Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Sunday, December 10, 2006

Pete Rose

Eligible in 1992.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 10, 2006 at 10:54 PM | 174 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. Daryn Posted: December 13, 2006 at 05:47 PM (#2260131)
I will only have Rose two places above Beckley -- that's the point we are making. If you love Beckley you have to love Rose.

From 11,500 PAs onward, Rose's OPS+ is 98. That is not a negative; that is not, as you have characterized it, "below replacement level".
   102. karlmagnus Posted: December 13, 2006 at 05:48 PM (#2260133)
Rose is 101 including 1978; excluding it and the first 70 PA of 1979 he's therefore below 100. Also, Beckley's OPS+ is a little suppressed because his home park didn't allow for homers; his triples/homers ratio is way out of line with contemporaries. Add 50 bases for this and he's 126 not 125. As I said, it's close, but the ties favor Beckley.
   103. karlmagnus Posted: December 13, 2006 at 05:53 PM (#2260138)
Daryn, I agree. I now have Rose on my ballot and he will enter my PHOM. The corollary however is also true; if you love Rose, you have to love Beckley. Most won't.
   104. rawagman Posted: December 13, 2006 at 06:02 PM (#2260151)
karl - there is a reason why someone like me can like Rose, but not so much Beckley. Rose had something resembling a peak. Beckley - not so much. My system finds Tony Perez to be a very fitting comparison to Beckley and I rank them one after the other.
   105. Michael Bass Posted: December 13, 2006 at 06:25 PM (#2260174)
This is a bit of a slow week (other than a few "unusual" placements, the 2 elections will come down to 3 players, and which 3 it is only depends on who boycotts, which isn't really something to discuss, more to individuals to decide), so I figure I'll toss a hand grenade into the mix...

There are several snide comments in this thread (and I think in others) about Roses's greenie use (alleged or otherwise). For those of you planning to dock McGwire/Palmeiro/Bonds when the day comes for 'roid use, shouldn't there be a discussion of whether and if so by how much greenies inflated Rose's stats? (I realize this is a bit late in the day, as more or less every 60s/70s star is rumored or known to have popped them like candy, but better late than never)
   106. karlmagnus Posted: December 13, 2006 at 06:25 PM (#2260175)
Perez is nowhere near Beckley -- 15% less career than an adjusted Beckley, 3 points less OPS+ and a less important fielding position. Staub's significantly better than perez and Beckley's considerably better than Staub. As Bill James showed 10 years ago, except for truly historic peaks, a peak is irrelevant -- there's no extra wins from a moderate peak vs. no peak if the overall careers are the same. In the Perez/beckley case, the careers aren't the same. In Rose/Beckley, they're damn close, with Beckley slightly better but YMMV.
   107. OCF Posted: December 13, 2006 at 07:10 PM (#2260247)
I should resist getting into it with karlmagnus, but I've got one more thing to present. In my RCAA-based system, Beckley comes off significantly worse than his OPS+ would make him appear and Rose comes out better. The results aren't in the same zip code as "close."

Beckley 38 36 34 29 29 27 24 20 20 20 19 19 15 15 13 10  8  4 -8-11
Rose    72 60 58 58 53 48 46 40 36 35 34 32 29 28 22 21 13 10  5  3  2 
--8-16
Yaz     96 82 80 48 41 36 34 33 28 24 21 20 20 19 17 16 11  9  7  7  3  0 
-6
Perez   64 52 44 43 27 27 27 26 25 21 15 15 14  5  2  0 
-------
   108. karlmagnus Posted: December 13, 2006 at 07:21 PM (#2260265)
The problem with RCAA is the calculation of the R and the second A (I have no problem particulalry with "created" or "above.") Like WS, it has only a tenuous conncetion to reality, particularly when comparing between two eras 90 years apart. OPS+ is self-normalized, and accounts for eras automatically; that's why it has such solidity and invulnerability to spurious attack. Its only inaccuracy is at the McGwire extreme (very high SLG/OBP ratio) which it overrates a bit.
   109. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 13, 2006 at 07:27 PM (#2260279)
but I currently have Rose #16 on my 1992 ballot.

