SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 12, 2010 19:41:27 GMT -5
I'm glad Rose isn't in, if only because his "chase" of the hits record was ridiculous. The only way he could get someone to play his rotting corpse in those was to put himself in the lineup.
1981 was his last good year, and really, 78 or 79 was really his last good year. '80 and 82-86 he just crippled his team playing first base desperately trying to beat the record of a much, much better ballplayer.
Not to say he isn't a HOFer in quality, but I'd like the hits record to actually be owned by an upper echelon guy and I think it is ridiculous he hung on, sucking for five years to get it.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,219
|
Post by hoya9797 on Jan 12, 2010 20:52:33 GMT -5
Kind of like the sign that says if you bet on baseball you will be banned forever that hangs on the wall in every clubhouse is words only. Actions have consequences. Maybe Pete can make some scratch by betting he won't get in any time soon. You have to bet on games in which you're involved to be ineligible for life. There's no evidence he did that. He admitted that he bet on the Reds.
|
|
HoyaFanNY
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Never throw to the venus on a spider 3 Y banana!
Posts: 4,995
|
Post by HoyaFanNY on Jan 13, 2010 6:43:01 GMT -5
I'm glad Rose isn't in, if only because his "chase" of the hits record was ridiculous. The only way he could get someone to play his rotting corpse in those was to put himself in the lineup. 1981 was his last good year, and really, 78 or 79 was really his last good year. '80 and 82-86 he just crippled his team playing first base desperately trying to beat the record of a much, much better ballplayer. Not to say he isn't a HOFer in quality, but I'd like the hits record to actually be owned by an upper echelon guy and I think it is ridiculous he hung on, sucking for five years to get it. sucking for 5 years? his only 'bad' years were '83 and the partial season he played in '86. the team improved by 19 wins from '84 to '85 with rose as player/manager, then won 86 games in his last playing season. he was in a platoon with tony perez. the reds didn't have a better 1st base option at that time. as for cobb being a much better player, give me a break. cobb played against players that would not have advanced past A ball in the 60's, 70's and 80's, not to mention he never played against the best african american players.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 13, 2010 10:32:43 GMT -5
Good lord, the dude was a 1B that had no power. He had a sub 100 OPS+ for those years playing the most important offensive position. The reason they didn't have a better option was because Rose didn't want one. He may have been a good manager -- I don't know -- but trying to give him credit for a 19 game improvement in 85 is ridiculous.
Cobb was a better player. No, he didn't have advanced training techniques, etc., but I'm not giving Pete Rose credit for that.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 13, 2010 10:34:02 GMT -5
As for McGwire, this whole thing is so transparent.
1. He gets hired, knows the media will ask.
2. He still wants to get in the HOF.
The end result is, "I'm sorry, but my numbers are legit. No, really, they are."
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 13, 2010 10:38:39 GMT -5
I'm glad Rose isn't in, if only because his "chase" of the hits record was ridiculous. The only way he could get someone to play his rotting corpse in those was to put himself in the lineup. 1981 was his last good year, and really, 78 or 79 was really his last good year. '80 and 82-86 he just crippled his team playing first base desperately trying to beat the record of a much, much better ballplayer. Not to say he isn't a HOFer in quality, but I'd like the hits record to actually be owned by an upper echelon guy and I think it is ridiculous he hung on, sucking for five years to get it. sucking for 5 years? his only 'bad' years were '83 and the partial season he played in '86. the team improved by 19 wins from '84 to '85 with rose as player/manager, then won 86 games in his last playing season. he was in a platoon with tony perez. the reds didn't have a better 1st base option at that time. as for cobb being a much better player, give me a break. cobb played against players that would not have advanced past A ball in the 60's, 70's and 80's, not to mention he never played against the best african american players. Woah, why the hate on Cobb as a player? As a man, I totally understand...the guy was by all account uber intense, definitely racist and most likely a little crazy, but he could flat out hit and played with an aggression that was game changing. He played the game the way everyone wants their stars to play and put up numbers that were boggling at the time. Here's one annecdote that I'll lift from his wikipage: As Ruth's popularity grew, Cobb became increasingly hostile toward him. Cobb saw Ruth not only as a threat to his style of play, but also to his style of life. While Cobb preached ascetic self-denial, Ruth gorged on hot dogs, beer, and women. Perhaps what angered him the most about Ruth was that despite Ruth's total disregard for his physical condition and traditional baseball, he was still an overwhelming success and brought fans to the ballparks in record numbers to see him set his own records. After enduring several years of seeing his fame and notoriety usurped by Ruth, Cobb decided that he was going to show that swinging for the fences was no challenge for a top hitter. On May 5, 1925, Cobb began a two-game hitting spree better than any even Ruth had unleashed. He was sitting in the dugout talking to a reporter and told him that, for the first time in his career, he was going to swing for the fences. That day, Cobb went 6 for 6, with two singles, a double, and three home runs. His 16 total bases set a new AL record. The next day he had three more hits, two of which were home runs. His single his first time up gave him 9 consecutive hits over three games. His five homers in two games tied the record set by Cap Anson of the old Chicago NL team in 1884. Cobb wanted to show that he could hit home runs when he wanted, but simply chose not to do so. At the end of the series, 38-year-old Cobb had gone 12 for 19 with 29 total bases, and then went happily back to bunting and hitting-and-running. For his part, Ruth's attitude was that "I could have had a lifetime .600 average, but I would have had to hit them singles. The people were paying to see me hit home runs." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ty_CobbPS I highly recommend reading anything about Cobb, you won't be disappointed. He makes Bonds looks like a teletubby.
