Turn Off Ads?
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 44

Thread: Was Rose Really the 5th Best Player on The Team?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Ex-Tree
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Evansville
    Posts
    247

    Was Rose Really the 5th Best Player on The Team?

    Interesting tidbit I found on the 'net today. The writer's argument is that while Rose may be HOF worthy, he wasn't even the best player on the team. Haven't we heard that argument about Perez? Anyway, here's the link:

    http://baseballguru.com/bbspot2.html

    He even makes a mention of Ken, Sr. which I think was a nice touch.
    Semper Ubi Sub Ubi

  2. #2
    Redsmetz redsmetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Winton Place
    Posts
    11,165

    Re: Was Rose Really the 5th Best Player on The Team?

    Not besmirch stats, but I think this shows how when stats are isolated, you lose much of what you have collectively as a team. I think everyone acknowledges that Rose's power numbers weren't equal to many of his teammates, but he had loads of hits and he played full barrelled. I think the squads that comprised the BRM are emblematic of how individual players made one another even better.

    Does this make sense or am I blowing it out my tailend?

  3. #3
    White Castle to the Nile Crash Davis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Tybee Island, GA
    Posts
    1,943

    Re: Was Rose Really the 5th Best Player on The Team?

    I wonder if he actually believes that garbage?
    "I fought because I understood and could not bear to understand, that it was my destiny -- unlike that of my father, whose fate it was to hear the roar of the crowd -- to sit in the stands with most men and acclaim others. It was my fate, my destiny, my end, to be a fan."

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    3,608

    Re: Was Rose Really the 5th Best Player on The Team?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crash Davis
    I wonder if he actually believes that garbage?
    I hope not.
    I was in the ORG once, best 6 months of my life.

  5. #5
    Big Red Machine RedsBaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Out Wayne
    Posts
    22,805

    Re: Was Rose Really the 5th Best Player on The Team?

    Poorly reasoned article that appeared to intentionally consider only those stats that made Rose look poor in comparsion. For example, why include RBI in the comparsion but not runs scored?
    In the decade of the 1970s, Joe Morgan lead all of baseball in Win Shares with 315. Johnny Bench was third with 263. Sandwiched in between was Pete Rose with 288. Of other Reds mentioned, Tom Seaver ranked 11th with 230, Tony Perez ranked 20th with 217 and Ken Griffey 119th with 117.
    "Hey...Dad. Wanna Have A Catch?" Kevin Costner in "Field Of Dreams."

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,187

    Re: Was Rose Really the 5th Best Player on The Team?

    Stats are used to support arguments. You can pick and choose and twist stats to make any argument you want. Thats just the way stats are, not only in baseball, but in everthing. As Mark Twain once said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Nobody, no matter how indifferent they claim to be, uses stats to take a stance, they use them to affirm their stance. All seriousness aside though, my favorite quote about statistics is "The average human has one breast and one testicle." A deeper favorite of mine "Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say." In case you couldn't tell, people using statistics excessively is a major pet peeve of mine. There is a point where people replace intellegent comments with Statistics so they can say, "here is proof you can't argue that" when in reality statistics at times are anything but solid proof.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Lubbock, Texas
    Posts
    1,362

    Re: Was Rose Really the 5th Best Player on The Team?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsBaron
    Poorly reasoned article that appeared to intentionally consider only those stats that made Rose look poor in comparsion. For example, why include RBI in the comparsion but not runs scored?
    In the decade of the 1970s, Joe Morgan lead all of baseball in Win Shares with 315. Johnny Bench was third with 263. Sandwiched in between was Pete Rose with 288. Of other Reds mentioned, Tom Seaver ranked 11th with 230, Tony Perez ranked 20th with 217 and Ken Griffey 119th with 117.
    But for most people what do win shares mean? The average fan doesn't care for any of that Bill James jazz.

  8. #8
    Stat geek...and proud
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    New Paris, OH
    Posts
    2,573

    Re: Was Rose Really the 5th Best Player on The Team?

    The Big Red Machine was just that, a machine. If one of the parts was bad in the machine, the machine wouldn't run right. Pete was part of that machine, and he was the leader. On one hand, the dude is sort of right, in that Perez, Morgan, and Foster were probably better players during the BRM heyday, but Rose did it well for far longer than any of those guys.

  9. #9
    Ex-Tree
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Evansville
    Posts
    247

    Re: Was Rose Really the 5th Best Player on The Team?

    OK--some of you have weighed in. Most of you have disagreed with the article to some extent. If you HAD to rank them--working in the BRM years (72-78) how would you rank them? I'll go first, and I'm working completely without the benefit of stats:

    1. Morgan
    2. Foster
    3. Perez
    4. Rose
    5. Bench

    Let the games begin!
    Semper Ubi Sub Ubi

  10. #10
    Your killin' me Smalls! StillFunkyB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Florence, KY
    Posts
    3,128

    Re: Was Rose Really the 5th Best Player on The Team?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex Argos
    OK--some of you have weighed in. Most of you have disagreed with the article to some extent. If you HAD to rank them--working in the BRM years (72-78) how would you rank them? I'll go first, and I'm working completely without the benefit of stats:

    1. Morgan
    2. Foster
    3. Perez
    4. Rose
    5. Bench

    Let the games begin!
    If I'm building a team, and I had to pick:

    Rose, Bench, Morgan, Doggie, Foster

    But what do I know, I was born in 76
    "And the fact that watching him pitch is like having someone poop on your soul." FCB on Gary Majewski

  11. #11
    Charlie Brown All-Star IslandRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, FL
    Posts
    4,850

    Re: Was Rose Really the 5th Best Player on The Team?

    Rose obviously has everyone beat when factoring in career longevity, but if I could choose players for my team based on how good they were at their best, I'd go Morgan-Bench-Rose.
    Not all who wander are lost

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    167

    Re: Was Rose Really the 5th Best Player on The Team?

    Stats dont show a whole player. HOF'ers should be judged by several factors including production, leadership, fundamentals and love of the game. When you read between the lines Pete should be there representing the team of the 70's and one of the best for all time.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    332

    Re: Was Rose Really the 5th Best Player on The Team?

    That really misses the point of Pete. I can't imagine anyone not recognizing Pete as one of the top 10 players of all-time.

    If someone told you that you could have ONE of the following rookies for their whole career -- Rose, Bench, Morgan, Perez, Griffey, etc. who would you take? To me, that's the better way to consider the question. And that's when Pete becomes a clearer winner. Plenty of guys had 3-5 year stretches better than Rose, but that doesn't mean that Dale Murphy was better than Pete.

    It is also worth noting that Pete was a scrappy, older veteran most of his career -- and that is worth a lot.

  14. #14
    Churlish Johnny Footstool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Olathe, KS
    Posts
    13,790

    Re: Was Rose Really the 5th Best Player on The Team?

    Quote Originally Posted by lo ryder
    Stats dont show a whole player. HOF'ers should be judged by several factors including production, leadership, fundamentals and love of the game. When you read between the lines Pete should be there representing the team of the 70's and one of the best for all time.
    "Love of the game"?

    How in the world do you propose judging a player based on his love of the game?
    "I prefer books and movies where the conflict isn't of the extreme cannibal apocalypse variety I guess." Redsfaithful

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    53

    Re: Was Rose Really the 5th Best Player on The Team?

    i'd never take morgan just because i listen to him now and he puts down the reds every chance he gets. you can put a crappy player in with a bunch of good players and they look great. That is how see joe morgan. Pete is on of the best players all time. He's in the top 10.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25