PDA

View Full Version : Jeter Chips Away at Hits Record



RedFanAlways1966
08-22-2012, 04:45 PM
We see this about once every 5 years or so relative to some hitter. This time it is Derek Jeter and the possibility of passing Pete Rose. Do not believe it myself, but a decent (perhaps NYY slanted) read from the NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/sports/baseball/derek-jeter-keeps-closing-in-on-pete-roses-hits-record.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&emc=eta1

dougdirt
08-22-2012, 04:51 PM
It has been written about, for Jeter, for years now. I don't think he will do it, but he probably has as good of a shot as anyone in our lifetime.

reds44
08-22-2012, 04:56 PM
It depends how long he wants to play and, IMO, if his bat will be able to carry being a DH.

I hope he does it.

fearofpopvol1
08-22-2012, 04:57 PM
I don't think he'll do it. Even though he's beloved more than any Yankee in the last few decades, it's also a "what have you done for me lately" kind of city with a ruthless media. Jeter is now 38. When Jeter starts to hit his decline phase (which I acknowledge hasn't really happened for him), he's likely to either a.) not play everyday (especially with his poor range at SS -- unless he DHs) or b.) be forced into retirement. I don't think at this juncture Jeter plans to retire in another uniform. So when his production tapers off, I think he'll quietly be asked to retire.

westofyou
08-22-2012, 05:04 PM
If he gets a managing job and inserts himself in the lineup over better qualified players he could do it.

It's a proven method

Wonderful Monds
08-22-2012, 05:05 PM
I don't think he'll do it. Even though he's beloved more than any Yankee in the last few decades, it's also a "what have you done for me lately" kind of city with a ruthless media. Jeter is now 38. When Jeter starts to hit his decline phase (which I acknowledge hasn't really happened for him), he's likely to either a.) not play everyday (especially with his poor range at SS -- unless he DHs) or b.) be forced into retirement. I don't think at this juncture Jeter plans to retire in another uniform. So when his production tapers off, I think he'll quietly be asked to retire.

Sure looked like he was slipping for awhile there. I don't think he has it in him.

Brutus
08-22-2012, 05:07 PM
Another 1,000 hits? I just don't see it. That's five more years of doing something he's only done once in the last five.

dougdirt
08-22-2012, 05:21 PM
Another 1,000 hits? I just don't see it. That's five more years of doing something he's only done once in the last five.

Or 6-7 more years of just being pretty good. Possible, sure. Likely? Not so much. I would like to see him make a run at 4000 though, that would be really exciting.

Tadasimha
08-22-2012, 05:24 PM
To average that production suggested in the article for another seven years looks to be nigh on impossible. His bat is slowing down and I don't think he's the kind of competitor who will accept not playing in the field regularly.

Hopefully he recognizes when it's time to hang it up and doesn't stay on too long.

I'd be very surprised if he plays for anyone other than the Yankees just to try and catch up to Rose, too.

Brutus
08-22-2012, 05:36 PM
Or 6-7 more years of just being pretty good. Possible, sure. Likely? Not so much. I would like to see him make a run at 4000 though, that would be really exciting.

Yeah that's the thing, I just don't see him being able to sustain six or seven more years.

This year, his walk rate is way, way down to 5.4%. It seems it's because he's swinging at so many more pitches. He's expanding his zone a lot more and has a career-high swing%. It seems, while his strikeouts haven't yet suffered, he's starting to have to 'cheat' on pitches he didn't have to previously. While he's still getting it done this year, I feel like this is a sign it's going to catch up to him very soon (possibly next season).

MrCinatit
08-22-2012, 05:46 PM
I don't think he can do it, but a lot of people were skeptical that Pete could do it. Of course, as WOY alluded to, being a player-manager helped quite a bit. Helped Cobb, too.
But, I don't see Jeter as one of those guys who would embarrass himself and his team in order to achieve a person milestone.

fearofpopvol1
08-22-2012, 06:03 PM
Sure looked like he was slipping for awhile there. I don't think he has it in him.

