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

[Rex Argos]

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.

[redsmetz]

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?

[Crash Davis]

I wonder if he actually believes that garbage?

[redsfanmia]

Originally Posted by Crash Davis

I wonder if he actually believes that garbage?

I hope not.

[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.

[SeeinRed]

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.

[gilpdawg]

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.

[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!

[IslandRed]

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.

[Handofdeath]

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.

[gilpdawg]

Originally Posted by Handofdeath

But for most people what do win shares mean? The average fan doesn't care for any of that Bill James jazz.

That doesn't mean "that Bill James jazz" should be discarded either.

[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.

[terminator]

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.

[StillFunkyB]

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

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by SeeinRed

As Mark Twain once said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Mark Twain didn't say that. In his autobiography, published posthumously, Twain attributes the phrase to Benjamin Disraeli, possibly in error.

The earliest record of the phrase is that of a 1895 speech by British economist and politician Leonard Henry Courtney (1832-1918) in which Courtney says the following:

"After all, facts are facts, and although we may quote to one another with a chuckle the words of the Wise Statesman, 'Lies- damn lies- and statistics', still there are some easy figures the simplest must understand, and the astutest cannot wriggle out of."- Leonard Henry Courtney

Could the "Wise Statesman" have been Disraeli? Maybe, but even Disraeli's biographer (Lord Blake) thinks it unlikely that Disraeli originated the phrase.

What is clear, however, is that Courtney (later Lord Courtney) is mocking the "Wise Statesman" who, in error, dismisses offhand that which he either cannot comprehend or does not care to understand. He's also saying that some arguments are so strong that even the stupid and the sly must concede the point.

And here's the actual passage from Twain's autobiography- in context- that cites the phrase:

Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

When viewed in proper context, Mark Twain is not using the "Lies- damned lies- statistics" argument to debase statistical analysis. What he's saying is that he is quite easily led astry by them, particularly when he tries to use them himself due to a lack of analytical ability. His own words tell us that he felt he wasn't any good at understanding and/or using statistics to draw sensible conclusions.

Twain was, in fact, poking fun at himself and Lord Courtney was poking fun at those who, without a second thought, would dismiss that which they could not and/or cared not to understand or accept.

As for the article? The writer's name might as well be Mark Twain.