Except when I was a kid, I never understood running to first on a walk. How does that help your team? Seems phony to me. With that said, Charlie Hustler did hustle when it really was needed any time I saw him play.

I should point out that I was one of the few Met fans who didn't dislike Rose while he was playing. It was only after '89 that I soured on him.

Neither did Whitey Ford.

Hall of Merit: Pete Rose

<u>YIKES!!!</u> Good Luck with that, John.
*giggle... giggle... GAG!*

--------
trevise

An interesting question for simulation: if the Big Red Machine had flipped Rose and Morgan around in the order, batting Morgan leadoff, would that have led to more runs or fewer? Rose was the best leadoff hitter in baseball at the time; Morgan, had he been used that way, would have been a leadoff hitter to challenge Rickey Henderson. Morgan's base-stealing skills were perhaps not optimally deployed in front of sluggers like Bench and Foster and maybe would have meant more in front of high average singles hitters (Griffey and Rose). But it may also be that getting Morgan to bat with runners already on base caused more damage anyway.

John: seemed phony to me too. I'm not saying I ever liked the guy.

I think the point at which I would have soured on Rose for good would not have ben the gambling revalations, or the various slimy dealings since that point. It would have been when he played himself for no reason other than to get the hits record, leaving either better performing players or players with actual potential languishing on the bench. The most obvious damage being the 500 PA he sucked up in 1985 while the Reds were in contention for a division title (with his awesome 98 OPS+ at first base). But hey, he got his 100 hits for that year, so all was well in Pete-land.

I'm also biased by living close to Cincy, where he's about 2 steps short of deity level for no apparent reason.

On a more substantive note, his SB/CS career ratio was a remarkably bad 198/149. Was this indicative of his baserunning as a whole; i.e. did Charlie Hustle hustle his way into a bunch of outs on the bases?

On a more substantive note, his SB/CS career ratio was a remarkably bad 198/149. Was this indicative of his baserunning as a whole; i.e. did Charlie Hustle hustle his way into a bunch of outs on the bases?

Yes. Rose excelled at many things on the baseball field, but one of them was not managing risk very well. He would always try to take an extra base if there was even a slight chance of reaching, regardless of the score or inning. To some, this made him a hero. A more rational/objective assessment would be that he was reckless.

YIKES!!! Good Luck with that, John.
*giggle... giggle... GAG!*

--------
trevise

Since I will be submitting my second protest non-vote since the start of this project in '92, I know how you feel. :-)

I think the point at which I would have soured on Rose for good would not have ben the gambling revalations, or the various slimy dealings since that point. It would have been when he played himself for no reason other than to get the hits record, leaving either better performing players or players with actual potential languishing on the bench. The most obvious damage being the 500 PA he sucked up in 1985 while the Reds were in contention for a division title (with his awesome 98 OPS+ at first base). But hey, he got his 100 hits for that year, so all was well in Pete-land.

I forgot about that, Michael. Since I found out about that before the gambling a few years before and was disgusted with his actions, I have to amend my statement about when I soured on him.

John: seemed phony to me too. I'm not saying I ever liked the guy.

I always thought he was a fun player to watch, whether he was at bat or on the field. Very compelling character (in more ways than one...)

I never got the impression the hustle was phony. You can't fake it for over 20 years. He clearly loved to play. I think it had more to do with his hyperactivity, his desire to get on with the game, than any phoniness.

Agreed, and as I say this even though the Reds were my childhood team, I still pull for them, and I never liked Rose even then. Between natural hyperactivity (and amps) though, I think a lot of it was just who he was. SOME was hotdogging, but not much.

My favorite Reds team from my childhood was the 1979 team, the "Rose-less" Reds who really had to battle and won the division at 90-71. They seemed more "likable" without him and just being a pretty good team instead of a great one like in 75-76.

I am not a big HoM guy, but I will be interested in this. I assume Rose gets in...

I was one of the few Met fans who didn't dislike Rose

As a Phillies fan in the 1970s, I did hate Pete Rose. Which just goes to show that fans should never hate players; they are too mobile ...

Rose thrived on taking the extra base, but I remember him as pretty good at assessing risk -- though maybe he just became better at it as he got more experience, and I saw him a lot more as he got older. I remember leafing through Retrosheet for 1978 awhile back and finding that Rose had never, or almost never, that year been thrown out by an outfielder while trying to stretch a single into a double (though he was by an infielder once or twice on a strange infield-hit situation). And man did he ever seem to stretch a lot of singles into doubles. Interestingly, he went 11-for-12 as a base stealer after he became his own manager.

I don't think there's any doubt Rose gets in, but...

1) His lack of an obvious peak will keep him from the top couple spots on some ballots

and 2) He may not get in his first year depending on how many people exercise the one-year boycott.

Were it not for Grich, I would say he's going in in '92 regardless, but Grich will likely pile up enough points to get into Rose's range for the #2 election slot.

and 2) He may not get in his first year depending on how many people exercise the one-year boycott.


If that happens, he has it in the bag in '93.

I never got the impression the hustle was phony. You can't fake it for over 20 years. He clearly loved to play. I think it had more to do with his greenies

Fixed

The most obvious damage being the 500 PA he sucked up in 1985 while the Reds were in contention for a division title (with his awesome 98 OPS+ at first base). But hey, he got his 100 hits for that year, so all was well in Pete-land.

He DID have a .395 obp that year. I'm not saying he wasn't a douche. He was. But credit where it's due - that's not bad. Not to mention that fact that he was 44.

I never understood running to first on a walk. How does that help your team?
By getting you into the habit of always hustling. And if ball 4 happens to be a wild pitch, you maximize your chances of getting to second. Anyway, what's it hurt?

By getting you into the habit of always hustling.

