Pete Rose sycophants

[Orcin]

When I read the post again, I still see the use of the term "compiler" as a negative comment. I don't think his accomplishments are diminished by longevity.

[actionjackson]

Here's Pete Rose's fWAR (I know it's far from unanimous that this is the be-all end-all stat, but in my eyes it best reflects a player's overall value against the league and against his teammates) ranks amongst his fellow National League position players throughout his career:

1963 - 41st ; 1964 - 78th ; 1965 - 11th ; 1966 - 16th ; 1967 - 20th ; 1968 - 7th ; 1969 - 8th ; 1970 - 18th ; 1971 - 17th ; 1972 - 5th ; 1973 - 5th ; 1974 - 10th ; 1975 - 7th ; 1976 - 3rd ; 1977 - 27th ; 1978 - 29th ; 1979 - 25th ; 1980 - 136th ; 1981 - 33rd ; 1982 - 188th ; 1983 - 439th ; 1984 - 94th ; 1985 - 92nd ; 1986 - 429th

Now here's the amount of position players taken to the All-Star Game each year during his career (* denotes All-Star worthy season. I know it's more complicated than that, but this is just a what if...in a vacuum exercise):

1963 - 18 ; 1964 - 18 ; 1965 - 17* ; 1966 - 18* ; 1967 - 17 ; 1968 - 19* ; 1969 - 19* ; 1970 - 21* ; 1971 - 20* ; 1972 - 19* ; 1973 - 22* ; 1974 - 20* ; 1975 - 19* ; 1976 - 20* ; 1977 - 20 ; 1978 - 20 ; 1979 - 25* ; 1980 - 21 ; 1981 - 21 ; 1982 - 20 ; 1983 - 19 ; 1984 - 20 ; 1985 - 22 ; 1986 - 18

Add it all up, and you've got 12 All-Star worthy seasons (1965, 1966, 1968 - 1976, and 1979), and 0 MVP worthy seasons. His ROY Award could've just as easily gone to Ray Culp, Tim McCarver, Bob Bailey, Ron Hunt, or his teammate Tommy Harper, but Pete's also a worthy selection for it.

He was never the best player (i.e. pitcher or position player) in his league, let alone the best position player in his league. He was the best position player on his team from 1965 thru 1968, but never after that because after that he was surrounded with spectacular talent on both the Reds and the Phillies. He's a no doubt HoFer on the field, and I don't think I ever said otherwise.

I'm also softening my stance on the compiler label. He was after all a top 10 position player 7 times (1968, 1969, 1972 - 1976), a top 20 position player 12 straight times (1965 - 1976), and a top 30 position player 15 straight times (1965 - 1979). That demonstrates a remarkable peak plus an ability to be consistent (or some would say "compile") year in year out. Yes, he was the worst position player in the NL in 1983, and was 7th from the bottom in 1986, but those were his age 42 and 45 seasons for cryin' out loud. Should he have retired before then? Probably, but he was too busy chasin' Cobb.

[Westheim]

I'm glad we can finally agree that his achievements of a player would make him deserving of a plaque.

[chucksabr]

Q: How can you tell when Pete Rose is lying?
A: When you see his lips moving.

So when Pete Rose tells us he didn't bet on games he played or managed in ...

[TribeFanInNC]

I think we CAN all agree...that Pete Rose Sketchers commercial is hilarious.

(though I had seen it a few times before the Super Bowl)

"Pete, you know you're not supposed to be in the hall..."

[TribeFanInNC]

dola,

Let's not get stuck on arguments about terminology. Rose was very good for a long time. He's definitely not a "his peak was so good we can't ignore it" type of player. That's fine. I think the slight is in the eye of the beholder.

I think players like Ichiro and Derek Jeter are good comparisons for the type of hitter Rose was. Obviously Ichiro had more speed. Rose probably had a bit more power. Jeter gets some positional considerations (despite what the metrics may say about his defense). So it isn't exactly the same. But they are all plus contact, plus OBP batters with a little XBH capability. Career OPS+ in the 110-120 range. Occasional MVP candidates but not usually even the best player on their team.

[chucksabr]

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

Q: How can you tell when Pete Rose is lying?
A: When you see his lips moving.

So when Pete Rose tells us he didn't bet on games he played or managed in ...

Do you have a point or are you just trolling?

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Do you have a point or are you just trolling?

My point is that Pete Rose is an admitted liar. So just because Pete Rose says he never bet on games he managed or played in, as someone here pointed out earlier, does not mean that he never bet on games he played in or managed.