|
|
HoyaFanNY
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Never throw to the venus on a spider 3 Y banana!
Posts: 4,995
|
Post by HoyaFanNY on Jan 13, 2010 11:15:10 GMT -5
Good lord, the dude was a 1B that had no power. He had a sub 100 OPS+ for those years playing the most important offensive position. The reason they didn't have a better option was because Rose didn't want one. He may have been a good manager -- I don't know -- but trying to give him credit for a 19 game improvement in 85 is ridiculous. Cobb was a better player. No, he didn't have advanced training techniques, etc., but I'm not giving Pete Rose credit for that. i'm a reds fan, so i'm biased towards rose. that said, he most certainly was a big part of how that team went from 90 game losers to near 90 game winners the years he managed. certainly not as a player, but he completely changed the attitude in that clubhouse. he was a players manager, the complete opposite of vern rapp. he developed young players (davis, larkin, o'neill, daniels) and got the best out of veterans that other teams didn't want. players on those teams never loafed under rose. one thing he did was get their best effort because they knew that is what he gave when he played. you hate rose, i get that. he's not the most likeable guy outside of reds fans. but to say he 'sucked' his last 5 years or that he had nothing to do with the teams turnaround after he became manager is idiotic. what he gave those teams in terms of leadership goes well beyond your precious ops or any other stat.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Jan 13, 2010 11:21:50 GMT -5
I think everyone in their right mind knew McGwire was using performance enhancing drugs, but my issue and rallying cry as always:
Why doesn't one damn "journalist" ask the players if they are irritated how they take the heat yet McGwire and Bonds performances both helped get new stadiums built in their cities and owners didn't seem concerned about how they were getting it done on the field. Let's face it PHD's help players make more appearances and with that--that only helps the gate--so the hypocrisy is a joke. If you see a 30 something man has surpassed his hat/shoe size as these HGH guys did--it's first major warning. Well that along with fact that you can't possibly gain 50 lbs of muscle in offseason (Bonds) without cheating. I mean October-February isn't enough time to do what Bonds did--yet morons like Gammons were hyping him as "working out like a man possessed....." and ignoring clowns like Nomar Garciaparra who is the type of player they should hammer--a marginal guy who wouldn't have made anything close to what he did financially without PHD's. There is a reason a lot of Pro Athletes like to workout in Phoenix area and it's not for the weather---think David Boston.....and you'll get it.
My issue is don't cry/whine corruption when the most corrupt people are benefitting and never have to deal with any heat--because they don't care--about the player's health, their future, or if it's ruining the "integrity" of the sport as you always hear--they care about making $ by putting butts in the seats. The Step It/Fetch It McGwire/Sosa ACT in '98 was sickening and yet promoted as "helping save the sport". If you want to dig deep--maybe you look at Tony LaRussa and how his A's always seemed to pick up geezers who would find the "Fountain of Youth" and resurrect their careers. Think we might know why now--and just glad they only won 1 championship during that era. LaRussa is a scumball and so is anyone who employs him and knows what he's up to--hell Dave McKay his 1B coach was taking it and he cries "I didn't know a thing".