Maybe then he should have considered running-in-place while he was up at bat, too? ;-)

He DID have a .395 obp that year. I'm not saying he wasn't a douche. He was. But credit where it's due - that's not bad. Not to mention that fact that he was 44.

Then he should have been pinch-hitting instead.

Unless your OBP is .450, a slugging of .319 at 1B = pathetic.

I always felt the only manager who would be satisfied with Pete Rose, the aging, punchless 1B who wanted to be "The Hit King", was Pete Rose. IMO, his hits record is as tainted as any records broken during the steroid era. Then the manager who put his personal glory above winning, bet on baseball. The man is scum. Put me down for a protest off the ballot vote in ’92. If not elected in 1992, can I put him in a 3 way tie for 15th on my 1993 ballot with Hal Chase and Chick Gandil?

Pete Rose is the Rob Base of MLB.

If not elected in 1992, can I put him in a 3 way tie for 15th on my 1993 ballot with Hal Chase and Chick Gandil?

No.

:-)

he's #1 all time...

in outs.

A thought just crossed my mind.

Pete Rose: Hard-nosed, high-obp, lowish-slg, played a long time, did drugs that amped him up, injured people with hard slides, controversial, played pretty much everywhere, left the game under a cloud.

Tony Phillips: Hard-nosed, high-obp, lowish-slg, played a long time, did drugs that amped him up, injured people with hard slides, controversial, played pretty much everywhere, left the game under a cloud.

Granted Rose was a better player, but I just now wondered to myself why the guys who loved Pete Rose didn't do cartwheels for Tony Phillips. I hestitate to ask if it's a racial issue, or if it's simply that Rose was better.

Shall we throw Paul Molitor into the mix? Different personality of course. All three of these guys are multi-position players (including at least some 2B) and leadoff hitters.

Race certainly plays into it to some extent... but Rose's teams were much better, and he got lots of "intangibles" credit for that. Rose also was the ROY, establishing a star-type trajectory to his career right away, while it took a heckuva long time for Phillips to become a top player. Also, Rose wasn't bouncing around so much between positions during the season; he switched in between seasons. That's perceived very differently than someone who shifts between positions from game to game. The latter -- the "utility guy" -- tends to be regarded as an expendable piece almost no matter how good he is.

I think not. I'm looking for guys who are kind of jerky, maybe hotheads or reda*ses, and I think Molitor was more gentlemanly than those two (or was portrayed int he media as such). Eddie Stanky might have been one of them, personalitywise, but he doesn't have the multiposition thing or the drugs or the leaving the game under a cloud stuff.

Addendum: Rose hit .300+, Phillips walked :) Writers and most fans of course prefer the former.

Granted Rose was a better player, but I just now wondered to myself why the guys who loved Pete Rose didn't do cartwheels for Tony Phillips. I hestitate to ask if it's a racial issue, or if it's simply that Rose was better.

Much much better I think. Both Sabermetrically and conventionally. Rose hit .300 with 200 hits as a matter of course. Phillips hit .300 once with a career best 177 hits. Rose led the league in times on base 9 times. Phillips none. Phillips career best 130 OPS+ would merely tie Rose for his 7th best. Phillips had only 5 full seasons over 110. Rose had 16, including 15 in a row.

Rose to Phillips:Bonds to Belle

Here's my post in the other thread on Rose:1992 Discussion Post on Rose's Hit Chase
I hate defending him, but I think one of the reasons he was brought back to Cincy was the hit chase and he showed remarkable plate discipline for a guy obsessed with getting hits.

I just now wondered to myself why the guys who loved Pete Rose

Sorry to snip the context of the post here but just going to chime in on the Pete-Rose-love that I remember.

Rose is an easy HOM-er and would be an easy HOF-er if not for the banning. Its not just the longevity, either, its a nice solid prime he's got there.

That said, he was quite overrated. Long before the scandals, his baseball cards were the more expensive than his contemporaries (only Mantle & TWilliams could compete in Topps cards). People just *loved* Pete Rose like he was inner-circle great. I didn't understand it.

People just *loved* Pete Rose like he was inner-circle great. I didn't understand it.

And then there was the 1999 fan-voted "all-century team," where Rose got selected as an outfielder. That sentiment was in part whipped up (I can't remember by whom) as part of a "stick it to the man" attitude since having Rose on the field for the ceremony would clearly be embarassing for baseball. Just to refresh your memory, here's how the fans voted:

C: Bench, Berra
1B: Gehrig, McGwire (!)
2B: Hornsby, J. Robinson
3B: Schmidt, B. Robinson (Brooks Robinson? Really??)
SS: Ripken, Banks (uh ... forgetting someone, aren't we?)
OF: Ruth, Aaron, Williams, Mays, Dimaggio, Mantle, Cobb, Griffey (?), Rose (!!#)
P: Ryan (ouch!), Koufax, Young (all-20th century?), Clemens, Gibson, W. Johnson

They then had a "panel of experts" with a very limited mandate to add players to fix oversights. The experts added Wagner, Musial, Spahn, Mathewson, and Grove.

I think the panel of experts whiffed by adding Mathewson rather than Alexander or (approriate for this year's discussion), Seaver. And the public pulled some real clinkers, notably Brooksie instead of Matthews, Brett, or Boggs, and Ryan instead of any of dozens of guys. And Griffey as the outfield representative of the 1990's rather than Bonds.

The loudest wailing and cotroversy was over the omission of Clemente.

After all that - yes, Rose was on the field, but it wasn't his moment. The moment belonged to Ted Williams.

It's indisputable that Rose, OBP aside, was a sinkhole in 1985 when he was hanging on to set the hits record--but it's also notable that he walked 86 times in 500 PAs, versus only 107 hits: by far the best walk rate of his career. At least he wasn't hacking at everything in order to set the record.