Well, that destroys yest's puzzling slotting of Morgan in '90. And then some.
   110. karlmagnus Posted: December 13, 2006 at 07:33 PM (#2260288)
Surely Grandma, there is nobody allowed to vote for HOM who has a system in which Morgan isn't WAY ahead of Rose. Morgan's at worst the #3 second baseman of all time, whereas Rose is light-years short of that. I've moved Rose provisionally up to #12, in a feeble wimp-out to popular opinion, but I can't even imagine an intellectual universe in which he's anywhere close to Morgan.
   111. rawagman Posted: December 13, 2006 at 07:35 PM (#2260291)
Amazing how we, as a group, have gone from defending a veto on Rose, to bashing a low placement of the man.
   112. OCF Posted: December 13, 2006 at 07:39 PM (#2260304)
John: But the ballot counters and consensus scores don't care why, just what the actual vote is, so it won't in practice be any different than the boycotts, of which there promise to be some.

Michael Bass: So Rose may have been doing both amphetamines AND steroids. So what?
   113. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 13, 2006 at 07:44 PM (#2260315)
I've moved Rose provisionally up to #12, in a feeble wimp-out to popular opinion, but I can't even imagine an intellectual universe in which he's anywhere close to Morgan.

Morgan was clearly better (and he should have been declared the best player of the Seventies over The Hustler, BTW), karlmagnus, but Rose's career value is truly outstanding. When you add in his solid peak and that a good chunk of his career was played at 2B/3B, he belongs in the "no-brainer" class of HoMers, IMO.
   114. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 13, 2006 at 07:46 PM (#2260319)
John: But the ballot counters and consensus scores don't care why, just what the actual vote is, so it won't in practice be any different than the boycotts, of which there promise to be some.

But it will mean something if Rose doesn't make it on his first attempt, OCF.
   115. Michael Bass Posted: December 13, 2006 at 07:47 PM (#2260323)
OCF - Hey, I'm on board with that sentiment, and yet when McGwire becomes eligible here in a few months, who wants to lay bets we'll have half the electorate taking deductions of some sort (not just the one-year boycott; deductions from his record for as long as he's on the ballot)? I'm reasonably sure numerous people have already declared their intention to do so; if I weren't exceedingly lazy (and hungry at the moment ;) ), I'd look them up and provide links.

My point is that those who plan on taking the weed-whacker to McGwire's numbers should, it seems to me at least, be looking at everyone who has the issues swirling around them, as Rose clearly does. I will not be taking steroid deductions, but I think it's important that those who do plan to are consistent in their application of deductions for PEDs.
   116. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 13, 2006 at 07:49 PM (#2260327)
I've moved Rose provisionally up to #12, in a feeble wimp-out to popular opinion

Missed that the first time. If you honestly feel he belongs at #16 (:-0), then that's where he belongs. Feeble wimp-outs to popular opinion are unconstitutional
   117. karlmagnus Posted: December 13, 2006 at 08:03 PM (#2260355)
All other voting systems allow feeble wimp-outs to popular opinion; I don't see why this one shouldn't. It's my own fault for telling people what I intended to do rather than springing it as a surprise on the ballot thread like Yest does, where apart from shouts of "Ban him for life!" there's not much people can do about it.
   118. karlmagnus Posted: December 13, 2006 at 08:07 PM (#2260367)
More seriously, Grandma, I had guessed that Rose's end-in-1980 OPS+ was 122, and it was actually 124. That's worth a few places.
   119. DavidFoss Posted: December 13, 2006 at 08:10 PM (#2260370)
particularly when comparing between two eras 90 years apart

Do you think adjusting for the high scoring 1890s is going to help?

OCF, are you already doing that? Is "40" in 1894 equivalent to "40" in 1968?
   120. DavidFoss Posted: December 13, 2006 at 08:12 PM (#2260372)
All other voting systems allow feeble wimp-outs to popular opinion

I learn stuff from reading the discussion threads... why is that necessarily a feeble wimp-out? Why does it have to be popular opinion either? I learn stuff from low-consensus voters, too.
   121. karlmagnus Posted: December 13, 2006 at 08:13 PM (#2260375)
Since the high scoring period is only 1893-97, it's only just over 1/4 of Beckley's career. He had better years in low-scoring 1888-92 and in low-scoring 1900-06. Keeler's a different case.
   122. DL from MN Posted: December 13, 2006 at 08:18 PM (#2260387)
> less important fielding position

Tony Perez played a lot of 3B, especially at his peak. I don't see how that is less important than a 1B of any era. That said I still have Beckley above Perez.
   123. DavidFoss Posted: December 13, 2006 at 08:20 PM (#2260392)
Contexts:
JB:.275/.341/.366
PR:.265/.331/.390

I stand corrected. (FYI/FWIW -- Keeler's pretty close to JB .280/.341/.368)
   124. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 13, 2006 at 08:21 PM (#2260396)
All other voting systems allow feeble wimp-outs to popular opinion;

Is this true? I'll move up a player over another one if that player has a greater consensus among the electorate, but only if the player being passed over has virtually the same value.
   125. sunnyday2 Posted: December 13, 2006 at 08:23 PM (#2260402)
>Rose had something resembling a peak. Beckley - not so much.