[CONN CHRIS]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

My point is that Pete Rose is an admitted liar. So just because Pete Rose says he never bet on games he managed or played in, as someone here pointed out earlier, does not mean that he never bet on games he played in or managed.

I don't much care if he did or didn't. I am not hoping to hire him as a financial adviser or ask him to be a character witness for me.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by Westheim

I'm glad we can finally agree that his achievements of a player would make him deserving of a plaque.

This was never in dispute. The contentious point was the word "compiler" when referring to how he got there. His on field accomplishments are without a doubt Hall worthy.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by CONN CHRIS

I don't much care if he did or didn't. I am not hoping to hire him as a financial adviser or ask him to be a character witness for me.

Me, neither. But people whose opinion of Pete Rose's guilt or innocence turns on his verbal claim that he never bet on games he participated in should be reminded of his admission to lying about gambling on baseball games he was involved in.

But however people might want to parse what he said or didn't say, or what he claimed to do or not do, the fact is that Pete Rose broke Rule 21(d), which is the most important subsection of the most important rule in baseball: don't gamble on games you're involved in. If a player does and he is caught, he is declared permanently ineligible. (Note that this is not a "lifetime ban". It is permanent ineligibility, which survives the guilty party.)

Rule 21 is so important, so integral, to the game that subsection (g) of the Rule stipulates that the entire Rule must be posted in every clubhouse of every team in the game, so a player or manager can't feign ignorance of the rule as a defense.

Bottom line: Pete Rose is out of baseball for good.

[CONN CHRIS]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

Bottom line: Pete Rose is out of baseball for good.

I don't personally know many (maybe none) that think he should be back in baseball. The Hall of Fame is a different thing.

[CommishJoe]

Originally Posted by CONN CHRIS

I don't personally know many (maybe none) that think he should be back in baseball. The Hall of Fame is a different thing.

For me, it's not. If you are banned from baseball, you should be banned from everything that has to do with baseball.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by CommishJoe

For me, it's not. If you are banned from baseball, you should be banned from everything that has to do with baseball.

If it's something that happened after their playing days, I disagree. Now, ban them from being able to say "Hall of Famer" or signing memorabilia with that designation, etc., OK with me.

But if they earned it on the field, they should be in there. It's for the history of the game and the game is bigger than one individual's poor life choices.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by CommishJoe

For me, it's not. If you are banned from baseball, you should be banned from everything that has to do with baseball.

Fair enough. For me, all great baseball players should be in the Hall of Fame.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Fair enough. For me, all great baseball players should be in the Hall of Fame.

I definitely agree with this when it comes to Bonds and Clemens who, if they were taking steroids, were cheating to win. Baseballers who gamble on the games they play, or who consort with gamblers who gamble on the games they play, put themselves in the quite possible position of cheating to lose. To me, it's immaterial whether there is any evidence of their cheating to lose. The very act of consorting with the gambling element in connection with their games is enough to cast a reasonably high degree of suspicion on them. So if a player gambles on the game he's playing and gets caught, everyone knows what he's going to get, and he gets exactly what he deserves, which is permanent banishment from baseball as proscribed.

That is different from the Hall of Fame, of course. It's possible for the Hall of Fame to disassociate themselves from Baseball and induct players who have been declared permanently eligible. It's their decision to not do that, though, which is their right as an independent organization. But if the Hall of Fame were to change course and say, you know what, we no longer care about the permanently ineligibility thing, we're going to let Pete Rose in anyway? I think that would be highly unusual, but again, that would be their decision as an organization. But even if the Hall of Fame were to do that, I don't think Pete Rose will, or should, ever be removed from Organized Baseball's permanently ineligible list.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Orcin

MLB rule 21(d) does not apply to the Hall of Fame.

No, but the argument can be made that someone who willfully broke one of the sport's most fundamental rules should not then be enshrined in that sport's Hall of Fame. Rose essentially spat in the eye of the sport by deliberately breaking one of its longest-standing core rules regarding the integrity of the sport and then wants to be given a pass for it so he can be in that sport's Hall of Fame.

(And if one doesn't think gambling can cause issues, see the CPBL and the numerous game-fixing/betting scandals that have plagued that league over the years, to the point of players and even entire clubs being expelled.)

[Orcin]

It's not the Hall of Integrity. It's the Hall of Fame.

From the Hall of Fame website, it's mission statement follows:

"The Hall of Fame's mission is to preserve the sport's history, honor excellence within the game and make a connection between the generations of people who enjoy baseball."

There's not a thing in there about integrity.

[Le Grande Orange]

Breaking a fundamental rule of the sport is hardly an example of honorable excellence within the game. It is in fact the exact opposite.