I have always found it amusing so many have bashed Rose for hanging on for so long while praising Rickey for doing essentially the same thing. Rickey did Rose's 1985 for the last eight years of his career, except for a minor rejuvenation at the hands of Bobby Valentine, and everyone loved him for it.

I have always found it amusing so many have bashed Rose for hanging on for so long while praising Rickey for doing essentially the same thing. Rickey did Rose's 1985 for the last eight years of his career, except for a minor rejuvenation at the hands of Bobby Valentine, and everyone loved him for it.

One major difference is that Rickey was not selecting himself to play. Rose was.

One major difference is that Rickey was not selecting himself to play. Rose was.

Bulls-eye, Richard. If some stupid manager wanted Rose to play until he was ninety, more power to him. But when he was the stupid manager (okay, he wasn't really being stupid), then that's a whole different story.

To revive a point made many "decades" ago, Pete Rose=Cap Anson.

I hate defending him, but I think one of the reasons he was brought back to Cincy was the hit chase and he showed remarkable plate discipline for a guy obsessed with getting hits.

Like many aging ballplayers he learned that he really had to work the count to get to pitches he could hit.

I absolutely hated Pete Rose, utterly and absolutely, always thought he was a complete a-hole (and just about every drop of info that's come out about him since, especially his book- has reinforced taht impresssion). I also thought the Charlie Hustle act was a fake- heavily influenced by the greenies- while the argument that its hard to fake something for 20 years is a good one- I think that's essentially what he did.

So now I have my biases out of the way.

Pete Rose should go in the hall- the HOF and the HOM. It may require a collective holding of noses, but so be it. He was an A-hole and he bet on baseball- he cared more about his personal accomplishemnts that his team's but he also wanted to win, even if it wasn't his priority- and there's no evidence he deliberately through games or attempted to influence the outcome of games through his gambling activity (allegedly he may or may not have bet when certain pitchers were or were not pitching- that's not the same thing- in fact that's how someone without inside info or influence would bet as well).

He was regarded as a elite player for a very long time- and while playing he may have been overrated- it was in the same way that Jeter is overrated- a great player- just not as great as popularly perceived.

As a 2002 Red Sox fan, one of Rickey's virtues in his last years was as a fake base stealer. He didn't actually steal very many (SB8 CS2 that year, i.e. small and break-even) but his antics on the basepaths were great fun to watch and, when combined with his reputation, by observation hugely disruptive to the pitcher and defense. On a running team, probably little value added, on the sluggish Red Sox (except Damon) much more useful. Well worth the roster spot on what in 2002 was possibly the Red Sox's strongest team of recent years.

I grew up in Cincinnati in the 70's and 80's and while Pete was greatly respected as a ballplayer, there wasn't much love for the guy personally. The concensus take on him was that he was an insufferable a-hole. We cheered him on the field, but nobody had much nice to say about him. (But I wasn't a west-sider)

In fairness to Pete as manager, he was his own best option at 1B in '85. Who the hell else was he gonna pencil in? Blame the front office, which was obviously cashing in on 4192, but don't blame Pete for that.
What I recall as most frustrating about Rose's managing wasn't his playing himself, it was his leaving pitchers in WAY too long. He seemed to want to be the anti-Sparky.

And re: 23, Rose cheerfully admits this in interviews.


(Many fond memories of that '85 club, which won 19 games in their final at bat.

What John said re:Rose/Henderson. I do not blame Rose at all for his sinking of 1250 PA from the 82-83 Phillies. They don't add anything to his case as a player, but they also don't add anything to the case of him being an #######.

Until Barry Bonds comes up, Pete Rose is one of the world's better arguments for the existence of a Hall of Merit, where a player's records can be considered without getting into the whole issue of character, beyond the one-year protest vote, and where the effects of various drugs can be factored into a quantitative position about what a player would have done without them, rather than as an automatic disqualifier. It's too bad that there can't be some sort of way of spreading the word about the HOM into the mainstream media. Given all the passions that go into the HOF vote, it seems a shame that the HOM debates don't offer a more widely known parallel outlet for fans not familiar with BTF but who also get turned off by the character issues.

And re: 23, Rose cheerfully admits this in interviews.

You have got to be good to make 1000 more outs than anyone in history.

Is it just me, or aren't we prohibited from even considering Rose's actions as a manager? So what if he played himself in 1985. That was a managerial decision, and I think to dock him for that is unconstitutional.

That being said, most people aren't even counting 1985 anyway, because it definitely isn't his prime or peak or anything near that. For example, guys like sunnyday2 and Donelson are admitted peak/prime voters and don't even look at the tail ends of careers. Or will they make an exception to their normal practices here just to exercise a boycott?

Rose will be a clear #2 on my ballot behind Seaver. I don't boycott, because I don't care about character for the HOM. It can't be objectively measured, and I think it is applied unfairly against modern athletes, because we know so much more about them. (Who knows, maybe Charley Jones was an awful person, but we don't even know where the guy is buried let alone much about his character.)

Rickey was a much better player for his latter years than Rose was. From 1982-86, Rose was worse than a replacement level 1B. Rickey was still playing at an All-Star level in 1999, and still hit above the league average in 2001 and 2002. Rose's performances in '83, '84, and '86 were outright dismal, and he was playing 1B where the offensive demands are even greater. I think that comparison obscures more than it clarifies. Rose clearly should have hung 'em up after 1981; Rickey was adding value until the end.

Another guy that I think hung on far too long was Willie McCovey (I know I've been bashing him a lot recently...I regret not voting when he came up for election, but I hadn't finished my research on NL 1B by then). He was, by my count, a below-replacement 1B from 1978-80. I'd consider his 521 homers only slightly less "tainted" than Rose's 4,256 (ignoring the gambling issue).