Based on what? His batting average is .324 this season and he has 168 hits this year so far with quite a few games left this year. When he's played 150ish games, he's hit a 180ish hits and many of those years he's been close to 200.

Even though his walks are down, he's not really striking out anymore. His BABIP is in line with career norms. The biggest area he's taken a hit is in the defense department, where he's having his worst year since 2007. But that doesn't affect the number of hits he will get unless the manager yanks him from the lineup. And when you're hitting the way he has this year, he's going to be playing.

Brutus
08-22-2012, 06:06 PM
Based on what? His batting average is .324 this season and he has 168 hits this year so far with quite a few games left this year. When he's played 150ish games, he's hit a 180ish hits and many of those years he's been close to 200.

Even though his walks are down, he's not really striking out anymore. His BABIP is in line with career norms. The biggest area he's taken a hit is in the defense department, where he's having his worst year since 2007. But that doesn't affect the number of hits he will get unless the manager yanks him from the lineup. And when you're hitting the way he has this year, he's going to be playing.

I think he's referring to last year when his walks first took a dip and his isolated power was down to a career-worst .092.

Always Red
08-22-2012, 07:24 PM
Helped Cobb, too.


What??

True, and most don't realize that Cobb managed the Tigers from 1921-1926.

But Cobb had over 200 hits for 2 of those years, and had three years of .378, .389, and .401.

I don't think anyone on the bench could have done better.

Nick Esasky did not play for those Tiger teams. ;)

fearofpopvol1
08-22-2012, 07:43 PM
I think he's referring to last year when his walks first took a dip and his isolated power was down to a career-worst .092.

Jeter played his fewest number of games last year of any year in his career last season. He still had 162 hits despite that. I think if he had played 20 more games, he would've been in line with career norms. Jeter has often had slow starts to his seasons.

Brutus
08-22-2012, 07:49 PM
Jeter played his fewest number of games last year of any year in his career last season. He still had 162 hits despite that. I think if he had played 20 more games, he would've been in line with career norms. Jeter has often had slow starts to his seasons.

He still had 607 plate appearances last year and a career-low .743 OPS. Still very good for a shortstop, but definitely far worse than what he usually does.

vaticanplum
08-22-2012, 08:00 PM
I think it's a long shot as well, but two factors that will help him that I don't think have been mentioned: 1) He's been batting leadoff for a while now, and will probably continue to do so, and 2) Even if he only plays five more years, he has a strong chance at the postseason all of those years. All those plate appearances add up. If the Yankees go deep into the season, he could add on the equivalent of one half-to-whole season of plate appearances in the postseason alone.

dougdirt
08-22-2012, 08:01 PM
Postseason hits don't count though.

vaticanplum
08-22-2012, 08:03 PM
Postseason hits don't count though.

Oh whoops. Totally spaced on that. My apologies.

fearofpopvol1
08-22-2012, 08:43 PM
He still had 607 plate appearances last year and a career-low .743 OPS. Still very good for a shortstop, but definitely far worse than what he usually does.

The thread is about hits and passing Rose. If he'd have played in 20 more games last year, he would have been in line with season career norms for hits most likely. That's the point. Even if a particular stat for Jeter changes each season, the hits totals have largely been very consistent every year of his career. That's what important if he were to pass Rose.

Matt700wlw
08-22-2012, 08:45 PM
Pete Rose hit 3256 at the same age, 38.

It took Pete Rose 7 more season to get to 4265.


Jeter has one year left on his contract, with an option for 2014....

How many more playing years does Jeter have left? That's the key.

Brutus
08-22-2012, 08:52 PM
The thread is about hits and passing Rose. If he'd have played in 20 more games last year, he would have been in line with season career norms for hits most likely. That's the point. Even if a particular stat for Jeter changes each season, the hits totals have largely been very consistent every year of his career. That's what important if he were to pass Rose.

