Options
Is Pete Rose one of the greatest players ever?
PillarDollarCollector
Posts: 5,195 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
I would vote yes.
Coin collecting interests: Latin American early pillar 1 reales
Sports: NFL & NHL
Successful Transactions with the following board members: Pruebas & SimonW
0
Comments
When I think of Ted Williams, Willie Mays I don't think Rose belongs in the conversation
The gambling aside?
Coin collecting interests: Latin American early pillar 1 reales
Sports: NFL & NHL
Successful Transactions with the following board members: Pruebas & SimonW
My opinion of any player is based solely on their performance
I think Rose was great, he could bat first or second for my all time great team I just don't put him in my top 5 best is all
Absolutely yes.
My top ten hitters are:
1. Ruth
2. Williams
3. Mays
4. Bonds
5 thru 10 is a blanket. Pete Rose isn't in it, not even close.
Pete might make the outer edge of the 11 thru 20 blanket.
I do not understand he he the hit king and played every game full intensity. He also won multiple World Series. I would think he is in the top 10 based on his hit total alone.
Coin collecting interests: Latin American early pillar 1 reales
Sports: NFL & NHL
Successful Transactions with the following board members: Pruebas & SimonW
Pete was All Cool in my book...
my 4th year {1980} playing Little League Baseball I wore #14...
Whats the cutoff? If youre talking Ruth, Bonds, Mays, Williams, Puijols types thats like 0.001 percent of all MLB players. Is Rose one of the best 1% of MLB players for sure. I would say thats one of the greatest even if they arent in the best ever conversation
The cut off is whatever my personal opinion is, I couldn't care less who agrees with me or not.
As I said in my first post if I'm thinking of a player as the best ever I think Mays or Williams and not Rose
"One of the greatest ever" was the question and I gave my personal answer
If you or anyone else thinks of Rose as one of the greatest ever then your certainly entitled to think that.
Absolutely the most over-rated baseball player of all time.
His best year in OPS was 1969 with .940, the only time he was above .861.
633 players have/had a higher lifetime OPS.
Also the only year he slugged over .500 with .512, other than that season, never slugged over .470.
1,000 players have/had a higher SLG all time.
Highest finish in OPS+ was two 7th place finishes and one 8th.
Horrible base stealer, stole 9 bases and was thrown out 7 times per 162 games.
Not a great OB% guy, only 5 years above .400.
229 players with a higher OBP all time.
Not a great defensive player.
Not a great arm.
He did hit a lot of singles (#1 alltime).
He also hit a lot of doubles (#2 all time)
178 players had a higher lifetime batting average, his best number.
ELEVEN players had a higher OPS than Pete the year he won the MVP.
Everyone loves his hustle, and he holds the records for most games played, most plate appearances and most at bats.
Stands to reason he should have he most hits.
He's absolutely the best player of all time at showing up and getting into the lineup.
Thats fine. I was asking in terms of the OPs question not for who is the best of all time. I wouldnt include him in the greatest of all time conversation either which seems to be the direction the thread is going in
Consideration for top 20 of all time sure isn't bad.
BTW - the only foul ball I ever got during a MLB game, was off the bat of Pete Rose when he was with the Reds at a Phillies home game. Caught it on the fly. 😎
You got me beat there Steve, I got one foul ball in a game also, off the bat of Jim Eisenreich.
>
>
Of course gambling aside.
Was he really great, or just above average (hitting only btw) for a very long time.
You would bat him first or second, but his lifetime average is barely over .300 and he was a horrible base stealer.
Tony Gwynn was considered a "singles hitter" yet his SLG is 50 points higher than Pete's. Carew's was 20 points higher.
Ichiro was about the same as a hitter but a much better base stealer.
I like his dependability and scrappy play as you mentioned, I think he absolutely has enough value to play on "My all time.great team" but I would probably be able to come up with better choices if I had to really give it thought
My disclaimer is I'm not really as knowledgeable as most of you guys with the stats that better define players.
I'll take Rose but most of you could probably of convince me I'd be better off with someone else
Came "close" two other times. At Yankee stadium as a kid, brought my glove to the game. Screaming line drive foul, third base side. The trajectory had a chance, but someone much taller than me, and few rows in front of me. grabbed it. Long forgotten the batter, it wasn't a Yankee.
Second one I would have loved to have gotten. Sitting in the left field stands at a Phillies home game, and Luzinski swings and it's an obvious home run, and coming my way. I had played a lot of left field, and I eyed it perfectly. Unfortunately it ended up around three or four seats to the left of me. The stands were packed, so I couldn't move at all to grab it. If the stands were empty, I would have had a beautiful souvenir.
The funny thing is, it's debatable but I'm not going to debate it, is that Rose wasn't even in the top three on his own team at the time he played for the Reds.
I mean Johnny Bench, Joe Morgan, Tony Perez, George Foster...pretty dam good players.
No he’s not.
Joe Banzai pretty much said it all. Overrated because of the hit total.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
He’s in my top 100 but maybe not my top 50. I can’t scoff at all of his career awards. He wasn’t the most gifted athlete and he had few above average defensive seasons. He was a great hitter and he was pretty clutch. Maybe that’s what his nickname should have been. Clutch instead of Hustle. I think top 100 means you were one of the greats.