You need to subtract about 50 hits from Rose for his 149CS against only 198SB. Sheer stupidity in all its forms deserves to get marked down.

Is it just me, or aren't we prohibited from even considering Rose's actions as a manager? So what if he played himself in 1985. That was a managerial decision, and I think to dock him for that is unconstitutional.

It's constitutional, Ron. I was one of the guys who helped formulate the compromise and Rose was one of the principle guys mentioned.

"Rose was worse than a replacement level 1B."

I lurk here alot, mostly to learn about baseball history and I always check the numbers of these old guys and everything and I was shocked to see that over 237 ABs, Pete Rose played at exactly Bpro's replacement level. The one that is so bad that it's widely criticized as having way too low of a replacement level. He played on that level for almost have a season. I don't know where else to locate that much suck in one shot. Awesome observation.

I don't know where else to locate that much suck in one shot.

Try just about any Phillies season between 1933 and 1945. Like an entire schoolyard of kids with tootsiepops sucking. Best win% of that era .418. Second best .416, none others over .400. More years under .300 than over .400. There's serious, serious sucking going on, nearly whole teams worth of suck. Team was 90 OPS+/77ERA+ in 1939, both worst in the league. Makes me suck just for being a Phils fan.

Regarding 1985, I thought the Rose/Perez platoon at 1B was pretty good, Esasky still played 125 games, so whose time did he take that year?

Yes. Rose excelled at many things on the baseball field, but one of them was not managing risk very well. He would always try to take an extra base if there was even a slight chance of reaching, regardless of the score or inning.

He reached base over 5800 times. He attempted to steal less than 350 times. That's a guy who will try to steal at the drop of a hat?

I don't boycott, because I don't care about character for the HOM. It can't be objectively measured, and I think it is applied unfairly against modern athletes, because we know so much more about them.

Doesn't that cut both ways?

Another guy that I think hung on far too long was Willie McCovey (I know I've been bashing him a lot recently...I regret not voting when he came up for election, but I hadn't finished my research on NL 1B by then). He was, by my count, a below-replacement 1B from 1978-80. I'd consider his 521 homers only slightly less "tainted" than Rose's 4,256 (ignoring the gambling issue).


Dan, he put up a 131 OPS+ in 1977, and going into the 1978 season he was only 7 HR short of 500. I don't agree that his 521 HR total is tainted - after all, he wasn't the manager writing his name into the lineup card - but his having 500 HR shouldn't be considered tainted at all. Plus, in 1978 and 1979, while his playing time did cut into Mike Ivie's, McCovey was down to ~390 PA per year. He also had a 102 OPS+ compared to Rose's 98 in 1985. By 1980, McCovey was absolutely done though, and he only got 126 PA that year.

That should read "he also had a 102 OPS+ in 1979..."

As to considering Pete Rose's managerial actions, I'm only considering them insofar as they affected Pete Rose. And they had the effect of slightly inflating what his record would have been under any other circumstances. So what I consider his playing record to be is slightly shorter than the real one. Call it an MLE deduction, but to his playing record.

Here's something to consider about Pete Rose as a manager. At the time, Rose was infamous for abusing his bullpen. He was notorious for getting his relievers up four or five times in a night and wearing them down before they even saw game action. He had some good teams- finishing second a number of years in a row- but the way he handled his bullpen remained a sore spot. When the news came out about Rose's gambling, a number of pieces suddenly fit together. Rose admitted that he bet on baseball, but insisted that it wasn't a problem because he never bet against his own team. That meant that he wasn't intentionally throwing games, ie. the 1919 White Sox, and therefore wasn't doing anything wrong. Which is true as far as it goes. However, by betting on his teams to win on some nights, and not betting on other nights, his gambling habit did affect the way that he managed. On the nights that he had money riding on the game, Rose was especially hard on his pitchers. He couldn't afford a loss so he was more likely to pull a starter quickly and to overwork his bullpen. That strategy may have helped him win that night's game and a bit of money- but it was bad for the team over the course of the season. His low-confidence starters and worn-down relievers ended up costing his team several wins during the year. There's a reason why Rose's talented Reds teams were "always a bridesmaid and never a bride." So, yes, Rose's gambling did have an affect on the games, on the season and on his team's ability to win a pennant. If he had mismanaged his bullpen simply because of incompetence then it shouldn't affect us any more than the lack of managerial success has affected our opinion of other candidates. But his mismanagement was a result of his illegal gambling. Rose's gambling affected how he managed which in turn affected his team's ability to win games and pennants which I think does matter even though it occurred primarily after his playing days were over.

The reason his teams didn't finsih first is that they werent good enough. His best team, 1985, was an 82 win pythag squad. They won 89 due in large part to hustle and a great bench, two things for which Rose himself deserves alot of credit. The team was moribund from 82-84. Their attitude caught fire when he showed up in late '84.

Is it just me, or aren't we prohibited from even considering Rose's actions as a manager? So what if he played himself in 1985. That was a managerial decision, and I think to dock him for that is unconstitutional.

It's constitutional, Ron. I was one of the guys who helped formulate the compromise and Rose was one of the principle guys mentioned.

So the constitutional rule is no managerial credit, but you can go ahead and dock a player for moves he made as a manager, including playing himself when he sucked. Got it.

And they had the effect of slightly inflating what his record would have been under any other circumstances. So what I consider his playing record to be is slightly shorter than the real one. Call it an MLE deduction, but to his playing record.

But Marc, don't you say time and time again that you are a prime voter, and you don't really consider career. In fact, isn't that why you don't have to worry too much about war credit for someone like Charlie Keller, because you know what his prime was?

