This is off the mark. Freel is the darling of the intangibles/hustle crowd. Denorfia, OTOH, is championed by the statheads of the Reds' blogosphere, with his high OBP and proficient if not flashy defense in CF/RF. The "Appalachian" warble is not typically reserved for collegiate players from New England.

Yes, Freel is the darling of that crowd, but Dinorfia is as well. I was not referring to the blogosphere crowd. I was talking about Joe Redleg Fan in Cincinnati that could give a damn about stats and that calls into and chirps along with blustery talk radio hosts (hence the warble). But aint it strange that the type of player that is championed for his "hustle" or "scrappy play" is usually a white guy with limited skills. I'm sure I'm going to about to get a typelashing for that, but what the f*#k.

Bonds was a better player than Rose, but Rose was just as big a figure in the game and held nearly the same status as a player.

Right--in part because a lot of people loved him, because he always hustled.

Over a span of several years, Rose is going to come out to be pretty close to the best or second-best player in the National League in many intervals from the late 60s to the early 70s.

Depends on the metrics you use. No one was using runs created in the 1970s except some geek in Kansas publishing a book out of his den. In terms of the times he played in Rose won, I believe, two batting titles, and one MVP. But he was not an HR champion, not an SB champion, not a multi-MVP winner like Bonds or a perennial batting champion like Gwynn. Rose's style created a persona that exceeded his statistical record, because he was, as JC and Charlie said, a love-hate guy.

He was widely regarded not just as a Tony Gwynn or Willie McCovey-type obvious Hall of Famer, but as an inner-circle Hall of Famer (top 20-25 all-time) while he was active.

That is based on his CUMULATIVE record and his consistency. Rose is one of the guys who best shows the differences in peak and career value. But in any given year during that period, there were always several players doing more--in terms of basic stats that people noticed, notably jacks and steals, than Rose was. Rose, like Garvey, was there every year, and that was a big part of the persona.

But, he was PETE ROSE. And that meant all the stuff I said above in #95.

I saw that, Dan, just wasn't sure if that was just for the same period that Rose was playing.

But aint it strange that the type of player that is championed for his "hustle" or "scrappy play" is usually a white guy with limited skills. I'm sure I'm going to about to get a typelashing for that, but what the f*#k.

Well, one reason for that is that the media, and to some extent a certain (large, IMO) sub-section of fans, are always looking for another Pete Rose, in part because of what the real one turned out to be like off the field. The closest now, I suppose, is Eckstein, but Rose, because of his size, stockiness and combativeness had an element of confrontation to him instead of just being a scrappy little underdog.

And, of course, one reason for Freel's popularity in Cincinnati is that he reminds older fans a little bit of Pete Rose. But guys like this will always have a lot of people who like them--and while Rose wasn't the first, he was the most well-known, the most famous and the most accomplished.

I saw that, Dan, just wasn't sure if that was just for the same period that Rose was playing.

My bad. And you're actually correct. I realize now that I didn't throw the proper end point on.

From 74-86, non-Rose MLB batters had 387,411 non-homer hits and they were thrown out 3987 times or about 1.02% of the time.

the type of player that is championed for his "hustle" or "scrappy play" is usually a white guy with limited skills.

Non-white guys need not apply for that position.

Freel is not a guy without skills, but he certainly busts it to the point of hurting himself. Is he a hillbilly, or does he just act the part?

Thanks, Dan. I have a seperate bevent question. Any chance you could either give me a short tutelage or run somehting for me? I'll email you.

Thanks for the second look, because that's 10% higher. I'd suspect that Rose's OAs were from 74-80, and that again, the percentage of OA for the league would be higher. Also, I'd suspect that "leadoff hitters" have a significantly higher OA rate than pitchers and Bob Watson types.

Overall, I think Rose did as was typical for his "position", even if slightly worse at it.

Freel is not a guy without skills, but he certainly busts it to the point of hurting himself. Is he a hillbilly, or does he just act the part?

Hard to say if he's the real McCoy or not, but he appears to relish the rep. He's is sometimes funny though. Did you hear the bit about the little man that lives in head named Farney?

Thanks for the second look, because that's 10% higher. I'd suspect that Rose's OAs were from 74-80, and that again, the percentage of OA for the league would be higher. Also, I'd suspect that "leadoff hitters" have a significantly higher OA rate than pitchers and Bob Watson types.

Leadoff hitters (other than Rose) between 74-80 had 29955 non-homer hits and 286 outs advancing, about a .95% rate - IOW lower than the general population's 1.04%

Rose between 74-80 had 1364 non-homer hits and 20 outs advancing for a rate of 1.46%.

I think Rose's aggressiveness probably did lead to more outs than you'd otherwise expect, but I don't know how many extra-bases he gained during that time to know whether there was a net gain.

As for Rose, I always viewed his walk/sprint as baseball masturbation: a bunch of furious movement without getting a whole lot accomplished, except for maybe breaking a little sweat.

