Who exactly are those players you speak of Rick? This Reds fan remembers that we had Dan Driessen in 1984. We had a combo of Rose, Tony Perez, and Nick Essasky in 1985 and 1986. The next first baseman to play on the Reds came after Pete and was Todd Benzinger, who we aquired from the Red Sox.
…So…who pray tell was Rose holding back in the Reds organization?..who was that hot prospect young first baseman screwed over by Pete?
Further, why you’d want to harp on his power is confusing. Rose never really had power Rick. That wasn’t his game. The man could steal bases though and he stole 19 and was caught 9 times in his last 5 seasons as a part-time player.
I do not believe that you can’t find a player with worse stats Rick…that’s just disingenous.
Esasky was a better player than Rose. Kal Daniels was a better player than Rose. Dan Driessen was better, too. There were probably 5-10 players in the Reds system who were better. Rose was a dreadful player with essentially no strengths, and he hurt the Reds badly by playing himself.
Rose was still making plays and getting big hits…hits that counted…hits that started rallies…hits that drive in an important run. Didn’t he hit .345 in 85?
I’m surprised you mention Daniels, Dreissen, and Esasky. No good Reds fan was happy with Dreissen. We were glad to see him go. Decent glove, not a bad average, but always seemed to choke when it was on the line. Couldn’t count on him.
Esasky? Now there was a man made for the DH rule. You think Rose was poor defensively?..you must have never seen Esasky play. Nick could absolutely crush the fastball, but as is the case with the Esasky type of player, he was a big whiffer as well. We all remember how his career ended…vertigo. Daniels?..much more of an outfielder than a firstbaseman…Kal had some good tools, but he also had problems running the bases and had an attitude problem.
It’s worth noting that none of the 3 players you have mentioned ended up doing much of anything even after Pete left. I notice that you didn’t even mention Benzinger, who was brought over from Boston because the Reds had no good options at first.
As it really happened, us true Reds fans were quite happy with the Rose/Perez combo at first base. Two trusted old timers that couls still deliver in the clutch, although well past their prime.
I was there too; Rose was one of my heroes when he was still a good player in Philadelphia. He sucked past 1981, and his insistence on putting himself in the lineup when he was the worst first baseman in the major leagues by a country mile is the worst example of selfishness over team welfare in recent baseball history. Evidently Rose’s hits weren’t driving in too many runs, considering his few RBIs. And it’s not as if he helped the Reds win any pennants.
He blew chunks. The Phillies and Expos got rid of him because he was over the hill. Lots of people “were there.” The facts are the facts - past 1982 he was a terrible player, he was a bad manager, and he was a bad influence, being as he was a degenerate gambler and a criminal. It’s not entirely coincidence that the Reds broke through and won the World Series the year immediately following his banishment.
C’mon guys, you’re going off topic. Plenty of great players played longer than they should have (Hello Cal Ripken Jr.). That doesn’t mean they don’t deserve a chance at induction into the Hall of Fame.
Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame due to his accomplishments as a player.
However, I think his ban should stand.
If the HOF won’t accept him into the HOF due to his ban, which occurred after his playing career and which as far as I know concerned things he did after his playing career, then that is the HOF’s choice, but I think it is a wrong one. However, if the HOF has proof that he betted on games while playing, then he should not be in the HOF.
As far as I know, Rose only betted on games after his playing career ended.