User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.4663 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
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.
1. Evil Twin Posted: December 30, 2008 at 04:40 PM (#3040248)Cal Ripken, Jr. wasn't "a candidate of megastar marquee value"? Really?
I can't think of a real compelling case against Tony Gwynn either.
Or Tim Raines for that matter. Did he get elected unanimously? Oh wait...
weird accent.
He placed his streak above the team.
I can't think of a real compelling case against Tony Gwynn either.
No power for a RFer.
weird accent.
Squeaky voice, currently fat.
weird accent.
Squeaky voice, currently fat.
His son is not a great player. Cecil Fielder produces better ballplayer offspring.
weird accent.
Squeaky voice, currently fat.
His son is not a great player. Cecil Fielder produces better ballplayer offspring.
No rings. Conveniently retired during "Steroid Era".
He is also tied or below: Sal Maglie, Sparky Lyle, Doug Jones, Roberto Hernandez, and Dan Quisenberry, and of those players only Lyle lasted more than one year on the HOF ballot.
Also he was babied in the era of the 4-man rotation, never starting more than 36 games. Not once did he lead the league in IP. Only once did he manage even 20 complete games. Only one more shutout than Bert Blyleven. If he hadn't played for those powerhouse Mets teams, he'd have never won so many games.
Come on, did you actually see the 1973 World Series? :)
What date are the election results announced?
Showboat.
Edit: Also, obvious "Greeny" user. No one could have danced off first base the way he did for a 154 game season with out some help from the pharmacist.
I suspect more than one voter also picks just one name each time, thus limiting it more (ie: no one but Rickey this year) while others keep guys on once they get on thus hitting the 10 limit (could understand a ballot with Trammell, Dawson, Murphy, Parker, Raines, Rice, McGwire, Blyleven, Morris, and John right now and that fills in 10 slots thus nowhere to put Rickey - could add in Lee Smith, and Don Mattingly even to hit an even dozen). Heck, I'd bet some go for no more than one per position thus if they feel they have to vote Rice in this year they would go 'Rickey has 14 years left, why not give Rice a vote in his last shot'.
Now, I didn't say any of these were good methods, just that it is easy to see a voter using them.
Clearly worse than Jack Morris in WS memories, and Morris isn't in yet (but will be soon!)
Strike and injuries are the only things I could see any voter having against Brett.
Fewer MVPs than Juan Gonzalez and tied in AL 3B silver sluggers with Troy Glaus. His most famous baseball moment is losing his temper on the baseball field - just like Jose Offerman.
1) Refused to play in a game at the end of 1998. How can the Hall elect somebody who obviously hated baseball?
2) Use of "Jr" in his name obviously means he paled in relevance compared to his father.
Alcoholic.
Made "Safe at Home."
Corked Bat.
Greedy, not knowing his place.
Likes women and liquor (illegal drug in era)
Not playing the right way, just hits homeruns.
Showboat.
January 12.
-- MWE
And since we know he doctored his bat, it's not much of a leap to assume that he also used PEDs. REVOKE!
The sad part is I've actually seen this argument (not for Brett, but for others). In print. From a writer. Who gets paid to write about these things.
Guys who get a token vote are votes from guys who liked them and know they're not going to get in anyway, so they send them a "thanks for the memories." It's harmless.
In 1999 he slugged 1.000 - higher than Bonds, Mays, Aaron, or Ruth ever achieved.
Mr. Conlin:
If you are reading this thread, I would like to personally thank you for NOT voting for Nolan Ryan on the first ballot.
Only top 10 in singles twice
25th all-time in GDP
Didn't make the AS team one year
Only once played every game in a season
Putting his own gaudy stats first, he used to play 2 AS games a year
Did not have 7 top 10 MVP finishes over a 12 year span*
Threw like a girl
And of course ...
Was only the 3rd best CF in New York City alone
Shooting fish in a barrel
* he had 11 :-)
Only top 10 in singles twice
25th all-time in GDP
Didn't make the AS team one year
Only once played every game in a season
Putting his own gaudy stats first, he used to play 2 AS games a year
Did not have 7 top 10 MVP finishes over a 12 year span*
Threw like a girl
Dick Young had a line about that when Willie wasn't elected unanimously--"these guys wouldn't vote for Jesus Christ; after all, he dropped the cross three times"
I know that Royals fans and Lee MacPhail like to pretend that he's not, but that doesn't change the fact that he is.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm of the opinion that you'd have to be either stupid, ignorant, insane, or probably some combination thereof to think anything except "Rickey Henderson is an inner circle Hall of Famer", but "most runs in baseball history", in and of itself, doesn't really make for a foolproof argument.
Witness Pete Rose. Even ignoring the obvious off-field stuff, it's not entirely clear that he's really deserving of the Hall. And he's got the most hits in baseball history.