Oh, ho! BTF literati! Attention! There might be a true genius in your midst!

Bravo...an auspicious start.

I think Rose's aggressiveness probably did lead to more outs than you'd otherwise expect, but I don't know how many extra-bases he gained during that time to know whether there was a net gain.

It wouldn't have to be a whole lot. That's 1 out per year.

Who is Navin Johnson?

At one game my dad took me to when I was a kid (late 60's-early 70's), a guy drew a walk and sprinted to first (it wasn't Rose). I asked my dad why he ran, and my dad said it was because he had a lot of pep.

More guys than just Rose ran to first after a walk. Now that I think about it, I'd say they had a lot of "pep" because of the greenies they were taking. Some guys were so affected by them they had more energy to burn than others.

Who is Navin Johnson?

Dial.

Who is Navin Johnson?

Check the new phonebooks.

That is based on his CUMULATIVE record and his consistency. Rose is one of the guys who best shows the differences in peak and career value. But in any given year during that period, there were always several players doing more--in terms of basic stats that people noticed, notably jacks and steals, than Rose was. Rose, like Garvey, was there every year, and that was a big part of the persona.

Well, no, you're simply wrong. If you're talking real value, Rose has six years with a WARP1 greater than 10.0, which is more than as Yaz, Jim Rice and Reggie Jackson combined. It's more than Rickey Henderson or Time Raines. He's a greater peak value player than Mark McGwire, Fred Lynn or Sammy Sosa.

As far as stats people noticed back then, he was a consistent threat to win the batting championship and collected 200 hits every year.

Well, no, you're simply wrong. If you're talking real value, Rose has six years with a WARP1 greater than 10.0, which is more than as Yaz, Jim Rice and Reggie Jackson combined. It's more than Rickey Henderson or Time Raines. He's a greater peak value player than Mark McGwire, Fred Lynn or Sammy Sosa

I am not a big WARP1 guy, but fair enough. I am not sure what your time frame is for peak value. One reason Rose scores well in those stats is that he played 160 games every year. This also doesn't have much to with what we were arguing about. Rose remained well-liked even after he wasn't really very good any more.


As far as stats people noticed back then, he was a consistent threat to win the batting championship and collected 200 hits every year.

Right. But there is a big difference between being a consistent threat to win the batting championship and winning it. And the 200 hits thing--that was in part because he played--and played hard--every single day, which is why a lot of people liked him.

I think Rose's aggressiveness probably did lead to more outs than you'd otherwise expect, but I don't know how many extra-bases he gained during that time to know whether there was a net gain.

I really appreciate your looking. As someone who is great at that type of data-extraction, it's very much appreciated.

robinred, I agree with baudib - rose from 1964-1981 was a true superstar. It's not just cumulative effects.

And my above post should read "is *NOT* great at data extraction"

robinred, I agree with baudib - rose from 1964-1981 was a true superstar. It's not just cumulative effects

"True Superstar" is a pretty vague term. And some of his value was tied up in being out there every day. Morgan at his best and Bench at his best were both better than Rose was; some other guys were too. Rose was one of the best players in baseball in the late 1960s, but we were talking, originally about his status in the 1970s--when, as I said, he was not an HR champ, an SB champ, or a batting champ, which is mostly what people noticed in those days. His status within the game resulted in large part from how he played, not just how well he played.

I really appreciate your looking. As someone who is great at that type of data-extraction, it's very much appreciated.

Anytime. And feel free to send me an email if you still need some help. I'm going to be out of town for work from tomorrow through Wednesday and away from my data, but I'll do what I can.

And some of his value was tied up in being out there every day. Morgan at his best and Bench at his best were both better than Rose was; some other guys were too. Rose was one of the best players in baseball in the late 1960s, but we were talking, originally about his status in the 1970s--when, as I said, he was not an HR champ, an SB champ, or a batting champ, which is mostly what people noticed in those days.

Sure *some* of his value was in playing everyday, but Rose was MVP in 1973, and finished in the top 5 when Morgan won his. Rose hit over .300 in 15 of 17 seasons from 1965 to 1981. He had an OPS+ of ~130 for the 16 years from age 24 to 39 (or so).

People noticed Rose hit .300 practically EVERY year. And he walked a TON. He was top 10 in OBP most of the decade. He was Rickey Henderson without the SBs before there was a Rickey Henderson. Okay, that's a lot, but he was Tim Raines before Tim Raines was Tim Raines:
1979-1999 21 2353 8694 1548 2561 419 112 168
964 1290 938 .295 .385 .427 807 146 124
1963-1980 18 2830 11479 1842 3557 654 117 155
1077 1246 964 .310 .380 .428 167 128 124

Raines is usually recognized as a "true supersta" among the informed. Well, he was Pete Rose with less versatility, less health and more SBs.

Pete Rose was a great player in the 1970s.

Well put, Chris.