His career numbers have him getting about 207 hits over 162 games. He has only done that once in the past five years. I'm well aware of what the thread is about and he's not been hitting quite on the same level as he was five years ago. He hasn't had a rapid drop, but it's enough that would be very difficult to get to the record, especially considering he'd have to get back to 200 hits a season (and again, he has not done that but once in the past five years).

You talk about Jeter not playing 150-160 games last season. He was 37 years old. Should that really be a part of the discussion at this point? Age is a huge reason why his getting the record isn't likely. So that he didn't play 150 games shouldn't mitigate his not getting to 200 hits.

fearofpopvol1
08-22-2012, 09:08 PM
His career numbers have him getting about 207 hits over 162 games. He has only done that once in the past five years. I'm well aware of what the thread is about and he's not been hitting quite on the same level as he was five years ago. He hasn't had a rapid drop, but it's enough that would be very difficult to get to the record, especially considering he'd have to get back to 200 hits a season (and again, he has not done that but once in the past five years).

You talk about Jeter not playing 150-160 games last season. He was 37 years old. Should that really be a part of the discussion at this point? Age is a huge reason why his getting the record isn't likely. So that he didn't play 150 games shouldn't mitigate his not getting to 200 hits.

Did you forget about his time on the DL in 2011? Ever think that may have had something to do with him playing fewer games? If he's healthy, he'll play. Watch, he will play 150 games this year if he doesn't get hurt. How many players, even when they're young and healthy actually play 162 games a season anyhow?

Let's use your 2007 benchmark...here are the number of hits collected in each season since for Jeter...

2007: 206
2008: 179
2009: 212
2010: 179
2011: 162

And he looks to be on pace for at least 200 this year. Looks like as long as he's healthy, he's good for at least 180ish hits, possibly more. Outside of last year, which we already established as an anomaly because he was hurt, when has Jeter's hit totals declined like you described? Jeter has been remarkably consistent every year he's been healthy for his entire career. That does not mean he won't decline eventually, but until he does, he gets the benefit of the doubt.

Brutus
08-22-2012, 09:11 PM
Did you forget about his time on the DL in 2011? Ever think that may have had something to do with him playing fewer games? If he's healthy, he'll play. Watch, he will play 150 games this year if he doesn't get hurt. How many players, even when they're young and healthy actually play 162 games a season anyhow?

Let's use your 2007 benchmark...here are the number of hits collected in each season since for Jeter...

2007: 206
2008: 179
2009: 212
2010: 179
2011: 162

And he looks to be on pace for at least 200 this year. Looks like as long as he's healthy, he's good for at least 180ish hits, possibly more. Outside of last year, which we already established as an anomaly because he was hurt, when has Jeter's hit totals declined like you described? Jeter has been remarkably consistent every year he's been healthy for his entire career. That does not mean he won't decline eventually, but until he does, he gets the benefit of the doubt.

That's my point. I didn't forget about the trip to the DL, that's the whole basis of my argument...when you get older, expect more trips to the DL. Thank you for making my point for me... he's older, naturally he's not going to be healthy or in the lineup nearly as often.

fearofpopvol1
08-22-2012, 09:13 PM
That's my point. I didn't forget about the trip to the DL, that's the whole basis of my argument...when you get older, expect more trips to the DL. Thank you for making my point for me... he's older, naturally he's not going to be healthy or in the lineup nearly as often.

Didn't affect him in 2010 and it hasn't affected him in 2012. Jeter doesn't have a history littered with injuries, so it looks to be more of an aberration at this point rather than the norm. If he continues to have more DL trips, then maybe your point will be worth discussing more.

Brutus
08-22-2012, 09:19 PM
Didn't affect him in 2010 and it hasn't affected him in 2012. Jeter doesn't have a history littered with injuries, so it looks to be more of an aberration at this point rather than the norm. If he continues to have more DL trips, then maybe your point will be worth discussing more.

I've already proven my point. He hasn't had 200 hits in a season but once in the last five years. So it's going to take him at least six or seven years to get another 1,000 hits. Yet I'm supposed to believe that one trip to the DL in 2011 explains why he hasn't had 200 hits but once in five years? OK that makes sense.