Really, if Rose hadn't made a managerial decision, but some other manager played him in 1985, then you would have just not counted it under your system. You are docking him for a managerial decision made at the tail end of his career. Which is constitutional according to Murphy.

I don't boycott, because I don't care about character for the HOM. It can't be objectively measured, and I think it is applied unfairly against modern athletes, because we know so much more about them.

Doesn't that cut both ways?

Of course it does, Peaches, which is another reason not to boycott.

So the constitutional rule is no managerial credit, but you can go ahead and dock a player for moves he made as a manager, including playing himself when he sucked. Got it.

I'm docking Rose for hurting baseball, Ron. If he killed someone, I would also be boycotting him, even though it has nothing to do with baseball. In fact, if he did do a O.J., I probably wouldn't submit a ballot after the one-year protest if he were still on the ballot until he were elected.

I agreed to compromise over this at the beginning because the Hall of Merit doesn't have the same imprimatur and prestige (unfortunately) as the HOF. If it did and we had a big ceremony as they have in Cooperstown and the ear of the media, I would have never signed on to it. Doesn't mean that I'm right or wrong, only that we all value the honor differently. To me, inducting a player should be more an honor than just rubber stamping greatness. It's not like Rose's immense value has zero value unless we recognize it.

...and before anyone accuses me of being a moralist, I don't dock anybody for drugs, alchohol, hootchie-kootchie ways :-), etc.

Ok, you're docking Rose for hurting baseball. I assume you mean the gambling.

If you are saying that morally you can't vote for Pete Rose because of the gambling thing, fine. I think the constitution says that if you don't like the gambling, boycott him for a year. However, this discussion seems to imply that people will be docking Rose because he played himself from 84-86 when he was terrible. I think that is not allowed. Playing himself was a managerial decision and is irrelevant for purposes of player analysis.

Again, if the boycott is for gambling, fine. If the boycott is because Rose made poor managerial decisions, even those which were bad for baseball, I think it is unconstitutional.

He made poor managerial decisons which boosted his own personal playing record, the one we are voting on.

Again, if the boycott is for gambling, fine. If the boycott is because Rose made poor managerial decisions, even those which were bad for baseball, I think it is unconstitutional.

I agree with that, Ron, though my system hardly gives him any credit for those years (not that he really needs it, mind you).

I'm not intending to exercise a 1 year boycott, but I currently have Rose #16 on my 1992 ballot. Apart from my normal eccentricities, one reason for this is his SB 198/CS149, in other words, he cost his team 50 bases by baserunning stupidity, which if you adjust for it reduces his already mediocre OPS+ from 118 to 117. One should slo adjust for stupidity where he got run out while on the bases, which we don't have (at least I don't.) Rose's overall hyperaggression and stupidity were sufficient to make him a much less valuable player than was thought; we should correct for this. Waddell's the obvious comp, but there his eccentricities were either already baked into his figures or could be proved by UER analysis not to be statistically significant.

TRhat's "one should also adjust." Damn.

Apart from my normal eccentricities, one reason for this is his SB 198/CS149, in other words, he cost his team 50 bases by baserunning stupidity, which if you adjust for it reduces his already mediocre OPS+ from 118 to 117.

That would be one inconsistent ballot -- take away 1000 hits from Rose and he still has more hits and more adjusted hits than Beckley. 4256 hits -- if you value career (as you do) how could he be behind any hitter on this ballot (absent a boycott).

Jake Beckley. Better than Sisler (1 point OPS+, 118 hits, more dangerous/difficult fielding position) and we’ve elected Sisler. Paul Waner is a very close comp (it was 37 years till we found one) and it thus makes no sense to have Waner far above Beckley. Significantly longer career than Clemente or Brock when you adjust the schedule, much longer relative to his contemporaries (he was #2 in AB when he retired, and #5 20 years after he retired.) Adjust his 2930 hits to full seasons and he's up there with Nap, above Babe, over 3200 hits, and OPS+ of 125 better than Van Haltren and slightly short of Wheat’s 129. Isolated power .127 vs “slugger” Wheat .135, in a less power-centered era. TB+BB/PA .455, TB+BB/Outs .707. Played for un-famous teams. Better than Keeler, almost as good as Crawford. More than a borderline HOMer, somewhere in the reaches well above the border but below the immortals. Should have been elected 70 “years” ago.


Pete Rose. Better than Sisler (-6 points OPS+, but 1400 more hits , more difficult fielding position) and we’ve elected Sisler. Paul Waner is a very close comp (5th on his BBref most similar list) and it thus makes no sense to have Waner above Rose. Significantly longer career than Clemente or Brock, much longer relative to his contemporaries (he was #1 in AB when he retired, and still #1 20 years after he retired.) Adjust his 4256 hits to full seasons and he's over 4320 hits, and OPS+ of 118 better than Schang and slightly short of Beckley. Isolated power of .106 not very good, however in a less power-centered era. TB+BB/PA .461, TB+BB/Outs .708, both better than Beckley. Played for famous teams. Better than Keeler, almost as good as Crawford. More than a borderline HOMer, somewhere in the reaches well above the border but below the immortals. Should be elected now.

Presented without comment.

Pete Rose was a leadoff hitter, and the mandate of a leadoff hitter is to score runs. He led the league in runs scored four times, finishing 2nd on three other occasions, and 3rd three times as well. Yes, some part of this is that he was never, ever out of the lineup, and part of it was that he was followed by some outstanding teammates. But he was scoring bucketloads of runs before he had Joe Morgan or Johnny Bench as teammates.