Lying is old. Just want to hear one guy say:
1. Yeah I took them to help me play everyday/maintain strength which makes me/team MONEY 2. It helped me--I think it helps give me an advantage 3. I'm not sorry I took them--sorry I got caught 4. Owners/Managers knew--they just don't care 5. Wouldn't you think about it--if it meant Millions of Dollars 6. Have a nice FREAKING DAY you hypocritical media scumballs.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 13, 2010 14:02:33 GMT -5
Good lord, the dude was a 1B that had no power. He had a sub 100 OPS+ for those years playing the most important offensive position. The reason they didn't have a better option was because Rose didn't want one. He may have been a good manager -- I don't know -- but trying to give him credit for a 19 game improvement in 85 is ridiculous. Cobb was a better player. No, he didn't have advanced training techniques, etc., but I'm not giving Pete Rose credit for that. i'm a reds fan, so i'm biased towards rose. that said, he most certainly was a big part of how that team went from 90 game losers to near 90 game winners the years he managed. certainly not as a player, but he completely changed the attitude in that clubhouse. he was a players manager, the complete opposite of vern rapp. he developed young players (davis, larkin, o'neill, daniels) and got the best out of veterans that other teams didn't want. players on those teams never loafed under rose. one thing he did was get their best effort because they knew that is what he gave when he played. you hate rose, i get that. he's not the most likeable guy outside of reds fans. but to say he 'sucked' his last 5 years or that he had nothing to do with the teams turnaround after he became manager is idiotic. what he gave those teams in terms of leadership goes well beyond your precious ops or any other stat. I don't hate Rose. I think he's overrated. His last OPS+: 94, 119, 90, 69, 99, 99, 61 What's that you say? Only two of those suck? Well, yes and no. Only two of those suck for an average player. Not a first baseman. Daniel Murphy -- a prime example of "sucking" on this board -- had a 95 OPS+ last year at first base. He may have had a profound effect as manager. I don't really care -- what I was commenting on is how long he hung on to break a record. He wasn't good -- he was force feeding himself ABs to chase a record. I'm not a fan of that. Ty Cobb's OPS+ the last five years: 125, 171, 137, 133, 112. No sixties in there. Never under 100 except an 150 AB rookie year. Rose was a HOF-level player. But he's overrated in value because he always hustled. Which is great that he did, but it doesn't mean he was better than Ty Cobb.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jan 13, 2010 14:03:17 GMT -5
I think everyone in their right mind knew McGwire was using performance enhancing drugs, but my issue and rallying cry as always: Why doesn't one damn "journalist" ask the players if they are irritated how they take the heat yet McGwire and Bonds performances both helped get new stadiums built in their cities and owners didn't seem concerned about how they were getting it done on the field. Let's face it PHD's help players make more appearances and with that--that only helps the gate--so the hypocrisy is a joke. If you see a 30 something man has surpassed his hat/shoe size as these HGH guys did--it's first major warning. Well that along with fact that you can't possibly gain 50 lbs of muscle in offseason (Bonds) without cheating. I mean October-February isn't enough time to do what Bonds did--yet morons like Gammons were hyping him as "working out like a man possessed....." and ignoring clowns like Nomar Garciaparra who is the type of player they should hammer--a marginal guy who wouldn't have made anything close to what he did financially without PHD's. There is a reason a lot of Pro Athletes like to workout in Phoenix area and it's not for the weather---think David Boston.....and you'll get it. My issue is don't cry/whine corruption when the most corrupt people are benefitting and never have to deal with any heat--because they don't care--about the player's health, their future, or if it's ruining the "integrity" of the sport as you always hear--they care about making $ by putting butts in the seats. The Step It/Fetch It McGwire/Sosa ACT in '98 was sickening and yet promoted as "helping save the sport". If you want to dig deep--maybe you look at Tony LaRussa and how his A's always seemed to pick up geezers who would find the "Fountain of Youth" and resurrect their careers. Think we might know why now--and just glad they only won 1 championship during that era. LaRussa is a scumball and so is anyone who employs him and knows what he's up to--hell Dave McKay his 1B coach was taking it and he cries "I didn't know a thing". Lying is old. Just want to hear one guy say: 1. Yeah I took them to help me play everyday/maintain strength which makes me/team MONEY 2. It helped me--I think it helps give me an advantage 3. I'm not sorry I took them--sorry I got caught 4. Owners/Managers knew--they just don't care 5. Wouldn't you think about it--if it meant Millions of Dollars 6. Have a nice FREAKING DAY you hypocritical media scumballs. I doubt anyone is going to do #3, but that's just human nature. No one wants to be a bad guy. That being said, #6 is such a huge part of this. I'd bet that 99% of the people flipping out about whether McGwire's apology was good enough both participated in the 1998 hype and ignored the Andro / helped vilify the guy that pointed it out. The thing that makes me so angry about all of this is the media hypocrisy. Where was the outrage in the mid '90s, when it could have done some good?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 13, 2010 14:08:33 GMT -5
Players on the 1985 Cincinnati Reds who posted a better OPS+ off the bench (remember, this team started Nick Esasky and Dave Parker at the corner OF. Esasky basically became the Reds 1B, so OF are fair game.