And in that sense it is entirely relevant that Rose's peak came as a 2B plus a little 3B.
   126. sunnyday2 Posted: December 13, 2006 at 08:24 PM (#2260407)
>t's my own fault for telling people what I intended to do rather than springing it as a surprise on the ballot thread

Cannot disagree with that.
   127. Daryn Posted: December 13, 2006 at 09:24 PM (#2260522)
In Rose/Beckley, they're damn close, with Beckley slightly better but YMMV.

Being "damn close" to the only backlogger on your ballot who you repeatedly say is in the upper part of the Hall shouldn't, in my view, keep him ten spots back.
   128. OCF Posted: December 13, 2006 at 10:23 PM (#2260549)
David: yes, those numbers are already context adjusted, on a year-to-year basis (the year-to-year basis makes an enormous difference for Beckley, whose career spanned a twofold range of league runs per game.)

Allowing yourself to be influenced by the opinions of other votes is not and cannot be unconstitutional - else, why discuss at all?

And yes, Morgan is WAY ahead of Rose. And in my opinion Rose is not close to Seaver. I assume that Seaver will get nearly all, if not all, of the #1 votes.
   129. Daryn Posted: December 13, 2006 at 10:33 PM (#2260568)
I assume that Seaver will get nearly all, if not all, of the #1 votes.

Not all. In fact, there are already 3 or 4 of us on record as putting Rose #1.
   130. Daryn Posted: December 13, 2006 at 10:38 PM (#2260578)
Actually, 2 on record, one on the fence, and one who would put Rose first but is boycotting him.
   131. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 13, 2006 at 10:40 PM (#2260580)
Allowing yourself to be influenced by the opinions of other votes is not and cannot be unconstitutional - else, why discuss at all?

That's fine, OCF, if you're being influenced over substantive reasons, not due to peer pressure.
   132. Willie Mays Hayes Posted: December 13, 2006 at 11:45 PM (#2260658)
I'll chime in with a couple thoughts.

Re: Greenies - Rose wasn't the first HOM candidate to use them (Mantle off the top of my head was notorious), and won't be the last. We'd be treading in dangerous territory, IMO, if we open up a discussion on Greenies. Granted, I wasn't around for Mantle's election, but it certainly didn't affect his candidacy.

Re: Rose/Grich/Seaver: As of right now, I have Seaver a clear-cut #1, with Rose and Grich in a virtual dead-heat for 2. The fact those Rose's peak was at 2b and 3b can not be overlooked by the electorate, particulary peak voters. In essence, if you are a peak voter, the first base years should matter none, so you're looking at a prime defensive position candidate with a phenomenal bat for the position.

Re: Rose v. Beckley: The two are reasonably similar, with the exception of what I outlined above, which in the end, eliminates most of the similarity. Beckley will still be in the 14-18 area of my ballot, difficult 1B or no, it's not 2B or 3B.
   133. OCF Posted: December 14, 2006 at 04:42 AM (#2260942)
Flipping back a page to my own post #75, about runs scored divided by times on base: I reported an insane 56.8% for Larry Lintz and a fabulous 44.3% for Otis Nixon. Cliff just sent me the times each of those player was used as a pinch runner. That number properly belongs in the denominator, as times on base. Including it reduces Lintz to 36.0% and Nixon to 40.5%, restoring Vince Coleman to being an outlier. And I'll repeat my contention that Pete Rose's 34.3% suggests that he was at worst a middle-of-the-pack baserunner, not someone who was hurting his team by bad risk management.

Of course I only looked at Lintz in the first place becuase I knew I'd get a silly number. I'd get an even sillier number (in fact, undefined) for Herb Washington. (Washington appeared in 105 games and scored 33 runs. 33/105=31.4%.)
   134. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 16, 2006 at 07:05 PM (#2263210)
karlmagnus, why use OPS+ as opposed to the much more comprehensive EqA? That has Beckley and Rose both at .290 career. Except that Rose's career was far longer even after season length adjustments, included 8 years at 2B and 3B, and had numerous seasons where he was one of the top 10 players in baseball.
   135. DavidFoss Posted: December 18, 2006 at 04:41 PM (#2264265)
From the ballot thread:

2- Pete Rose
I dislike him and despise what he did. Should not ever be allowed to have a position in MLB. But a clear HoFer and HoMer based on his playing career.