Very highly unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely.

fearofpopvol1
08-22-2012, 09:53 PM
I've already proven my point. He hasn't had 200 hits in a season but once in the last five years. So it's going to take him at least six or seven years to get another 1,000 hits. Yet I'm supposed to believe that one trip to the DL in 2011 explains why he hasn't had 200 hits but once in five years? OK that makes sense.

Very highly unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely.

If you go back to 2007, he has had 200 hits twice and he is more likely than not going to get 200 hits this year. So your point was not conclusive.

And when looking at the season's where he hasn't gotten to 200 hits, a lot of it has to do with PAs. If he gets 700 PAs, there is a great chance he gets 200 hits if you look at career norms. Jeter cannot control if A-Rod or Granderson gets on base so that he can have more PAs each game.

Brutus
08-22-2012, 09:57 PM
If you go back to 2007, he has had 200 hits twice and he is more likely than not going to get 200 hits this year. So your point was not conclusive.

And when looking at the season's where he hasn't gotten to 200 hits, a lot of it has to do with PAs. If he gets 700 PAs, there is a great chance he gets 200 hits if you look at career norms. Jeter cannot control if A-Rod or Granderson gets on base so that he can have more PAs each game.

So he did it twice between 33 and 38 years old, and you think it's likely he'd do it 4-5 times more from 39 to 44 years old?

That doesn't seem very practical.

fearofpopvol1
08-23-2012, 12:15 AM
So he did it twice between 33 and 38 years old, and you think it's likely he'd do it 4-5 times more from 39 to 44 years old?

That doesn't seem very practical.

It'll be 3 times since 2007 by season's end. I never said he'll do it. He'd have to play long enough to do it. I'm just saying, despite what you've purported, Jeter's production says he can continue hitting 180+ hits a season until he regularly can't. Pointing to 1 season where he had a DL trip looks to be an aberration and not the norm.

CySeymour
08-23-2012, 09:14 AM
One big problem for Jeter is where will he play? Many would agree he isn't a shortstop anymore, and could you see him playing there at age 41, 42? They Yanks whole infield is signed to long term contracts, so it isn't just a matter of sliding him over to 2nd, or 3rd, or 1st.

Chip R
08-23-2012, 09:22 AM
One big problem for Jeter is where will he play? Many would agree he isn't a shortstop anymore, and could you see him playing there at age 41, 42? They Yanks whole infield is signed to long term contracts, so it isn't just a matter of sliding him over to 2nd, or 3rd, or 1st.

I may be wrong but I think they are going to have trouble prying Jeter from shortstop with a crowbar. It would have to be his decision.

That said he's making a lot of people eat their words from a few years ago when his contract was up. They thought he was on his last legs. Turns out he was getting his second wind.

tommycash
08-23-2012, 09:33 AM
What??

True, and most don't realize that Cobb managed the Tigers from 1921-1926.

But Cobb had over 200 hits for 2 of those years, and had three years of .378, .389, and .401.

I don't think anyone on the bench could have done better.

Nick Esasky did not play for those Tiger teams. ;)

Rose managed and played for part of 3 years, (2 full years in 1985 and 1986). He played first for all of his games in Cincinnati in his last stop as a player.



Nick Esasky in 1984 played 82 games at 3B and only 25 games at first (19 as a starter). Driessen and Perez shared the bulk of the work at 1B in 1984. Don't worry, I am getting to my point soon. Esasky was pretty much an everyday player. He hit a whopping .193 in 1984 with a .649 OPS. In Pete's 27 games with the Reds at the end of the season, he hit .365 with and .888 OPS. The Reds won just 70 games that year, and looked horrible.