Perez, 138 OPS+ (although, as you say, platooning) Gary Redus, 116 23 year old Eric Davis, 117 Max Venable, 102
Rose wasn't an awful hitter, but there were other options.
|
|
HoyaFanNY
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Never throw to the venus on a spider 3 Y banana!
Posts: 4,995
|
Post by HoyaFanNY on Jan 13, 2010 15:07:47 GMT -5
of course rose had a lower OPS, he was strictly a singles hitter at age 44. those players you listed killed rose in slugging. only perez was close to him in OBP and pete's K rate and walks burried those players. esasky was a wuss head case. redus thought he was rickey henderson, but played more like florence henderson. max venable? pete rose at 70 should play over him. davis wasn't ready to play full time yet for a team fighting for a division title.
you should really know something about the team and the impact he made just being on the field instead of copying stats from baseball reference.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 13, 2010 15:13:32 GMT -5
I was a big baseball fan then. You're right -- he was a singles hitter. At first base. Nobody else would have given him 500 PAs.
If the record hadn't been within reach, he wouldn't have been playing.
|
|
HoyaFanNY
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Never throw to the venus on a spider 3 Y banana!
Posts: 4,995
|
Post by HoyaFanNY on Jan 13, 2010 15:50:12 GMT -5
if they were a bad team, i'd agree with you. he honestly thought putting himself in the lineup at first gave them the best chance to win games. that's exactly why he played guys like perez, concepcion, diaz, bell, milner, and parker. they were veterans that knew what it took to win games.
pete didn't like redus or esasky. neither were his type of player. esasky complained about playing time and struck out way too much. redus was a leadoff hitter that didn't get on base. pete trusted himself to get a hit, draw a walk, or move a runner over in a big spot more than those guys and i don't blame him.
when september rolled around and they couldn't catch LA, i agree he shouldn't have been playing, but they only finished 5 or so games out. they may have very well been in it still on september 11 1985.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 13, 2010 16:03:35 GMT -5
he honestly thought putting himself in the lineup at first gave them the best chance to win games. I can agree with that. I still somehow doubt he was playing in general with a goal other than getting the record, but in general I can see your point.
|
|
FormerHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,262
|
Post by FormerHoya on Jan 13, 2010 17:51:50 GMT -5
he honestly thought putting himself in the lineup at first gave them the best chance to win games. I can agree with that. I still somehow doubt he was playing in general with a goal other than getting the record, but in general I can see your point. The other goal was that it was much tougher to affect the outcomes of your parlay cards when you don't actually have at bats. [ducking]
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jan 13, 2010 18:15:07 GMT -5
i'm a reds fan, so i'm biased towards rose. that said, he most certainly was a big part of how that team went from 90 game losers to near 90 game winners the years he managed. certainly not as a player, but he completely changed the attitude in that clubhouse. he was a players manager, the complete opposite of vern rapp. he developed young players (davis, larkin, o'neill, daniels) and got the best out of veterans that other teams didn't want. players on those teams never loafed under rose. one thing he did was get their best effort because they knew that is what he gave when he played. you hate rose, i get that. he's not the most likeable guy outside of reds fans. but to say he 'sucked' his last 5 years or that he had nothing to do with the teams turnaround after he became manager is idiotic. what he gave those teams in terms of leadership goes well beyond your precious ops or any other stat. I don't hate Rose. I think he's overrated. His last OPS+: 94, 119, 90, 69, 99, 99, 61 What's that you say? Only two of those suck? Well, yes and no. Only two of those suck for an average player. SF, this is why baseball on a spreadsheet is not real. Rose isn't "hanging on" those years because his career, like all careers, is sequential. In other words, even if he had access to OPS as a personal stat, he can't see the future to know what these numbers seaprated by commas would look like to you in 2010. Let's take two Pete Rose's last few years. One is the real Pete Rose and the other is Sete Fose, a spreadsheet baseball alter ego. 1980: OPS 94. Pete Rose: Woo-hoo! I lead the league in doubles, was an all-star, and WON THE WORLD SERIES! Sete Fose: Well I seem have slipped this season and did not incrementally give my team a better chance of winning than other first basemen might. Still, this is my first sub-par year in over 15 seasons. I'm coming back next year. Oh yes and I am pleased with the World Series. 