Best players on Cincinnati using OPS+;
1963.
Pinson, Robinson, Coleman, Harper.
1964.
Every player except Tommy Harper.
1965.
Robinson, Pinson, Coleman, Johnson.
1966. Pete Rose. (115 OPS+)
1967. Tony Perez, Pete.
1968. Pete.
1969. Pete.
1970. Bernie Carbo, Perez, Bench, Tolan.
1971. Lee May.
1972. Bench, Joe Morgan, Perez.
1973. Perez, Morgan.
1974. Morgan, Bench, Perez.
1975. Morgan, Bench, Foster.
1976. Morgan, Foster.
1977. Foster, Morgan, Bench, Griffey, Driessen.
1978. Foster, Bench.
Philadelphia
1979. Schmidt.
1980. Schmidt and 4 others.
1981. Schmidt, Matthews.
1982. Schmidt, 4 others.
1983. Schmidt, Morgan and 5 others.
That's it for Pete's full time playing.
Pete had 2, count them, 2 great seasons 1968 and
1969.
Pete wins one MVP, 1973, not even in the top 10 in OPS that year.
@JoeBanzai was harsher than I would have been, but I don't really disagree with anything he's said. I do think Rose added more value than show up in his stats - not nearly enough more to get him on my "one of the greatest ever" list, but more - by being able to play so many positions, and play them relatively well.
As an aside "one of the greatest" is hardly a defined term. Yes, Rose was one of the 100 greatest players of all time and if that meets your "one of the greatest" standard then you're not wrong. But Rose was, IMO, the third best player on the Reds and then spent his old man years on the Phillies where he was rarely, if ever, among the top five on his team. Joe Morgan, Johnny Bench, and Mike Schmidt are "among the greatest players ever", in my opinion, but not Rose.
Top 20. He holds a ton of MLB records.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Note: I did type, "that Rose wasn't even in the top three on his own team at the time he played for the Reds."
However what I was thinking and should have typed was, that Rose wasn't even in the top three on his own team at the time he played for those great Reds WS winning teams of the mid-1970's.
Was Rose better than Billy Williams?
Is Billy Williams in your top 50 players all time?
No Rose was not better than Billy Williams.
I did a banks vs. Williams comparison a while back and it could go either way on those two.
Rose is like Nolan Ryan. Pete overrated because of hits Nolan because of strikeouts.
Over on the cards board they seem to think Ryan is the greatest living pitcher like Pedro never even existed.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
Now you guys have me thinking that Pete shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. 😉
I completely agree with you. It was just a reference point I used as BW is another living great.
>
>
Two completely different players, Pete more of a "table setter" Billy more of a "slugger".
Williams a MUCH better hitter for power with a very nice .492 lifetime SLG to Pete's. .409
Rose played an additional 1,000 games, in those games his OPS+ was 98. Williams' final year was at 98.
For their first 2500 games it's close looking at OPS+. Williams was at 133 and Rose was at 126.
In looking at "regular" OPS, Williams separates himself with a season over 1.000 and three with .900 or above, while Pete has one season over .900.
Williams had a big advantage in Total Bases with 9 seasons at 300 or more to Pete's 3.
It boils down to Pete's extra games played. He was an average player for those final 7 years, with the exception of 1981 being a good year.
Personally, when we compare great ballplayers, (and yes, I think Pete was great) I don't like to give them a lot of credit when they are no better than an average player.
Good question @bgr, I'm not sure either is in my top 50 all time.> @dallasactuary said:
I wasn't trying to be harsh, I think I was being pretty fair.
Pete's #1 in games, and at bats, does that mean he was a top 50 player?
Pete really played hard. Did he really play any harder than any of the other great players?
He has the most hits, very impressive, but those hits are singles and doubles, the least valuable hits.
It took him 6 average seasons to accumulate the hits to break the record. 116 hits per year, about 100 of them singles.
I have no problem with Pete being called the best singles and doubles hitter of all time, but not one of the greatest HITTERS of all time.
I'm not going to take the time, but I jotted down a list of players who played about 20 seasons and quite easily found 50 better hitters than Pete.
You mention his being able to play several positions. That's unusual, is it because better players at those spots came along and he had to move?
He was great at hitting singles and doubles, was versatile, hustled, and played longer than anyone.
Right around #50 of all the great players to play the game.
If by 'one of the greatest players ever' you mean 'should he be in the hall of fame', the simple answer is YES.
The fact baseball's official museum continues to exclude worthy players only makes it less and less of a credible baseball history museum. MLB's all-time hits leader (Rose) and HR leader (Bonds) not in the hall with the only job to present a complete history of baseball? Idiotic.
A 35-year sentence is more than enough. For context, the average prison term for murder is half that amount.
