One problem with Rose remaining in the spotlight is the dumb-ass, undereducated sports fans who say mind-bogglingly stupid things like, “he was the greatest hitter ever.”
He was the most prolific. It’s far from the same thing. He is not in the top 100 in batting average, slugging, OPS, adjusted OPS, or any of the kinds of stats which show overall batting excellence.
He was a lousy base-stealer, averaging 57%.
He won two gold gloves in the outfield–I’m not entirely sure how–but none anwyhere else on the field, so claims that he was “excellent” at five positions should be re-examined. His actual numbers for range factor and fielding percentage show him to be good, not great.
This “fiery competitor” won three World Series. He had three HOF team-mates (so far) all three times. But Yogi Berra won 10 titels, sometimes with only Micky and Whitey as the other HOF members. Maybe Yogi wasn’t “fiery,” but he sure won a whole lot. Many, many players won more significantly than Rose.
Rose had virtually no power, but also didn’t draw many walks. We’ve dealt with his non-running.
Yes, he was a great player, but there were many players of his time who were much greater: Aaron, Mays, Mantle, Morgan, Schmidt, and Brett all come to mind.
Yet some of his defenders want to make him out to be the greatest player ever!
On the '80 Phillies he had Schmidt, Carlton, and…??? I’m pretty sure it was two, unless I’m just drawing a blank. Who were the three on the Reds? Is Perez in the HoF?
And I don’t know anyone who knows anything about baseball who thinks Rose is the greatest hitter of all time. The most typical description is some variation on, “Over-acheiving, hustling competitor.” And I don’t think there’s any denying that. He hated to lose and worked his ass off, and in doing so, became a helluva ballplayer, much better than he could have expected from the talent he was born with.
Who were his three Hall of Fame teammates in 1980? There’s Schmidt, Carlton, and… who?
Sure, Rose wasn’t the greatest player ever; he was certainly way beyond HoF calibre, though. His career percentages are better than they look to modern eyes, since he played in a much lower offense era and had his peak in the Age of the Pitcher. When he had a .391 OBP in 1969, that actually led the league. Between 1965 and 1979 he created an average of 110 runs per year, never going below 94 - a remarkably long run of high quality offense. And his defensive flexibilty did have considerable value that isn’t reflected in the stats, since it represented a big advantage for Cincinnati in allowing them to move Rose around to maximize their usage of other players.
So yeah, he wasn’t Hank Aaron, but he wasn’t Otis Nixon either. I would certainly rank him among the 100 best players of all time. I’m not sure where, though. Not the top 40.
I haven’t heard too many people say “Pete Rose was the greatest player ever,” to be honest. I’ve heard “greatest hitter ever” but I usually assume they’re referring to just having the most hits. The only person I’ve seen insist he was actually the greatest hitter ever was that nutjob Roger Maynard on usenet.
(But I don’t care if he hit 90 homers a year. He shouldn’t be allowed back in.)
I’ve never heard anyone call Pete Rose the greatest player, or greatest hitter of all time. So what if he wore a hat that said “Hit King.” He does hold the all time hit record.
Rose was never the greatest at anything, and he’d probably be the first to admit it, but he did a lot of things very well. And whatever he lacked in natural ability, he overcame with hustle and desire.
I think his suspension should stand, and everyone can trash the guy for the next hundred years. But the guy could play.
I don’t think Rose was the most ferocious player since Cobb. Jackie Robinson might have been the most ferocious player who ever LIVED. Robinson played baseball like the lives of his children depended on it.
There are similarities between Rose and Cobb, but Cobb wasn’t a guy who worked to overcome a lack of talent; he was blessed with more athletic talent than most guys. He was very, very fast, which Rose was not, and was probably stronger.
What’s your point? Do you want to just talk about guys who were fine human beings off the field?
Our discussion may not be a long one…
Yes, Rose ia flawed character. He is an unrepenant addict. He is COMPLETELY self-centered. And he a broke a very important rule.
But what we are discuuing here are his merits as a PLAYER, which the OP was questioning. Let’s focus on that. There’s another thread to discuss his failings as a human being.
I was under the impression that Rose’s most enduring claim to fame was his 44 game hitting streak in 1978 at the age of 37. How is it that no-one mentions it nowadays? Is it considered ho-hum now?
Pete Rose is a hall of fame talent who is serving a life time suspension from the game. I can’t be the only one to see no contradiction here, let him serve out the full term of his suspension then induct him to the hall posthumously.
The full term is until the year infinity, at least the way the current rules are defined. Permanently ineligible means permanently ineligible. Barring some sort of change, he’ll be as ineligible in 5004 as he is now in 2004.
Besides, we all know that Blanche was the all-time scoring champ in that club. Thanks to her mental lackings, Rose was nearly always on the disabled list.