That pretty much sums up my views on him. The main reason I support continuing the Pete Rose ban is not punishment or justice, but a fear of what he would do if was to be reinstated. In another twenty years when he's too old to do any damage, then MLB/HOF can deal with whether or not his achievements warrant enshrinement and whether keeping him out is just serving to add to his myth. I mean, without this controversy, he'd lapse into the Frisch/PWaner class of worthy-but-not-inner-circle guys and fall into relative obscurity compared to the titans of the game. With the controversy, he'll always stay in the limelight.

But for now, he just needs to be kept away from the game.

The HOM doesn't have to worry about such issues though and he'll be #2 on my ballot this week.
   136. Daryn Posted: December 18, 2006 at 04:53 PM (#2264275)
I mean, without this controversy, he'd lapse into the Frisch/PWaner class of worthy-but-not-inner-circle guys and fall into relative obscurity compared to the titans of the game.

He is the all-time hits leader. I don't see how he would fall into obscurity anymore than Cobb did (which is to say, not at all).
   137. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 18, 2006 at 05:01 PM (#2264278)
He is the all-time hits leader. I don't see how he would fall into obscurity anymore than Cobb did (which is to say, not at all).

Ditto.
   138. DavidFoss Posted: December 18, 2006 at 05:41 PM (#2264300)
OK. Well, maybe an extra heavy emphasis on the "relative" in "relative obscurity".

Baseball fans seem a lot less hit-centric these days than they were 20 years ago. I'm preaching to the choir here when I say that Cobb was a much more dominant player and perhaps in a generation or two, "history" will realize the same thing. Perhaps wishful thinking. :-)

I guess its always irked me that Shoeless Joe Jackson is so much more famous than a guy like Tris Speaker and some of that fame (or I suppose I should say infamy) has led people to think that Jackson was better player.
   139. karlmagnus Posted: December 18, 2006 at 05:53 PM (#2264313)
Someone will take out Rose's record within the next 20 years -- with modern conditioning, it's by no means unattainable, any more than Aaron's (Cobb is about 4400 adjusted for season length.) That will solve the problem -- Roger Maris doesn't these days loom very large.
   140. Dizzypaco Posted: December 18, 2006 at 07:04 PM (#2264351)
Someone will take out Rose's record within the next 20 years -- with modern conditioning, it's by no means unattainable, any more than Aaron's (Cobb is about 4400 adjusted for season length.) That will solve the problem -- Roger Maris doesn't these days loom very large.

If Ty Cobb played today, he wouldn't hit .420, or .400 three times, or .367 over a 24 year career. If you are going to adjust for season length, you also have to adjust for the greatly increased difficulty of hitting for a very high average.

Rose's record is going to be extremely difficult to break, not that someone might not do it. If it was relatively easy, people would be coming a lot close than they are now. There's a reason why no one has 3000 hits.
   141. Daryn Posted: December 18, 2006 at 07:13 PM (#2264356)
Someone will take out Rose's record within the next 20 years

I'll take that bet (in homage to Rose) and give you 3 to 1 odds.
   142. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 20, 2006 at 03:15 AM (#2265447)
4000 hits is 200 a year for 20 years. What else is there to say than that? Take the guy you think is most likely to reach 3000 and extrapolate how long it would take at his current pace to reach 4000. Not happenin'.

Take Jeter. Just say that he has the same AVG and AB/yr that he has now through age 40. That would get him to 3706. He'd still need two more years at full-time play to reach 4K and another year or two to break the record. So he'd be 43. But remember, that's assuming he's hitting .317 and playing as much as every through 40. Just say he plays 10% fewer games til 40 and hits only .300. 3475. Now he'll need another two years on top of what I mentioned above. by the same logic, A-Rod's at 3887 by age 40 if he maintains his current playing time and AVG. Vlad's at 3565 by 40, given the same rates. But there's little if any chance they'll maintain those rates unless the run environment spikes upward and stays there.

