I agree that Rose is overrated, but it wasn’t just the hits that made him a great player. It was the day-in, day-out consistency. He has the all-time records in Games, At Bats, Plate Appearances, Hits, Singles, and second in Doubles. (He also has the record for outs made - speaking to your million at bats point.) Overrated - yes. But still a HOFer (minus the gambling).
Wasn’t he a player-manager at the end and continued putting himself in games so he could get the hits record even though he sucked by that point? He’d still be close to these records regardless, I guess, but if you’re going to point out that he has the record in those things…
And remember how he played the game - with everything he had. He wasn’t named “Charlie Hustle” just at random.
Nobody ever worked harder to make himself better as a player than Rose.
Yes, but is that different from other players who have hung on past the end of their useful talent to get other longevity records? He’s not the only one who became faintly embarrassing right up to the Day of Celebration.
Well, he was the manager for his last 3 seasons ('84-'86), and broke the record in 1985. He was merely average at that point (99 OPS+) - but certainly not a liability.
Anyone know if a player-manager takes up a spot on the roster?
No, it was more a point of clarification. Although the fact that he was putting himself in the games makes it a little self-serving.
I agree. He qualifies like Ripken. Play long enough you will bump into some records, if you are a decent ball player. His records are all time because we was very good for a long time. but never great.
You don’t know that. How hard did other players work just to make the majors. Who knows? But he did play hard.
An average hitter who plays first base is a liability.
Not really. An average hitter who is a terrible fielder, maybe. An average hitter who’s also an average to above-average fielder really isn’t. The Reds had far greater deficits on that offense than Pete Rose ever was.
I disagree (obviously). You should be able to get above-average offense from your first baseman - something in the range of a 120 OPS+. Anything less is leaving runs on the table. Doesn’t mean the guy is your biggest liability, but a liability is a liability.
Assigning offensive roles to defensive positions is shortsighted. It’s not a liability unless the player is actively hurting the team. You might have an argument if you could pull up VORP numbers from 1985 - I can’t seem to find them. I believe those are based on position. It’s interesting to note that Rose’s backup was 43 year old Tony Perez!
Also, Rose had an OBP of .395 in 500 plate appearances in '85. Not to bad for a guy in his 23rd season.
Growing up in the Cincy area, I have realized there is a special type of hysteria for Pete around here, so I’m not sure if that puts me too close to the situation to judge.
If you judge Rose by what he did on the field, he should be in. The guy took journeyman talent and worked hard enough to make himself a pretty fine player. On the field, he is exactly what I would tell my son to be- versatile, hardworking, hustling, and over-achieving. His stats, are amazing, although inflated a bit by his longevity, but he was also a tremendous performer in his prime.
If the HOF judged solely on this, he should be in.
Did he engage in activity that may have altered the outcome of a game? Possibly, but not conclusively.
Did he break a cardinal rule of baseball? Yes. Does the punishment fit the crime? that may be the more debatable topic. Substance users affect the game possibly more, and they get how many chances before receiving a lifetime ban?
I agree that Rose should be banned from any operational aspect of the game. No management, no instructing, no consulting, no cushy PR job for the Reds. I do not agree that he should be banned from hall eligibility though.
You are possibly not familiar with the mid 80’s Reds teams… they were very forgettable, and Rose was definitely not a liability. Hell even if he was, he was such a hometown hero that he would still put butts in the seats.
Baseball’s pretty much irrelevant in the States these days. Rose is a record-holding, famous baseball player, put him in the Hall of Fame. Who cares? To those who say it would tarnish baseball’s image - I don’t think there’s anything left to tarnish.
By what standard?
I thought attendance and ratings were in a downward spiral, spurred on by the continuing string of drug scandals. Have I been misinformed?
Yes. Attendance the last two years set record highs. It’s down about 4% this year - due mostly to the economy.
The fans don’t care that much about steroids. They disapprove but not enough to stop buying tickets and merchandise and watching the game on TV. It’s a dirty little secret you would not know from coverage of the sport over the last few years. Steroids didn’t save baseball in the last decade and they haven’t killed it this decade.
TV ratings may be down, but with the proliferation of stations I don’t think that matters much. Some of the bigger teams (Yankees, Mets and Red Sox, as perhaps others) now have their own networks and from what I can tell, that’s basically a license to print money.