 4 years to break Cobb's record.
I see that as being a "compiler". He was no longer a good ballplayer, he was playing for the record. I probably would have done the same.
^^^^^ I agree completely. in his last 4 seasons, Rose was the definition of compiler. He was no longer even league average and was inserting himself into the lineup for no other reason than to get the hit record. I am sure there were better options sitting on the bench if winning a game was the top priority.
I also agree that I would have done the same exact thing. Only one guy can have the most hits ever.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
All of this talk aside, my original question was if you thought his rookie card would go up or down in value. But if I had to put my two sense in, I'd have Rose on my team any day over Baines.
Agreed, but it has to be the Stockton vs Trout discussion. This discussion was originally about Pete Rose cards heating up, not comparing him to Baines.
In the Stockton vs Trout discussion I tried to explain the difference between the two and it led to me being asked if I had ever played sports. It felt condescending so I never replied.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
SO Rose was an All-star at second base. Would rather have Jeff Kent, Ryne Sandberg, joe morgan or PEte rose at second base? I think it's the same answer as which PSA 10 rookie card would you like to have of these 5.
Be what it is. I think it's a fun article of point- counter-point on Pete. I have him 10th, someone else in the thread thinks he's 180th. nobody is right and nobody is wrong.
To be clear, I never said he was 180th.
I've heard it said that since his ban is a "lifetime ban" he'll be eligible for HOF induction posthumously. So, he won't get to see it but he'll make it in one day.
Baseball has always been a game of stats. More people look at WAR and less at impact on the game. Pete was beyond stats. He was a disruptor, like when Rickey Henderson got on base, you can feel the game change. Pete was a leader, also by example. He was a lightning rod, taking the heat off teammates. Many things not measured by stats takes him to next level. Guys here are stats only and punish him for not being a power hitter. They'll never get it. Understanding the game, understanding your role on a team sport and making your teammates better. That was Pete. And oh yeah, he had some pretty good stats too.
>
Absolutely!
I don't think that is correct. He is not on the eligible list, so his death won't automatically make him eligible.
Joe Jackson (another player far superior to Pete) hasn't gotten in and he claimed he never took money and didn't throw any games. Ted Williams brought up letting him in and it went nowhere.
Don't get your hopes up.
No hopes here, I don't have a dog in this fight lol. Just relaying what I heard is all.
Pete Rose's obituary will have the words "All-time Great" in it. The obituary for Baines will have to list the teams he played for just so people remember him. Stats be damned.
Baines' obit will say "Not even the best DH", but someone here thinks he's better than Rose. LOL
I had thought we were past the point of determining success by win-loss record. I assume any Cy Young votes in 1974, and almost any in 1975 or 1976 were a function of pitching in Dodger Stadium. I'm skeptical of any stats a fourth grader can calculate on a four function calculator, but I'll claim 1972 and 1980 as his only seasons that are worth consideration for Cy Young votes, with 1973 and 1977 also being good seasons. None were very good, certainly not great.
Sutton was a compiler not because he hung on until he was 43 adding counting stats, but because he had an extremely low peak and lasted forever. That's all.
Yep. Just ask Ray Fosse.
If you are referring to me, I clearly stated I would pick Rose over Raines for the HOF if Rose hadn't gambled on baseball.
If you're not referring to me, I still say Rose would be a better choice for the HOF than Baines, had he not bet on baseball.
The tax evasion and child molestation would probably be deal breakers too.
But be my guest and idolize a truly horrible human being.
Sutton had a really good long career. Compiler, if you will. Hard to accomplish that. Heck Kershaw can barely make it through half a season anymore. So there is something to be said for steady. Slow and steady wins the race, is the old saying.
He was not an A++ pitcher like Randy or Nolan, but he was dependable and that means a lot. Tommy john and Jamie Moyer were of the same mold.
Huh? So how are you guys defining 'compiler'. A couple of you are equating long careers to compiling. So Musial, Robinson, Yaz, Henderson, Ryan, Carlton are all compilers, I guess. How about Mays, playing WAY past his prime in a couple embarrassing final years.
I take 'compiling' to mean, playing only to achieve personal goals, to the detriment of the team. Where are the accusations of Aaron chasing Ruth? COMPILER!! SHAME!! SHAME!!
At least Sutton, past age 40, was still contributing to his team's success as he's done his whole career, and not out there just for personal gain. One guy said, Sutton was a compiler not because he hung on until he was 43, but because he lasted forever. Well, you can't argue with THAT logic. LOL
Every player eventually plays past his prime. Even Ruth and Cobb, those darn compilers.
I've never understood discounting a guy's stats because he has a long career. Everyone that's ever played will tell you they wished they could have played longer that whatever level they stop at. They don't keep guys in the Majors because they're good guys. If they're not producing in some way they're not staying. As far as I'm concerned it's more impressive that guys stay longer.