But then, maybe Karl's right. The fact that we can even talk about three guys being within range to make a strike at 4K is perhaps indicative of the potential for breaking the record.....
   143. Chris Cobb Posted: December 20, 2006 at 03:55 AM (#2265465)
If Ichiro had started his career in the U.S., we would probably be talking about the likelihood of his making a run at the career hits record. If he can sustain his game into his late 30s, he has a decent shot at 3000 hits, even having started in the majors at 27.

If A-Rod keeps his batting skills so that he can DH until he's 44, he migt have a shot. But I'm not sure he'd want to stick around, even if he could. Similarly, if Pujols plays until he's 44, he might have a shot.

But those are both long-shots. I don't see the record being broken by anybody now active in the majors, and it takes 24-25 years to do it, so I figure Rose's record is more likely than not to stand for another 30 years.
   144. karlmagnus Posted: December 20, 2006 at 03:55 AM (#2265466)
The reason it's fairly likely is modern conditioning combined with modern $$$. You'd need a hitting Clemens; my best bet would be Pujols if his age is real. However singles hitters with good eyes and some speed should be more able to play to 46-48 today than they were even in Rose's time.

Aaron's HR record is more likely to go, even if Bonds doesn't reach it; indeed I'd say it's fairly certain within 20 years. And I think Manny may have a shot at his RBI record too -- only 781 to go and Manny's not 35 till May 30.
   145. rico vanian Posted: December 20, 2006 at 04:31 AM (#2265490)
Aside from the proficiency level to break Rose's record, you need to factor in the desire level. How many players (given today's high salaries)are going to be as driven and statistics oriented as Rose was to play until they are 43 or 44 (assuming they were able to keep up a 200 hit per year pace and avoid injuries).
   146. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 20, 2006 at 04:42 AM (#2265502)
to be as driven and statistics oriented as Rose was

By which you mean monomaniacal or egomaniacal, right? ; )

I don't know about Pujols. He walks a lot, and hits low in the order. But I guess the age advantage helps him a lot.

J Reyes
D Wright
C Crawford
M Cabrera

Those four guys all have lots of hits at a very young age. All are younger than 27, two bat leadoff. But I don't really see any of them doing it either.

Agreed with Chris that Ichiro is THE guy who would have done it, had he been stateside at age 21. He just puts up tons of hits, doesn't walk much, leads off, is fast, is driven, is superbly conditioned, and never misses a game. That's your prototype Hit King right there.
   147. Cowboy Popup Posted: December 20, 2006 at 04:58 AM (#2265508)
"ut remember, that's assuming he's hitting .317 and playing as much as every through 40. Just say he plays 10% fewer games til 40 and hits only .300. 3475."

Well, Rose had 2 more hits then Jeter after their age 32 season (their age 32 season are kinda similiar too). Of course, Rose had a monster 30s, but if anyone is going to be able to mimick that, it's Jeter. Top of the order hitter in front of a lineup that is going to give him a ton of ABs. Jeter's also the kind of guy who is going to be able to play first somewhere long after he's hitting well enough to play the position. I think Jeter's pride will get in the way, but I think he's got a better chance then Vlad (injuries) or A-rod (pyschological issues).
   148. Daryn Posted: December 20, 2006 at 02:46 PM (#2265618)
I agree with km that the homerun record has a pretty good chance of falling to an active player; but the hits record, less than a 5% chance, perhaps less than 1%.
   149. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 20, 2006 at 02:51 PM (#2265622)
Unless someone with around 3,500 hits is allowed to be a player-manager, nobody is breaking Rose's record.
   150. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 20, 2006 at 03:24 PM (#2265646)
John, I hate to use absolutes on this. I think Karl has a reasonable point about the conditioning and $. More players are playing well deeper into their career than ever, and the trend seems to be gently accelerating (by observation, yes, but I think I recently read that it's true statistically too). HOMers (and therefore 4K hitters) are outliers, and if you are outlying in a time which is already an outlier in baseball history, then who knows what's possible.

Cowboy's got great points about Jeter's chances, yeah, just like Rose. But I think A-Rod's not out of the question. I don't want to look at psychology, too squishy. But what we do know is that A-Rod's two years younger and on a similar trajectory. But also that A-Rod has more power (which helps AVG) but similar plate discipline to Jeter. But most important, A-Rod's a better defensive player, which may mean he still has more room to shuttle about on the defensive spectrum (Jeter's perceived defensive reputation aside, since we can't say how that will play out) and could have a longer shelf life that way. Plus with a wider/deeper breadth of offensive skills, he's less susceptible to being done in when a single facet of his game is diminished.