Rose being excluded from the Hall of Fame at this point is beyond ludicrous.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin
so let me get this straight. the national treasure who posted just prior to me wants to give a life sentence to a player simply because his political beliefs don't jibe with his, but a miscreant who sullied the crap out of the integrity of baseball should be granted amnesty and tossed onto a pedestal
i sure hope the pharmacy is open today so he can get his prescription refilled
In general, no. Rose could play any position pretty well so he was used wherever the Reds thought he would help the most. He did move from 2nd base when the Reds traded for the greatest 2nd baseman of all time, but that hardly seems fair to hold that against Rose when the second baseman on every team would have had to move in those circumstances.
And I will vote for Rose being better than Billy Williams. Yes, Williams was a better hitter but he added absolutely no value beyond that - he couldn't run and he couldn't field. And while I am not going to give Rose much credit for playing 1,000 games as an average player in a "greatest ever" conversation, those 1,000 games do have value. Enough value, I think, to get him above Williams. Throw in the fielding and I think he's fairly comfortably ahead of Williams.
My uncle preached the Pete Rose gospel to me in the late 60's. Took me to a ballgame and on the way we stopped by the hotel where the Reds were boarding the team bus. One by one he named them and their importance to the squad. When Rose strolled out of the lobby, my uncle said "Charlie Hustle. Watch that guy. Learn to play the way he plays. Every game." For quite awhile afterwards I only knew him by the nickname.
As a player, heck yes - one of the greatest ever.
Come on people now. Smile on your brothers.
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.
Nice story, but the point seems to be that he tried really hard. That doesn't make him an all time great.
Neither in the top 40 all time.
Top 100 all time would still be pretty sweet.
I have yet to see anyone from the NL top his 44 game hit streak.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Absolutely!
My objection is that guys like Aaron, Mays, Mantle, Musial, Foxx, Cobb, and about 25 other guys hit for a high average and also had power.
It drives me crazy when people say "Rose was a great hitter" when he was not. He was occasionally great, but mainly he was just good for a really long time.
I also think the "Charlie Hustle" thing is a bit silly too, most professional ballplayers put 100% effort into their play, yet Pete gets elevated to a special spot?
One could say he HAD to try extra hard because he didn't have the talent some of the other players did.
I do think Pete definitely would belong in the HOF had he not bet on baseball, but his legend has definitely surpassed his abilities.
My point was PETE ROSE was a great baseball player who is also a rather rotten human, as we've discovered along the way. It doesn't detract from the fact that I, as a child, was introduced to the game and its characters, one of whom became a firm, long-term example of what it was like to be the best at his job. That makes him an ATG. That is all.
Come on people now. Smile on your brothers.
there it is right here.
game. set. match.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Good friend of mine, an autograph collector, I guess he was in around junior high school at the time. Told me this story, the Reds were in town to play the Phillies. After the game, he noticed that Pete was sitting alone on the Reds team bus, hot day, window open. Pete was right up against the window for some air. So he walked over to the team bus, right by the open window and asked Pete for an autograph.
Pete's exact quote, said about as nasty as it can be said, "F off kid."
Didn't bother my friend as he just walked away and laughed about it, and it makes for a good story. But frankly, that's a really mean thing to say to a kid in a situation such as that.
Hey, when I was a child, I bought into the Pete Rose hype too, thought he was great.
Now that I have grown up and can take a look for myself, I see that he was not that great.
I am not addressing his character defects in this thread, just evaluating his on field performance.
Petey was auditioning for his future employment as a member of the Phils and for the fanbase community. Guess it worked.
Come on people now. Smile on your brothers.
I have stayed away from discussing Pete's lack of character.
He's simply a piece of $hit human being.
No argument from me. We can analyze Pete's body of work and evaluate when he was at his best. Around the time his career trajectory moved in a downward path, I was looking at some other great hitter named Tony Gwynn. Couldn't take my eyes off him. I'm surprised he hasn't been mentioned yet.
Come on people now. Smile on your brothers.
Pete was loved in Philly, no doubt about it, including by me. Helped that 1980 team win a championship.
Almost everyone I know thinks Pete should be in the hall of fame. Including the "kid" who I mentioned. One of the very few times I disagree with them on a sports matter.
Pete got exactly what he deserved, a lifetime ban, and that ain't gonna change. With the proliferation of legalized gambling, teams are even more cautious than ever to make sure the games are honest. Gamblers can accept losing, but not if they find out a game was rigged, that is not forgivable.
Whether it's a professional team or gambling venue, they certainly don't want to take any chances of hissing off the goose who lays the golden eggs for them, IE their customers.
He may have been a great player at one time, but his ego and stupidity found him banned for life from the game he loved. He knew the rules, but bet on baseball anyway, tempting the fuse that would blow up his world. He denied and denied again, and finally admitted his sin of sins. He simply self-imploded. I have Z E R O sympathy for this idiot.
Do the crime...do the time
HOF...NEVER
Whether he is or not so are a ton of athletes and celebrities. Plenty of likeable people in front of the camera are terrible humans off the camera. Being likable doesnt mean someones a good human just as being unlikable doesnt mean theyre a bad one. Either way that should have no impact on how the on field performance is viewed
As the father of two daughters, I don't call a married 30 something male who sleeps with 14 year old girls merely "unlikeable".
But that's just me.
Wow. I had completely forgotten about that. Can’t believe that.