You want to complain about his stolen bases? Let's look at a particularly egregious year for that: 1969. He hit .348/428/.512 and went 7-10 as a baserunner. How about we take those 10 CS and use them to cancel 10 of his BB, cutting those from 88 to 78. Now you've got a guy who hit .348/.414/.512 and went 7-0 as a basestealer. OK, so that year is too good. Let's try the same thing with 1978: .302/.362/.421 with 13-9 on the basepaths becomes .302/350/.421, which is still 20 points above league average OBP, and with a 13-0 record as a basestealer. And he did score over 100 runs in 1978, (It was 120 in 1969.) Go ahead and do that to his whole career. He'd still have a good OBP. He'd still be a terrific leadoff hitter.

Beckley ahead of Rose is just absurd. A non-boycotted Rose not in the top 15 is just absurd. (Boycotts are not absurd; that's a different category.)

The methods I use (RCAA-based) do charge Rose for the cost of his CS. And they've got him as a pretty close offensive value match to Yastrzemski.

As far as my interpretation of the constitution, I think it's OK to boycott him for the gambling for a year - as that was known by the time we are electing him (he was suspended 2 years earlier, since we are voting for 1992 in December of 1991, theoretically.

But I don't think it's OK to boycott him for what he did as a manager. He was hired as a player/manager, of course he's going to play himself, that's part of the deal. The boycott is there as a morals clause, it's not a catch-all for guys that did anything you don't like.

Now if you want to say he was below replacement level those years, so he gets a zero, that's fine and well within the rules. But managing doesn't count AT ALL, GOOD or BAD . . .

Beckley ahead of Rose is just absurd. A non-boycotted Rose not in the top 15 is just absurd.

Just to explore OCF's point, here's who Karlmagnus would be placing ahead of Rose, if he follows through on his #16 placement, assuming Seaver, Grich, and Perez place higher:

Beckley, Joss, Cicotte, Browning, C. Jones, Leever, Lombardi, Schang, Stephens, Howard, Trouppe, and Tiant. Rose would place immediately ahead of Van Haltren and Staub.

If Perez is currently lower than Rose (which is quite possible), then Rose, to land at 16, would trail Van Haltren.

If Grich is currently lower than Rose (which is unlikely. I would be surprised if Karl would rate Grich below Stephens, given Grich's longer career, better bat, and better fielding [albeit at a slightly easier position]), then Rose would also trail Staub.

A review of Karlmagnus's rankings offers a good reminder that he is not just a "career" voter. I don't understand how he weighs height versus length, so I don't know why the "bats" go Beckley, Browning, C. Jones, Howard, Rose, Van Haltren, Staub.

I wonder if Karl has considered that Rose spent a third of his career at 2B and 3B, which raises his defensive profile quite a bit. He was also an excellent defensive outfielder, which can't be said of Howard and Browning, at least.

He reached base over 5800 times. He attempted to steal less than 350 times. That's a guy who will try to steal at the drop of a hat?

Re-read what I actually wrote in the context of the discussion in the first half dozen posts or so, please. I said that he "took the extra" at every opportunity, not that he tried to steal all the time.

A poster pointed to Rose's abysmal SB/CS numbers and asked "Was this indicative of his baserunning as a whole; i.e. did Charlie Hustle hustle his way into a bunch of outs on the bases?" To which I answered in the affirmative, to the best of my recollection. Basestealing is only one component of baseRUNNING, which was what we were discussing.

Attempting to answer 6-4-3's point - just how bad (or how good) a baserunner was Pete Rose? Here's a very, very crude approach. Rose reached base 5829 times in his career, not counting his HR. He scored 2005 runs, also not counting his HR. That means he scored 34.4% of the time he was on base. So how high or how low is 34.4%? Here are a few other players, all from the 60's, 70's or 80's, many of them leadoff hitters or at least hitters who spent some time at leadoff. I'll make the same calculation for each of them: runs scored, other than HR, divided by time on base, other than HR.

Vince Coleman: 43.4%
Paul Molitor: 40.0%
Lou Brock: 39.7%
Bobby Bonds: 36.7%
Willie Davis: 36.3%
Pete Rose: 34.3%
Rod Carew: 33.3%
Wade Boggs: 32.2%
Brian Downing: 29.0%

This is anything but a clean list. The quality of the following batters makes a difference, as does the general offensive tendencies of the time. I took the HR out but not the doubles and triples (although the doubles and triples themselves may in part represent baserunning). Leadoff hitters have some advantage here because they more often lead off innings than do #2 or #3 hitters, and reaching base with no outs is certainly an advantage in the quest to score runs. I also won't guarantee my data entry - I invite anyone who wants to to check this as well as to add in any other players you might think interesting.

As a single-skill player, Coleman might have been the greatest baserunner ever (at least among those with real careers). It's not enough to make him a good all-around baseball player, but notice that he's an outlier in this measure. Molitor was an excellent basestealer whom I also heard praised as a superb baserunner apart from the steals. Brock - well, you know about Brock. King of the SB. Bonds was very fast, and a big-time basestealer. And Willie Davis was, while active, often described as the fastest player in baseball. Those guys scored in a greater fraction of their times on base than Rose - but in the case of Bonds and Davis, not by all that much. As a baserunner, Wade Boggs was the anti-Rose. Rose on the bases was all about being aggressive; Boggs was nothing if not cautious. And for all the trouble, Boggs scored at a lower rate than Rose. Carew - nearly everyone cites Carew as an excellent baserunner. I think the fact that he shows up below Rose mostly reflects the advantage of batting leadoff, as Carew spent far lest time in that spot than Rose. And it may also reflect Joe Morgan being available to drive in or move Rose. But still - note the order. And I have no idea what to say about Downing.

On the whole: I'm not convinced that Rose was a bad baserunner, nor am I convinced that his aggressiviness tipped over the edge into recklessness.