A-Rod hits about 40 homers a year, and he's 30. Let's say he keeps up that pace. By age 40, he'll be at 850 homers. Wow. At 30 a year, he's at 750. So barring a terrible injury or sudden cliff-dive, he's going to challenge Ruth/Bonds/Aaron by age 40. And he'll be at 3400 hits or so. The odds are in no way in his favor of reaching 4K as well, but that player is a huge outlier, and his ceiling so high that I can't say no way and feel comfy with it.
   151. villageidiom Posted: December 20, 2006 at 03:30 PM (#2265651)
However singles hitters with good eyes and some speed should be more able to play to 46-48 today than they were even in Rose's time.

But I think no team would want them, because I think there are more quality young players entering the pipeline than in Rose's time. I'm pretty sure Rose's record will stand for a while.
   152. Daryn Posted: December 20, 2006 at 03:34 PM (#2265655)
I think Karl has a reasonable point about the conditioning and $.

The $ work against beating the records. When you have already made $300 million by the age of 40, there is no financial incentive to continue.
   153. TomH Posted: December 20, 2006 at 04:01 PM (#2265678)
The comparisons of Rose to Beckley are interesting, and I like Beckley more than most here, but....

1. OPS+ underrates Rose, who was OBP heavy, more than it does Beckley, who might or might not have been hurt unduly by his park.
2. Rose played 8 years at 2B and 3B, so obviously he has more defensive value than Jake. Rose won gold gloves in the OF. He was not a super fielder out there, but from 1968 thru 1974, he had 92 assists and committed only 15 errors. That ain't too shabby.
3. Even if we use only Rose's career pre- downphase, so their OPS+ are about even, Rose was more durable. Playing games has value. OPS+ misses that. Runs Created, which captures both, shows Rose in the top 10 thirteen times in his career, to only 5 for Beckley.
4. Rose's career post- downphase does have some value. Not much, but some.

That is 4 advantages for Rose over Beckley. And I don't even give credit for peak.

Rose is hugely overrated. He also belongs above solidly Mr. Beckley IMO.
   154. OCF Posted: December 20, 2006 at 04:11 PM (#2265689)
The $ work against beating the records. When you have already made $300 million by the age of 40, there is no financial incentive to continue.

That's not right. I'll point to the empirical evidence: we have vastly more "old" players in the majors now than we had a generation ago. Just go to bbref, pull some random rosters, and look at the age distributions. Or check out the "oldest player" feature by league.

Here's the flip side to the $ thing: suppose you're a big-league ballplayer, and you're 32 or 33 years old, and you're making maybe twice or three times what a auto assembly plant worker makes. You know the ballplaying can't last forever - don't you think it's time for you to start preparing for your second career? And if you've got a good opportunity, maybe you should take it? With the money that's around now, who needs to worry about a second career? (Unless maybe your idea of "second career" is something that takes capital, like what Magic Johnson does.) Even though you're already rich, there is financial incentive to continue just because it's very had to make that kind of money anywhere else.
   155. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 20, 2006 at 05:06 PM (#2265735)
John, I hate to use absolutes on this.

My only absolute was that it wouldn't happen within the next 20 years, Eric. Beyond that? Who knows?
   156. sunnyday2 Posted: December 20, 2006 at 05:52 PM (#2265776)
Well, if Rod Carew and Pete Rose can last 100 years at 1B, then Derek Jeter could be out there on the diamond squeezing out empty .300s for a long, long time as well. Of course, ARod was is and always will be a better, more valuable ballplayer. His move to 3B will ultimately cost him about 50 slots in the soft consensus rating of all-time great players, however. Especially because as long as he played SS for somebody other than the Yankees, it was obvious he was better than Jeter. Now--10-20-50 years from now--you're gonna have some jackasses saying Jeter was better and not just because he has a higher BA, but because by golly he was Mr. Clutch Yankee and ARod was not.
   157. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 20, 2006 at 07:07 PM (#2265837)
Marc, you forgot to mention that Jeter is a humanitarian, too. Movado Watches wouldn't lie to us! ;-)
   158. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 20, 2006 at 07:13 PM (#2265840)
The one thing that drove me crazy about Rose chasing Cobb's record was some some silly fans and members of the media wondering if this meant that The Hustler was better than the Georgia Peach as a hitter. I mean, I think Rose is an inner-circle HoMer, but he still wasn't Cobb at the plate. Not even close.
   159. Daryn Posted: December 20, 2006 at 09:32 PM (#2265933)
That's not right. I'll point to the empirical evidence: we have vastly more "old" players in the majors now than we had a generation ago. Just go to bbref, pull some random rosters, and look at the age distributions. Or check out the "oldest player" feature by league.