Fast forward to 1985. Pete is a manager-player, with a hell of a drive to win. Esasky stayed at 3B, but also play LF as a starter. He played very little at 1B. How did Pete playing 1B hold Nick back in 1985? Pete as a manager moved him around, but lets be honest, after a terrible 1984, did Esasky deserve a starting spot on this team at the beginning of 1985. Did Pete's numbers slide in 1985? Yes they did. I do not dispute that, but I don't see where he as a player held Esasky back in 1985. Not to mention the Reds won 89 games that year, so I guess Pete had nothing to do with that either? In 1986, Pete only played in 72 games, Esasky hit only .230, and Tony Perez was still hanging out there. Esasky was not better than Buddy Bell at 3B, not better than Eric Davis in LF, and was eventually put at 1B. Rose stopped playing after that year.

My point is that I don't believe that by playing 1B, Rose held Esasky back at all. Now as a manager, after that season, why in the world was Esasky sharing 1B with Terry Francona in 1987 is beyond me. Based on what Esasky did in 1987 and then what he did with Boston after he left, tells me that he should have been getting over 500 ABs from then on out, but he didn't. So if anything, Rose held him back as a manager after the 1986 season, when his stats warranted that he deserved to being playing more.

Are there Reds fans out there that wish Pete had not broken that record? Could this team have done better without Pete as a player manager in 1985? Would we have rather seen Esasky play more after a terrible 1984, instead of seeing Pete eventually break Cobb's record in 1985?

westofyou
08-23-2012, 09:44 AM
Either way there is not much to be proud about when considering 85-86, that's the point.. Jeter has a tough row to hoe and he won't have the chance to squeeze out every hit before he's sat by the manager.



1985-1986

YEAR TEAM AGE G AB R H 2B 3B HR HR% RBI BB SO SB CS AVG SLG OBA OPS
1985 Reds 44 119 405 60 107 12 2 2 0.49 46 86 35 8 1 .264 .319 .395 .713
1986 Reds 45 72 237 15 52 8 2 0 0.00 25 30 31 3 0 .219 .270 .316 .586
TOTALS 191 642 75 159 20 4 2 0.31 71 116 66 11 1 .248 .301 .367 .668
LG AVERAGE 636 80 166 29 4 15 2.34 75 65 98 18 8 .260 .390 .329 .719
POS AVERAGE 643 81 168 31 3 19 3.00 87 77 97 6 5 .262 .408 .340 .749

tommycash
08-23-2012, 09:56 AM
Either way there is not much to be proud about when considering 85-86, that's the point.. Jeter has a tough row to hoe and he won't have the chance to squeeze out every hit before he's sat by the manager.



1985-1986

YEAR TEAM AGE G AB R H 2B 3B HR HR% RBI BB SO SB CS AVG SLG OBA OPS
1985 Reds 44 119 405 60 107 12 2 2 0.49 46 86 35 8 1 .264 .319 .395 .713
1986 Reds 45 72 237 15 52 8 2 0 0.00 25 30 31 3 0 .219 .270 .316 .586
TOTALS 191 642 75 159 20 4 2 0.31 71 116 66 11 1 .248 .301 .367 .668
LG AVERAGE 636 80 166 29 4 15 2.34 75 65 98 18 8 .260 .390 .329 .719
POS AVERAGE 643 81 168 31 3 19 3.00 87 77 97 6 5 .262 .408 .340 .749


There is a lot to be proud of about in 1985, he broke Ty Cobb's hit record. His stats were not that impressive. I don't know why he came back to play in 1986. My point was that I don't believe that Esasky was held back by Pete playing 1B. I agree that his stats were not great in 1985.

Jamz
08-23-2012, 11:22 AM
Pete Rose was a freak. The guy was hitting .286 at 43 and hit .264 at 44 years of age with even more ridiculous OBPs for that age. I highly doubt Jeter makes it close to the record.

I don't see how hitting .265 and OBPing at nearly .400 is a bad thing in 1985 but maybe I'm missing something.

Caveat Emperor
08-23-2012, 11:31 AM
Honestly, I expect Derek Jeter to retire a Yankee. He's one of those guys that I simply don't see ever putting on another uniform. I think he'd have to be really close to 4,000 to even think about it, and I don't think he's going to last long enough with New York to get that close.

westofyou
08-23-2012, 11:53 AM
There is a lot to be proud of about in 1985, he broke Ty Cobb's hit record. His stats were not that impressive. I don't know why he came back to play in 1986. My point was that I don't believe that Esasky was held back by Pete playing 1B. I agree that his stats were not great in 1985.