When my dad taught me how to score a game, he taught me that stretching a single to a double etc, and getting thrown out was a base hit and a CS. I know the rule is different now, but was there a scoring rule change in the last generation that would affect Rose's s/CS numbers? Or was my dad just wrong?

Hate to say it traderdave, but your dad was wrong on that one.

It's amazing what some people think scoring rules are though - at least half of my friends in college that actually played on the team (so they were knowledgable about baseball) thought that any groundout that moved a runner up was a sacrifice, not just a bunt, stuff like that.

Trying a few more names on the R/TOB with HR deleted. Some more fast guys, and, just for grins, a couple of notably slow cleanup hitters. Larry Lintz utterly breaks the system at 56.8% but just counting H+BB+HBP does not account for the true times on base for a frequent pinch runner. I did find someone to top Coleman; not sure to what extent pinch running might be contaminating his record as well.

Otis Nixon: 44.3%
Omar Moreno: 40.7%
Rickey Henderson: 39.6%
Tim Raines: 36.8%
Frank Thomas: 27.0%
Mike Piazza: 24.9%

at least half of my friends in college that actually played on the team (so they were knowledgable about baseball) thought that any groundout that moved a runner up was a sacrifice, not just a bunt...

Please. Everyone knows you score that as a "Nova Scotia squeeze."

It's not enough to look at the times Rose scored when on base. There are two ways of not scoring when on base; the hitters behind you mess up, or you run yourself into an out and your teammates out of a rally. If Rose's Rose errors/teammates feebleness ratio is high, the fect that he scored a reasonable nu mber of runs when on base would simply be a function of the super offense behind him, and he could be net costing the team runs by his basepath aggression, which is what I suspect.

If you correct for the SB, Rose is 117 not 118. He had more hits than Ted Williams, too, would you put him ahead? Beckley was a semi-slugger, fourth all-time in triples.

BTW yes, Grich is about 10th, ahead of Rose. Van Haltren also marginally ahead of Rose. Rose is 1 spot ahead of Staub; Perez is at #30. (Yes, Seaver's #1, even ahead of Beckley!) As I say, I mark Rose down modestly (but not hugely -- he's not as good as Beckley, clearly, 117 vs. 125 is a BIG gap) for his stupidity having an adverse effect on the team. It's a little like some marked Rube Waddell down, only Waddell had a better excuse. I presume Rose predated ADD treatment too, come to think of it.

karl- methinks you rely on OPS+ too much.

One major difference is that Rickey was not selecting himself to play. Rose was.

Bulls-eye, Richard. If some stupid manager wanted Rose to play until he was ninety, more power to him. But when he was the stupid manager (okay, he wasn't really being stupid), then that's a whole different story.

A couple of things wrt Rose - it wouldn't matter who the manager was - Rose would have been in the lineup. He was brought there for that purpose, and any manager that thought they weren't putting Rose in the lineup wasn't going to be manager. Rose the manager did what the owner wanted - put Rose the player in the lineup to chase those hits.

And weigh it as you like, Pete Rose the player enhanced his team's Pythags once he became a FA. Every season with any manager, Rose's "winning-ness" led his teams to outperform their pythags. For like 8 straight years, and teams stopped doing it when he left. It's odd, but it is there.

Beckley was a semi-slugger, fourth all-time in triples

Rose, of course, is second all time in doubles.

I don't know how to accurately adjust triples for the era in which a player played, but I do find it interesting that Rose was in the top 10 of his league in triples 8 times to Beckley's 7.

Regarding 1985, I thought the Rose/Perez platoon at 1B was pretty good, Esasky still played 125 games, so whose time did he take that year?

Maybe Kal Daniels, with an outfielder (Daniels? Parker? Redus?) moving to first. I guess maybe you could make a case that Paul O'Neill should have gotten some of those at-bats too - he hit .305 in Denver that year, though it was admittedly a fairly empty .305 at a high altitude.

A couple of things wrt Rose - it wouldn't matter who the manager was - Rose would have been in the lineup. He was brought there for that purpose, and any manager that thought they weren't putting Rose in the lineup wasn't going to be manager. Rose the manager did what the owner wanted - put Rose the player in the lineup to chase those hits.

There certainly wasn't much public outrage to Rose writing his name in the lineup in 1984 here. Even as he slumped in mid-1985, the media responded with this and even this. There would have been much more outrage if he would have benched himself.

As I've said before, I blame the Phillies for trotting him out there everyday in 1980,82-83 -- when he simply stunk -- which allowed him get so close as to make the run at Cobb feasible. The Phillies were too busy winning two pennants and a World Series to notice at the time.

>Beckley was a semi-slugger, fourth all-time in triples

>>Rose, of course, is second all time in doubles.

>>>I don't know how to accurately adjust triples for the era in which a player played, but I do find it interesting that Rose was in the top 10 of his league in triples 8 times to Beckley's 7.

karl, just boycott the son of a #####. There is no way to justify a #16. Even a peak voter would have to have him in the top half of the ballot, but an alleged career voter.... This defies gravity.

I don't think karl is a career voter at all - he is an out and out rate voter.

117 dammit doesn't do it for a primarily 1B, though I accept his mean fielding position is a bit better than a modern 1B, perhhaps fairly close to a Jake-era 1B. Does anybody know how to get his OPS+ if he'd terminated his career after 1980? (simple arithmetic doesn't do; it's annoyingly non-linear.) The last years are clearly subtracting from his case, but I may be eyeballing too much subtraction. I enjoy having him 16 rather than 14, but can see he may have a decent case up to a mid-ballot position. Stop his career at 1980, and it's interesting; he's then about the same length as Beckley (adjusted for schedule) or just a little longer, but if his OPS+ to 1980 is still say 122 (knocking off 1 for the SB/CS) he's definitely inferior to Jake.

karl,

Here is what bb-ref has for Pete Rose thru 1980

Oh, and since I haven't chimed in on other Petey issues: Won't boycott, will be #2 behind Seaver, don't penalize for player/manager decisions.