1981: 119 OPS Pete Rose: I knew last year was a fluke! I hit .325 and we made the playoffs again and I'm an all-star. Booooooooooom! Sete Fose: I don't have enough data so I must consider last season a fluke given it deviated from my previous low OPS since 1965 by more than 20 points. I will not retire. 1982: OPS 90 Pete Rose: All star again but I'm slowing down. Still I've bounced back before and did play every game. Sete Fose: Alright this was a poor year and I hurt my team. But I will come back just to get another data point. 1983: OPS 69 Pete Rose: Man I sucked. Although I was the best hitter in the playoffs for the wheeze kids, my regular season was awful. But I'm about 200 hits from Cobb, and if I beat him I'm immortal. Certainly this is what I'll be best known for in my baseball career (awkward). And I still love the game and the playoffs show I still can contribute though maybe not every day. Sete Fose: Lest someone in 2010 say I hung on too long, I will retire honorably and Bill James will invite me to a banquet. In sports, you don't know you're done until you're done and you only get one go round. There is no way Rose should not have come back for the 1983 season given he had ONE consecutive sub-par year at that point and just hit .325 (119 for Sete) the previous year. Even if Pete's a stathead he wouldn't have retired until the end of 1983 at the earliest because he doesn't know if he's going to bounce back or suck after 1982. And for a "rotting corpse" who is "crippling his team" he's the best player for a Phillies team that almost wins the WS (Schmidt of all people cost them that series) and HF NY points out, his Reds teams are good as well. Also by that time he's closing in on Cobb and I'd argue he SHOULD go for the record even if it means "hanging on as a not great but just OK player for 2 1/2 years." Come on, it's the all-time hits mark. Of course he should gun for sports immortality.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Jan 13, 2010 18:27:20 GMT -5
he agreed to the lifetime ban because it stated he could apply for reinstatement after one year. he waited to apply, and selig was ready to grant the reinstatement, until fay vincent got in his ear. if you don't want lying, gambling scumbags in the he HOF, then kick out half the old timers in there already. how about a drug traficker? or a racist? or ty cobb? stop acting like the HOF is full of angels. This is 100% correct. The NFL Hall has a murderer. The MLB Hall has cheaters of all kinds—except strongly suspected steroids users from the '90s–'00s. When you get into "character" and very very vague, undocumented "cheating" issues, it all gets WAY too subjective for my tastes. Let players' statistics speak for themselves. If you want to create a separate wing in the Hall for "bad people," then fine. Rose and Cobb, and a few other generally questionable characters can go in there. And create a separate portion for suspected or proven steroids users, and McGwire, Bonds, and Palmeiro can go over there. The whole notion that we try to compare people who played 60 years apart from one another is absurd. Talk about comparing apples and oranges. Look at the differences in training, rules, ballparks, pitching quality, opposition, workout regimens, equipment, managers' strategies, schedules, etc., etc. over the life of baseball. I think all you can do is ask: Statistically, who was the best at the time they were playing? And that should be the determining factor. Not this "Maybe he threw a spitball," "I think he gambled on the ponies," "That guy was a racist," etc., etc. bull Edited that comes up every time anyone talks about the Hall.
|
|
njcoach
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 356
|
Post by njcoach on Jan 13, 2010 18:30:20 GMT -5
The Step It/Fetch It McGwire/Sosa ACT in '98 was sickening and yet promoted as "helping save the sport". So glad you brought that up. I thought I was the only one ready to puke over the Sammy-Mark love fest. You're competitors, for crissakes. Stop blowing damn kisses at each other.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 13, 2010 18:34:30 GMT -5
Edited to be clearer.
Where did I say that I thought Rose was a bad person for not retiring? I don't expect anyone that was a competitor like him to retire or give up easy.
I simply said that he wasn't very good his last five years, and that he doesn't necessarily get the PT to get the record if he wasn't chasing the record. He's not bad for chasing it; simply that the record would mean more to me if he was good when he got it.
Ty Cobb was still good.
Ironically, isn't Pete Rose a huge stats guy? Hits are a stat. Just because it isn't VORP doesn't mean that he's not a stats guy.
|
|