How Good Was Pete Rose, really?

I might suggest that there are 4,256 reasons to put Rose in your top category...

No other player mentioned so far on this thread can come close to that many reasons.

 

Up until the 1980s, usually given to the player at each position with a) the best BA or b) the most HRs.

 

There's a lot of people who only saw Rose at the end of his career and I'm one of them. In my case, 1978-86.

It's hard to get a non-statistical handle on him when all you saw was a just barely above-average player filled with piss and vinegar, but not much else. He wasn't even close to being the best player on the '80 Phillies championship team.

One SABR-stat I found fascinating was this ... he had the worst WAR among the Phillies starting position players that season, a minus-four. By point of comparison, Mike Schmidt was a 9.1.

He definitely played at least two years too long too.

But having said that, I just missed out on his glory years with the Reds, which statistically and aesthetically, were by far his best years.

The didn't see him at his peak notion makes a lot of sense with Rose.

 

Man, baseball writers were idiots back then

 

Brett has to be in top list. I would also add Griffey JR. I would place Rose in middle list. Something in me says that Bench should be on that list also.

 

I have 10,328 reasons that counter that.

 

He could change from outfield to infield so the team could make room for George Foster without having to give up anything.

Other productive outfielders at that time (think Greg Luzinski) could not have offered that versatility to their teams.

So it's relevant. At least in the NL.

 

Any of them publicly admit betting on their own team?

 

A lot of them were.

In those days, the really brainy voters who wanted to base their GG votes on who was actually good on defense, almost always did it on the basis of fielding percentage.

 

Of all the jackassy things he has done, I don't even consider that near the top of the list.

Once we get through the wife-beaters, serial cheaters, drug abusers and just generally miserable people to be around, then we can look at betting on your team (to win, BTW) when rating the jackasses.

In those days an LA writer might see a Cardinals shortstop 12 times all season. No ESPN. No MLB Extra Innings package. Limited exposure and word of mouth.

They did what they could with the limited tools available at the time. Just because Alexander Graham Bell didn't invent any apps for his phone doesn't mean he was stupid.

 

I agree that Rose isn't in the top 20 of all-time.

I don't entirely disagree with Chris L's assertion that he was never the best player on his own team. Of course he also played most of his career with Bench, Seaver, Schmidt and Carlton. That's arguably the best catcher of all time, the best third baseman of all time and two of the best pitchers of all time.

I also don't like the Rose/Boggs comparison. Rose was a much better player than Boggs ever was.

 

OK, let's rank players who played from 1960 to 1990. Where does Rose rank in that group? No steroid era players, even though Bonds and Clemens began their careers before 1990.