I would have to say that Beckley ahead of Rose is indefensible. Isn't Rose the perfect low peak, high career candidate? Also, while Rose may have playe dmore games at 1B, he spent his peak at 2B and 3B, which is far more difficult than even the superhero position Beckley played. He did play superhero right? Or was it 1B? I forget.

I may not boycott Petey after all (just to cancel out karl). I mean, really.

>I accept his mean fielding position is a bit better than a modern 1B, perhhaps fairly close to a Jake-era 1B.

Thanks Al. Rose OPS+ to 1980 124, or 123 when you subtract 44.5 hits for his excess CS. Beckley was 125. Equivalent fielding positions, more or less -- I'd actually give the edge to Beckley, marginally. Rose 11479 AB vs Beckley adjusted about 10500, so Rose is a little longer. Rose isn't Yaz, not even close, he's very close to Beckley. Then you factor in that 1981-86 SUBTRACTS from Rose's value, because on average he was around replacement level, and you subtract a little for unwarranted non-CS baserunning outs (if he lost value as a base stealer, there's no reason to suppose he gained it as a baserunner in general) and on a tight ballot, with Beckley 2, he's near the bottom. Maybe #12, just above Frank Howard.

Those who think Rose/Beckley isn't very even with a slight edge to Beckley are either under-rating Beckley due to 79 years of combat on this site (well, about 62, the first 17 of Beckley's eligibility focused on Caruthers) or, perhaps more likely, grossly overrating Rose because of 4256 and his reputation. They're both HOMers, but in Rose's case it's borderline whereas Beckley's a little better.

Incidentally, I don't think it makes a difference WHICH 1/3 of his career Rose played 2B/3B; he could have played 1B at his peak and stumbled around like the hero of Damn Yankees at 2B/3B in 1981-86 for all I care. 1/3 of a career at 2b/3B is worth about 5 OPS+ points over an LF/RF/modern 1B, the same as I give a Beckley-era 1B.

Karl - please vote however you feel works. As far as I'm concerned, I don't even need to know your reasoning.
In fact, judging by your current explanations, and Allensian inferiority complex (Beckleyfied) it might be better if you didn't explain.
However, if you do choose to explain - what do you look at beyond rate stats?

OPS+ and career length, with a fairly smooth curve trading the two off. Same for pitchers; 110ERA+ gets you high if it's in 5500IP, you need 125 for 3000IP. Fielding is a maximum bonus of 25 for a good SS over an average LF/RF/modern 1B, other fielding positions being scaled in between. If you put all the candidates on a spreadsheet, you can eyeball where on the curve each new one fits. Rose is further out on the career length curve than Beckley (a rare area) but substantially lower in rate. Keller, fro example, is not high enough in rtae to make up for the shortness of his career, Fox, when you add 20-22 OPS+ points for 2B, is still only at 113-115, which is below the HOM curve for an outfielder. It seems to produce internally compatible results, though there are fudge factors for WWII, pre-1893 pitchers, etc. McGwire will be a toughie; short career, so is his 163 (very SLG and BB-skewed) worth more than Frank Howard's 142 and if not, why not? (my instinct is, he's above Howard, but not by very much.)

I don't look at peak as such, but if it's high and long enough, it produces a career that's above the "curve."

McGwire will be a toughie; short career, so is his 163 (very SLG and BB-skewed) worth more than Frank Howard's 142 and if not, why not? (my instinct is, he's above Howard, but not by very much.)
Nonsense.

Career Games
M.McG 1874
F.How 1895

Career Plate Appearances

M.McG 7660
F.How 7353

The curve is about logarithmic on career length; in other words 125/3200 (Beckley, adjusted for season length, without a premium for 1890s 1B) is equivalent to 135/2400 or 145/1800. Hitters with lots of HR and BB are disadvantaged by using hits as the counting stat, but I think OPS+ gives them slight advantages which counterbalance it.

DanG, my point; they're very similar career lengths, but 21 points in OPS+, when the balance is as skewed as McGwire's, overstates the difference in quality. McGwire's better, but not 21/142ths better.

Also, DH would get about minus 3-5 negative bonus compared with average modern1B/LF/RF, though McGwire played almost all 1B so that doesn't apply.

So let's assume they were equivalent players at that point. Rose's continuing to play after 1977 (during which time he made 6 All-Star teams, won a Silver Slugger, led the league in OBP, led the league in hits, led the league in 2B twice, led the league in times on base twice, won two pennants and a WS) makes him worse than Beckley?

Thank you Toilet. Can you or Al Peterson or anyone else show Rose's post-1977 statistics as if they were his full career. They may show a close to 100 OPS+ but there is no way you can convince me Rose provided negative value during that time.

I found it myself. Here are Rose's stats from 1978 onwards (101 OPS+):

G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG SB CS OPS+

Pete Rose 1216 4512 611 1290 225 27 17 412 543 274 .286 .364 .359 76 49 101

You haven't adjusted Beckley for season length; the true comparison is with the first 11,500PA approximately, which includes 1978 and a little of 1979. Rose is probably 125 or 124 for that period (after you knock off 1 for his SB/CS exploits); after it he's below 100 OPS+, as well as being a dreadful baserunner and a poor fielder (even when you count the rest of a very good 1979). It's close, but Beckley's better. And you guys have just demonstrated it's close, but will no doubt have some spurious unjustifiable reason for having Rose 20 places above Beckley.