No, that's not right. Of course players are playing longer, much longer. That has nothing to do with dollars and everything to do with health. Correlation does not equal causation -- but I don't have to tell a math wiz that.

I am predicting that now we are entering the mega dollars generation, there is less of an incentive to stay on for the money. Outliers are outliers and Rickey proves that point -- all I'm saying is that there is no reason to think that the increased dollars will lead to increased careers. The people who do stay on forever will do so fpr the same reason their predecessors did -- they are nuts for the game, not nuts for the money; and maybe a few who would've stayed on for the love of the game will decide not to because they need time to spend their millions.
   160. Dizzypaco Posted: December 20, 2006 at 09:44 PM (#2265940)
If anyone is ever to catch Rose, they probably have to be far ahead of him at the same age. The amount of hits Rose managed to get by various ages was a lot, but not historically great figures. For example, if you look at a list of the most hits by age 32, Rose is not on the list. What makes Rose so extreme is the number of hits he got after turning those ages - vastly more than anyone in baseball history. To say that Jeter can catch him because he has a similar number of hits at the same age misses the point. At least Arod has a head start.

Its also worth mentioning that Rose continued to play full time, and remain healthy at an age where most people, even if they are still playing, don't play every day. Nowadays, with the exception of Brian Sabean, most people are aware that its not that smart to play a 42 year old first baseman with no power, no speed, and no longer any batting average. In the early 80's, it didn't seem so strange to most baseball execs, so Rose could keep on going. You get guys playing today who are 42, but not many of them are playing 140 or more games every year and never getting hurt.

Its always possible that someone could break Rose's record, but its extremely unlikely that anyone will do it soon.
   161. OCF Posted: December 20, 2006 at 11:03 PM (#2265992)
The one thing that drove me crazy about Rose chasing Cobb's record was some some silly fans and members of the media wondering if this meant that The Hustler was better than the Georgia Peach as a hitter. I mean, I think Rose is an inner-circle HoMer, but he still wasn't Cobb at the plate. Not even close.

Which was one of the factors behind the "All-Century Team" fan vote in 1999, with Rose elected as an outfielder while the fans forgot about Stan Musial. (The outfielders selected by fan vote: Ruth, Aaron, Williams, Mays, DiMaggio, Mantle, Cobb, Griffey, and Rose.) Well, what you just mentioned plus a whiff of protest against Rose's banning from the sport and from the HoF. And then, if you were going to take exactly one 1990's outfielder ...
   162. Howie Menckel Posted: December 21, 2006 at 03:36 PM (#2266322)
"When you have already made $300 million by the age of 40, there is no financial incentive to continue."

That is perfectly logical.
But I also don't think it has anything to do with whether baseball players will keep playing.
Players always have kept going until no one wanted them anymore, with occasional exceptions. I see no reason why that wouldn't continue.
We keep hearing about guys like Clemens and Pettitte and how they really want to spend more time with their families. But they always come back for more. And they always will, imo.
   163. Daryn Posted: December 21, 2006 at 05:11 PM (#2266406)
Players always have kept going until no one wanted them anymore, with occasional exceptions. I see no reason why that wouldn't continue.

I agree. But let's say there are four active candidates to pass Rose (Jeter, Arod, Pujols and Crawford) if just one of them retires early because of the money it reduces the already incredibly slim chance that anyone will pass Rose.

I'd really give 10 to 1 odds at any money (under $5000) that no active player passes Rose's hit record.

Contrastingly, I think when all the active players are finished playing it is more likely that Aaron will be third or lower on the all-time homerun list than he will be first.
   164. JPWF13 Posted: December 21, 2006 at 05:26 PM (#2266419)
Players always have kept going until no one wanted them anymore, with occasional exceptions. I see no reason why that wouldn't continue.

I agree. But let's say there are four active candidates to pass Rose (Jeter, Arod, Pujols and Crawford) if just one of them retires early because of the money it reduces the already incredibly slim chance t


You forget that before salaries escalated there was pressure on ballplayers to call it a career and get on with their next career (couldn't retire yet- no savings etc)- that pressure is pretty much gone now for all regular ballplayers
   165. favre Posted: December 21, 2006 at 05:52 PM (#2266447)
"We keep hearing about guys like Clemens and Pettitte and how they really want to spend more time with their families. But they always come back for more. And they always will, imo."