Maybe he bet someone that he would break Cobb's record.
well if you want to know the difference compare the sutton rookie against other hof rookie pitchers.
fergie is worth 1500 in psa 9
sutton is worth $1400 in psa 9
niekro is worth $1600 in psa 9
perry is worth $1500 in psa 8
seaver is worth $1500 in psa 6
ryan is worth$1375 in psa 5
fingers is worth$1400 in psa 9
carlton is worth $2800 in psa 9
as you can see sutton is just one of the guys when compared to other hofers. nothing really standsout. he was very good, just not great. a ryan 5 is worth as much as sutton's 9. they tied in wins.
The Sutton RC in PSA 9 has been selling for around $2,000.
Really? Next you'll compare him to Stockton and Trout.
Reading for comprehension still counts for something.
Not arguing against this. Merely arguing that a player who plays at a B+ level for a really, really long time doesn't make him an A+ Hall of Famer. And I think it's fair to say that all legitimate HoFers are A+ players given the number of them versus the number of men who have played MLB. If you take a guy like Baines or Omar Vizquel, or Sutton, John, Kaat or Moyer, though Kaat was better in both 1974 and 1975 than Sutton was in any season, who bopped along for years being average, or a little better, and suddenly realize "Hey, this guy has 2866 hits, 384 home runs, and 1628 RBI. He must be an all-time great. We've got to put him in the Hall of Fame. This is, again, what I deride as a compiler.
Ok, so you're using the wrong definition. Got it. Makes sense now. LOL
Candelaria had a dominant season in '77, better than Sutton or Kaat. HOFer right?
And Guidry had a couple of dominant seasons. Put him in too.
Vida Blue and a few dominant seasons. Hold the door, got another one.
JR Richard was dominant until tragedy struck him. If Koufax is in, why not JR, right?
Hell, you probably think Fidrych should be in too.
To you, a player has a few dominant seasons and they're HOFers and "better" than productive long term players, oops, I mean compilers LOL.
Stats are fun, but it sounds like you've never seen a baseball game in your life.
In his final 7 seasons Pete slugged an anemic .333 with an OPS of .687 and an OPS+ of 92.
Not every player hangs on too long. Three that immediately come to mind are Ted Williams, Mike Schmidt, and Larry Walker.
Most HOFers play one or two year too long, not 7-8.
Pete's decision to play several years too many to achieve a record is understandable, however, there's no way you can ignore he was a below average player for about 1/3 of his time in the majors.
i was asked to compare sutton vs stockton vs trout by another board member above. LOL!!
Im a dodger fan so i am a fan of Don. Reliable, above average, compiler.
Stockton - top 25, top 5 PG, leader of two major all-time statistical categories
Trout - mantle type comparisons, but hasn't lived up to the hype. Great player but ...
Cards wise -
Sutton, based on his all-time accolades and HOF designation, cards are not that heavily collected. Could say he is a little undervalued. I think most people do not view him as all-time great. Not a lot attention paid to his cards unless they are 10's or his rookie.
Stockton, majorly undervalued, unbelievable all-time stats should garner a more attention
Trout, over priced (not because he's not good, but because he's not mantle). Needs to stat healthy.
Yes, I've repeatedly suggested that it would certainty be an immense help for all of our forum's so called "baseball experts" to actually watch some real, live, MLB games.
I don't know. You've claimed to watch every game but still don't understand that MLB hitters make outs more frequently than they get hits.
Perhaps you should pick up a bat and see how it is to actually hit a baseball
.
Because in your same vein, every former player and analyst who spend their life/career following/playing the current game ALL disagree with you about your assessments on Trout, lol.
That is one way to view it. In hindsight he could have retired after losing in the 83 WS but he would never have broken Cobb's hits record. The 2.5 seasons as Player Manager created an odd situation that allowed him to play an 2.5 extra seasons.
To elaborate on his final 7 seasons, specifically the 4 when he was only a player:
1980 Age 39 All Star Phillies win their FIRST World Series in 90 years.
1981 Age 40 All Star 10th in the MVP voting. Phillies lost in NL Divisional Series.
1982 Age 41 All Star Phillies missed playoffs.
1983 Age42 No All Star Phillies lose in the World Series
1984-1986 Ages 43-45 Player Manager.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
That's an argument for whether a HOFer deserves to be in for continued dominance or the evaluation of an entire career.
I'm just one that thinks your stats at the end of your career are just as important as how dominant you were every season. I don't necessarily think being dominant for several years has anymore weight than someone who was consistently good/great for a career.
Ummm...nobody "asked" you. LOL
You were equating RC value to a player's value on the field. That just because a Carlton RC in a 9 goes for twice the price of a Sutton RC, therefore Carlton was 2x better than Sutton, disregarding the year of the RC, high/low series, pop report, difficulty in finding a high grade, and the many other factors determining a cards value.
The Seaver and Ryan RC would never be so highly valued if it weren't for the some the factors listed above.
And Seaver, the compiler, playing the final 5 years for 4 different clubs with a 52-62 W/L record and ERA near 4, just to reach 300 wins. Not so Terrific. Where are the compiler accusations?
These are all great conversations about Rose, Trout, Baines, Stockton, etc., but I wanted to know if the board thinks Rose rookie cards will rise, fall, or stay the same in value.
as your card broker, (lol) i suggest hoarding the rose rookies. can't get enough.
Agreed.
Would also predict that his cards in PSA 10 would be good investments.