Quote:
Originally Posted by RchW
Interestingly Rose is a compiler; a player who hung on for 8 years while below league average. If you take off the compiling years he finishes with 3372 hits. That's why a lot of people don't like numbers like 3000 hits and 300 wins because they often get used without context.
|
It's not like he was batting .175, either, and somewhere, somebody put him in the lineup not because there was a revered icon, let's play him, maybe people will come and buy ice cream and beer while he strikes out four times.
You got to admit (if not admire) that a 44-year old could go out there and still hit .264/.395/.319 in 405 AB. If that's compiling, I would like to have him compile on my team right now. Since when is longevity a bad thing? There are 34-year olds unable to bat .200 and not killing themselves in the field.
Should they retire right away and get voted to the Hall because "oh well, he knew he was done and didn't want to compile"?
I think I'll call this the
Dan Uggla Conundrum, and no, I am not for Dan Uggla in the Hall of Fame except for emptying trash cans when everybody's gone.
But say, someone's 34, has 2,480 hits and 396 HR, and he's batting .170 with two dingers in June. Nobody would vote for him just
because he retired before it became really ugly.