I agree. I think its much more about identity than finances. I mean, these guys have been described by others, and have imagined themselves, as "baseball stars" since at least high school, maybe since Little League. Their youth and young adulthood are dominated by this identity. It comes with adulations and pressures that most of us will never know. But its rarity is what makes it so enticing: how many baseball stars are there? Being a baseball star makes you special, even if you're receiving bad press.

Then, one day, you hit forty, and it's all gone. Well, I suppose you become a "former star", but that's not the same. Must be a pretty hard adjustment.
   166. Daryn Posted: December 21, 2006 at 05:56 PM (#2266451)
You forget that before salaries escalated there was pressure on ballplayers to call it a career and get on with their next career (couldn't retire yet- no savings etc)- that pressure is pretty much gone now for all regular ballplayers

OCF pointed that out in 157. I was aware of it.
   167. DL from MN Posted: December 21, 2006 at 06:29 PM (#2266495)
It makes Brad Radke look more remarkable. He probably would have kept playing but he really didn't want to do rehab on his shoulder and he really did want to spend time away from the game.
   168. JPWF13 Posted: December 22, 2006 at 12:14 AM (#2266770)
OCF pointed that out in 157. I was aware of it.


yes he did, my bad
   169. Brent Posted: January 13, 2007 at 06:09 AM (#2279885)
One final debate remains about Rose -- what position will he get listed under in the Plaque Room? This will be the most difficult such decision since Dihigo.

By number of games, he'd be at first base:

Pos Games
1B 939
LF 671
3B 634
2B 628
RF 594

The problem is that he mostly played first base when he wasn't that good -- 1979-86. There are a couple of good seasons in there (1979 and 81), but also maybe 150 games he really shouldn't have played.

His peak? Probably when he was playing RF (1968-71), though his years in LF (1967 and 72-74) were close. He was also really valuable at 3B (1975-78) and was World Series MVP. I think we can rule out second base (1963-66).

My choice is left field -- he played a few more games there than at 3B or RF and his level of play was near his peak.
   170. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 13, 2007 at 01:01 PM (#2279992)
How about we go with IF/OF?
   171. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 13, 2007 at 01:16 PM (#2279993)
I just took every Rose season and multiplied adjusted defensive games by WARP. The idea was to weight each position not just by games played, but by how good he was when he was playing the position.

The positions scoring:

LF: 5826.96
RF: 5324.71
2B: 4367.42
3B: 4290.99
1B: 3944.71
CF: 772.18

IF: 12603.12
OF: 11923.85

Now if you want to find the midpoint along the defensive spectrum . . . that would be RF - if you line it up 1B/LF/RF/CF/3B/2B you get the 12263rd point in RF.

I kind of lean towards RF if I had to pick 1 position. At least RF you need a few more skills, and it seems weird to call a guy that played 1262 games at 2B and 3B a left-fielder. His two best seasons (1968-69) were as a RF (actually, RF/CF in 1969). Bill James put him on the RF list also. I kind of think that's the best bet.
   172. sunnyday2 Posted: January 13, 2007 at 02:29 PM (#2280003)
Here's how I would look at it. Pete was on the all-century team, right? Setting aside the question of whether he shoulda been...if you were going to assemble an all-star team from any period of time, whether all-century, or all-60s-70s-80s (Pete's era), or whatever, if he were going to be on it, 3B is the only place you would really think seriously of putting him, isn't it? I mean in the corners you clearly would go with a bigger bat, and at 2B you'd probably be looking for more glove. Now, at 3B, there's no way you would slot him ahead of Mike Schmidt, it's true. But still, if you were going to put him on some kind of multi-seasonal or all-decade all-star team or whatever, 3B is the only place he would fit, IMO.
   173. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 13, 2007 at 02:38 PM (#2280005)
I kind of lean towards RF if I had to pick 1 position. At least RF you need a few more skills, and it seems weird to call a guy that played 1262 games at 2B and 3B a left-fielder. His two best seasons (1968-69) were as a RF (actually, RF/CF in 1969). Bill James put him on the RF list also. I kind of think that's the best bet.

I agree and that's the cap he'll be wearing into the HoM. He had the most value at that position compared to the others.
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Ray (RDP)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.8003 seconds
49 querie(s) executed