.319 slging percentage from a 1st baseman is kinda weak.

But my point really is that Pete those years would not be playing if he didn't place himself in the lineup.

Frankly I don't blame him, nor do I feel it's BAD.

But I can't paint him those years as being an exceptional ballplayer anymore, I like to remember the Pete Rose from his first run with the Reds more.

757690
08-23-2012, 12:10 PM
They'll have better HGH testing by the time he gets close, so I doubt he makes it :cool:

powersackers
08-23-2012, 12:16 PM
Been around baseball and the Reds since 1988 and this is the first I ever heard or read about Pete the player/manager hurting the team. Stick around Redszone long enough and you will see it all.

westofyou
08-23-2012, 12:18 PM
Been around baseball and the Reds since 1988 and this is the first I ever heard or read about Pete the player/manager hurting the team. Stick around Redszone long enough and you will see it all.

Well, finish 2nd two years in a row and folks will begin asking why just 2nd?

Nature of the game (like having a slugger at 1st is as well)

Reds/Flyers Fan
08-23-2012, 12:27 PM
It depends how long he wants to play and, IMO, if his bat will be able to carry being a DH.

I hope he does it.

I certainly hope he does not. As a Reds fan, I want that record to remain with my team. As a Cincinnatian like Pete, I want that record to belong to the city.

The Yankees have enough championships, Hall of Famers, records and everything else to be proud of. They don't need this too.

As for Jeter, imagine if he had played in Cincinnati (the Reds passed on him) or anywhere else in the hitter-friendly National League. Playing games in Wrigley, GABP, Citizens Banks, Coors Field, Minute Maid, PNC and against much friendlier pitching staffs than those found in the beastly AL East might have meant at least 250 more hits for him at this point.

tommycash
08-23-2012, 12:37 PM
Well, finish 2nd two years in a row and folks will begin asking why just 2nd?

Nature of the game (like having a slugger at 1st is as well)

After a terrible 1984 (Pete was brought in at the end of the season to turn the team around), I would say that 1985 was a great year for the Reds. Are you saying that a 19 game turnaround is not that good? Was Esasky a slugger in 1985? He came off a sub .200 year in 1984, and wasn't even a firstbaseman in 1984. He played 3B, and then they moved him into the OF. It wasn't until Pete slowed down that they moved Esasky over to 1B to take over for Pete. I am sure Pete going for the hits record and the Reds contending for the playoffs helped attendence more that year as well. Lets not forget that Pete was lights out at the end of 1984 when they first hired him as player manager. He got results in 1985, so I side with Pete. I am glad he got the hits record.

My contention is that Pete at 1B with Perez at backup, did not hold back Esasky in 1985 or 1986 for that matter. If anything, Buddy Bell coming in drove Esasky to the OF, and then Eric Davis being brought up forced the Reds to move him to 1B in 1987, after Rose retired from playing. After that, I agree that Rose should have played him more. Are you saying that an even older Tony Perez should have played more at 1B than Rose? Yeah he played himself, but he was a competitor who wanted to win games. The Reds were 2nd in the division both full years he was player-manager. That is a huge improvement from where they were before they brought Pete in.

westofyou
08-23-2012, 12:45 PM
After a terrible 1984 (Pete was brought in at the end of the season to turn the team around), I would say that 1985 was a great year for the Reds. Are you saying that a 19 game turnaround is not that good? Was Esasky a slugger in 1985? He came off a sub .200 year in 1984, and wasn't even a firstbaseman in 1984. He played 3B, and then they moved him into the OF. It wasn't until Pete slowed down that they moved Esasky over to 1B to take over for Pete. I am sure Pete going for the hits record and the Reds contending for the playoffs helped attendence more that year as well. Lets not forget that Pete was lights out at the end of 1984 when they first hired him as player manager. He got results in 1985, so I side with Pete. I am glad he got the hits record.