To be explicit, I'm not saying "On the other hand, it is clear that he is not deserving of it." It basically boils down to how much you value the fact that his career was very long. That's not particularly important to me, but I wouldn't argue terribly if someone said it were.
I have never seen this argument advanced before.
The man has a lifetime OPS+ of 118. And that's for someone whose most common positions were first base and left field. First base by a healthy margin, actually.
And for all the vaunted hustle, his SB/CS ratio is below breakeven. That is, he cost his team runs by trying to steal bases.
He was briefly an excellent player. He was a very good player for a fair amount of time, and a good player for a long time. And a crappy player for a fair amount of time, too.
So, again, I think it depends upon how much you value the fact that his career was long. Because other than that, it simply wasn't that great.
Why would a peak voter care about a career rate stat?
So, again, I think it depends upon how much you value the fact that his career was long. Because other than that, it simply wasn't that great.
Would you agree that's equivalent to saying Hank Aaron's stature depends on how much you value home runs?
- only hit 137 major league homers in his career, fewer than Rico Carty, J.T. Snow, Jeff Conine Gene Woodling, and Wally Moon
- was in the top 4 in MVP voting only once
- barely creeped over 1,500 hits for his career
- hit .234 in the World Series- no wonder the Dodgers kept losing to the Yankees of Gene Woodling
- drove in 100 runs in a season only once
Summary: it was a short career, and there wasn't much of a peak there...
That was a nice, snarky response of yours. Congratulations. But really, look at Pete Rose's stats, and then try to explain to me why he's better than, say, Bobby Bonilla or Paul O'Neill, in any sense except for "insisted on playing longer".
Pete Rose didn't become a firstbaseman until he was 38 years old. Through his age 37 season (1978), Pete Rose was a 2B/3B/LF/RF in more-or-less equal parts with a career OPS+ of 126, 3,164 hits, 1,657 runs scored, an MVP award (plus a 2nd, 2 4ths, a 5th, a 6th, and a 7th), a Rookie-of-the-Year award, 2 Gold Gloves, 11 All-Star appearances, 3 batting titles, an OBP crown (with 5 top 3's), he'd played in 4 World Series, winning two of them.
His top-10 comparables on BB-Ref thru age 37 are Paul Molitor, Robin Yount, Rod Carew, Frankie Frisch, Lou Brock, Tim Raines, Paul Waner, Roberto Clemente, Charlie Gehringer, and Craig Biggio.
You really want to argue that's not a Hall-of-Famer?
He was an above league average hitter through age 40. Those last four seasons are totally meaningless.
He made 17 all star teams and finished in the top 10 in MVP voting 10 times. Of course, this is all compiled over time (IOW it's longevity). I can't distinguish Rose from somebody like Brady Anderson without making reference to longevity.
That was a nice, snarky response of yours. Congratulations.
I'm not being snarky, it was sincere.
value = rate stats/time
It's hard for me to see how eliminating time from consideration is any less non-sensical than taking away Aaron's homers.
Then he became a first baseman, played there for the plurality of his career, and in the process gained the record in question, while, frankly, hurting his team for the better part of a decade. Do you not think that that is relevant in a discussion of whether or not the fact that he holds that record, in and of itself, indicates that he is beyond question worthy of the Hall of Fame?Meh. I never said that he wasn't.
Is Pete Rose more valuable than every player who has fewer hits than him in major-league history? No, of course not. Just like Hank Aaron is not more valuable than every player who has fewer home runs than him and Rickey Henderson is not more valuable than every player who has scored fewer runs than him. But Pete Rose got his record by being very durable and very good for a very long time and yes that, in and of itself, indicates that he is beyond question worthy of the Hall of Fame (absent the gambling, of course; don't get me wrong, I think Pete Rose is an ####### who is deservedly banned from both MLB and the Hall of Fame).
Pete Rose earned his Hall-of-Fame credentials by getting 3,697 hits through age 40 (and all of his other stats as well, of course). Pete Rose was able to break Ty Cobb's hit record because he was able to accumulate 3,697 hits through age 40. The record isn't what pushed him over the HOF threshold - just as the runs record isn't what pushed Rickey over the threshold - the point is that you can't accumulate 4,256 major-league hits or score 2,295 major-league runs without putting together a HOF-worthy career in the process.
Who?
I took issue with the following statement.
Even ignoring the obvious off-field stuff, it's not entirely clear that he's really deserving of the Hall. And he's got the most hits in baseball history.
You're either moving the goalposts or you haven't decided what your thoughts mean. I suggest you consider your writings more carefully in the future.
His rate stats simply were not fantastic. Name some other "no question" Hall of Famers. Compare how much Rose actually helped his team to how much they did. It's simply not remotely close.
Again, if you want to say that the longevity of his career, together with the fact that he was good to very good for a lot of it, makes him a Hall of Famer, that's actually fine with me. But I find the idea that it makes him without doubt one is a bit silly.