My contention is that Pete at 1B with Perez at backup, did not hold back Esasky in 1985 or 1986 for that matter. If anything, Buddy Bell coming in drove Esasky to the OF, and then Eric Davis being brought up forced the Reds to move him to 1B in 1987, after Rose retired from playing. After that, I agree that Rose should have played him more. Are you saying that an even older Tony Perez should have played more at 1B than Rose? Yeah he played himself, but he was a competitor who wanted to win games. The Reds were 2nd in the division both full years he was player-manager. That is a huge improvement from where they were before they brought Pete in.

Are you saying the Reds could only have played those guys at 1st base?

There are trades too.

And yes I think the 19 game turn around is great.

Again, I'm not condemning what happened, I'm just poking at it to show that it has other angles that didn't seem to be looked at in the fervor of Pete's chase.

757690
08-23-2012, 12:45 PM
Must of been tough on Pete. The more games he plays, the closer to the record, but the fewer games he could bet on.

tommycash
08-23-2012, 03:39 PM
Are you saying the Reds could only have played those guys at 1st base?

There are trades too.

And yes I think the 19 game turn around is great.

Again, I'm not condemning what happened, I'm just poking at it to show that it has other angles that didn't seem to be looked at in the fervor of Pete's chase.

I understand what you are saying, but the game then was not as it is today. We can't forget how cheap the Reds were back then. I am not so sure ownership would have wanted to trade for anybody outside of cheap players. It was probably painful enough to trade for Buddy Bell. Why would ownership want Pete to sit in 1985 anyway. Every day he got closer to the record, the more people came out to watch him. And he had a .395 OBP that year. No he did not hit for power, but he got on base. I mentioned Esasky because it alluded to that Pete was holding Esasky back by playing 1B. I don't it would have been easy to get a 1B for cheap in a trade. They might have had to trade some guys that ended up winning us a WS in 1990. We don't know who was available and I am saying that between Rose and Perez, 1B was not a big issue that year. I am not sure who they could have traded for. We don't know what the options were, all I have are the stats from that year. Buddy Bell didn't produce like he should have after the trade, and they traded Jeff Russell to get him, so I can only assume that they didn't want to give up any more prospects for older players (Rose, Perez,and Concepcion were all old and playing).

fearofpopvol1
08-23-2012, 04:10 PM
One big problem for Jeter is where will he play? Many would agree he isn't a shortstop anymore, and could you see him playing there at age 41, 42? They Yanks whole infield is signed to long term contracts, so it isn't just a matter of sliding him over to 2nd, or 3rd, or 1st.

He could DH in theory. Like Griffey Jr. moving from CF, I think it will be tough though. But I'm sure at some point he'll be willing to concede the position.

Big Klu
08-23-2012, 10:53 PM
My point is that I don't believe that by playing 1B, Rose held Esasky back at all. Now as a manager, after that season, why in the world was Esasky sharing 1B with Terry Francona in 1987 is beyond me. Based on what Esasky did in 1987 and then what he did with Boston after he left, tells me that he should have been getting over 500 ABs from then on out, but he didn't. So if anything, Rose held him back as a manager after the 1986 season, when his stats warranted that he deserved to being playing more.

IIRC, Esasky missed the first 6-8 weeks of the 1987 season with an injury, then gradually worked his way into more playing time. Terry Francona and Dave Concepcion platooned at 1B to open the season.

tommycash
08-24-2012, 08:47 AM
IIRC, Esasky missed the first 6-8 weeks of the 1987 season with an injury, then gradually worked his way into more playing time. Terry Francona and Dave Concepcion platooned at 1B to open the season.

Well there it is, so can we move on from the Esasky was held back by Rose theory then? If he didn't hold him back as a player-manager in 1985 and 1986, and injuries took him out early in 1987, then how was he held back by Rose?

Rose worked hard for the batting title, and I think he would have gotten there even if he wasn't the manager on those teams. If he would have been just a player in 1985 and 1986, he would have played anyway and broken the record IMO.