(1) Claim: "Most runs in baseball history" is, in and of itself, demonstrative of a no doubt HOF career.
(2) Response: Not really; Pete Rose has the most hits in baseball history, and it's not entirely clear that he's deserving of the Hall. Not saying he's not, but it's not "no doubt", and the fact that he has the most hits in baseball history doesn't make it so.
And now I'm "moving the goalposts" (or haven't decided what my thoughts mean) because I'm still saying he's not a no doubter, and still saying the fact that he has the most hits doesn't make him a no doubter?
OK. Good night.
As Pops says, I'm not sure you're thinking through your argument here. His <u>career</u> rate stats are underwhelming because he stuck around and played a while as a crappy 40-some-year-old guy. But why would you use his <u>career</u> rate stats to evaluate his peak performance? Look at his peak performance.
From 1968 - 1978, Pete Rose had OPS+'s of (in chronological order) 152, 158, 125, 130, 134, 138, 118, 132, and 141. In that time span, he never played fewer than 149 games (he played over 160 6 times), which led to his league ranking in runs created for these seasons being (again, in chronological order) 1, 2, 7, 10, 5, 5, 8, 3, 2, 8, and 8. That's 11 straight top 10s. For some comparisons, Roberto Clemente finished top 10 in runs created 5 times in his career; Cal Ripken did 4 times; Tony Gwynn, 6 times; Rickey Henderson, 9 times; Rod Carew, 6 times; Joe Morgan, 6 times.(*)
I'm not seeing the lack of a Hall-of-Fame peak/prime here.
(*) Both Carew and Morgan's 6 were consecutive and were almost all top 3's - they clearly had better peaks than Pete Rose. The rest of these guys, not so clear.
No, it is clear to anyone with more than three functioning brain cells that he is deserving of the Hall. Aside from the peak that Kiko mentions, there is the fact that Pete Rose was a lead-off/top-of-the-order hitter (10,700 PA batting first, 3,620 PA batting second; less than 1,600 for the rest), whose job was to get on base for the big boppers in the line-up. From 1965 to 1982, a period of 18 years, he was never out of the top ten in Times on Base, with 9 firsts and 5 seconds in there.
That is a remarkable achievement.
Frankly, in this case, the hit record is a "red herring", in the same manner that Cal Ripken's consecutive game streak is. Cal Ripken belongs in the Hall of Fame, not because of the streak, but because he was a truly excellent fielding short stop for a very long time, who also hit for remarkable power (especially for the time) for a short stop.
Pete Rose, if he had not been a dirt bag, would belong in the Hall, not because he is the "Hit King", but because he is one of the greatest lead-off hitters of all time. As late as 1981, he was still garnering MVP votes. He was more than worthy of the Hall long before he approached the record.
Precisely right. Moreover, I would also go a step further: it is unthinkable that a player could accumulate 4256 hits or 2295 runs without putting togehter a HOF-worthy peak at some point along the way, since that is at least a sub-point of the issue being debated here about Rose (if not the actual matter under discussion). There just aren't enough seasons in a career -- even one the length of Rose's, and not with the decline that is inevitable at the end of those years, as was the case with Rose -- to NOT have a ton of hits in some of those years. And the nature of the game is such that you can't score that many runs if you aren't getting on base a whole hell of a lot in that number of years. And if you're getting that many hits, and getting on base that much, you're having peak seasons worthy of a HOFer. Do the math.
Which -- voila -- Kiko and Srul show did, in fact happen with Rose. Don't let your hostility to Rose's off-field conduct affect your perception of his on-field performance. He was right there with Morgan and Bench as Hall-worthy Reds of the 70s.
Rose had a 133 OPS+. Of players who played 1200+ games over that span (endpoints I know), he's tied with Bonds and Yaz, behind Powell and Singleton, substantially behind Carew, Morgan, Reggie Smith, McCovey, Jackson and Stargell (surprisingly the leader). So tied for 8th overall. He was 4th in OBP.
If you look at runs created 1968-1978 Pete Rose is ...
first.
He's first by 135 runs over Morgan.
That's 12 runs a year.
That's a win a year.
Now the main reason for that is durability -- he played 258 more games than Morgan over that span. Give Morgan those extra games and he'd probably pull ahead of Rose ... who'd be second (the horrors!). Carew is also about 250 games behind and he might squeak past Rose.
Crappy peak.
Now, while I'm in here, let's admit that RC may not be the greatest tool. #1 from 1998-2008 is AROD. #2 is Todd Helton. Raise your hand if you saw that one coming.
Willie Mays hit 239 / 308 / 282 in four World Series, and 247 / 323 / 337 overall in the postseason.
He had his most value in right field, however. That's why he's with the right fielders in the HoM.
Oh, the man was a no-doubt HOFer (not to mention a no-doubt jerk).
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main