GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jan 13, 2010 18:52:02 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. Here: "82-86 he just crippled his team playing first base desperately trying to beat the record " This is a statement of selfish intent. At least almost everyone in the universe would read it as such. Do you think Rose was actually gunning for the record selfishly in 1983? Well if so I'm glad he did because he got a lot of hits that "didn't count" for this egomaniacal quest when he played for the Phils in '83 playoffs. My point is, he wasn't desperately trying to do anything except his job and his life's love. To degrade that by checking his OPS and creating a story based on it for a 5-year period in hindsight is a little absurd to me. And Ty Cobb's record against every white vagrant who lived near a city and did not go to war or get injured in an industrial accident is totally fine, but it doesn't resonate more greatness than Rose's, OPS be damned. I also won't discount 20 years of greatness for 5 years of less-than greatness either. Also with guys like Ripken and Rose, they get huge bonus points for getting out on the field every day. In both their cases they did it at such a high level for so long, if they tail off at the end and hang on an extra year or two, they've earned the right to do it without derision.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 13, 2010 19:16:35 GMT -5
Yes, it is a statement of intent. It isn't a value judgement on Rose's intent. And yes, you're 100% right -- for the first few years I wouldn't want someone to opt out. And later, I don't blame him for it.
But the simple fact is, he wasn't as good a player as Cobb, and he got the record by adding on five not good years onto a great career. If Cobb had done that, Rose wouldn't have the record.
I'm not a fan of record-by-longevity. I don't like Emmit Smith holding the all-time rushing mark over better backs who didn't have Dallas O-line, and I don't like Rose having the all-time hits mark.
You and Fanny are completely missing my point of view. It's not that Pete Rose sucks. It's not that he's a bad person or overly selfish.
It's simply that I'd rather the all-time hits record belong to an inner circle guy who didn't have to hang on, playing poorly to get a record.
When Hammerin' Hank broke Ruth's record, he was coming off a season in which he finished 12th in MVP voting. He had another good year (but it was the beginning of the end) that year.
I'm not sure when Ryan broke the K record, but he was a quality player right until the end.
Rickey Henderson was coming off an MVP when he broke Brock's record. He hung on forever (and grabbed the runs record before losing it, I think, to Bonds) but he was dominant when he broke the record.
My choice of words was meant to be funnier rather than vitriolic, as it really is a matter a preference. I would rather a better player who came by the record without having to play out the string, own the record.
----------------
I also love arguing Pete Rose because his defenders are crazy.
----------------
"Also with guys like Ripken and Rose, they get huge bonus points for getting out on the field every day. In both their cases they did it at such a high level for so long, if they tail off at the end and hang on an extra year or two, they've earned the right to do it without derision. "
Oh, good lord, get off your high horse.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jan 13, 2010 19:40:12 GMT -5
Yes, it is a statement of intent. It isn't a value judgement on Rose's intent. And yes, you're 100% right -- for the first few years I wouldn't want someone to opt out. And later, I don't blame him for it. But the simple fact is, he wasn't as good a player as Cobb, and he got the record by adding on five not good years onto a great career. If Cobb had done that, Rose wouldn't have the record. I'm not a fan of record-by-longevity. I don't like Emmit Smith holding the all-time rushing mark over better backs who didn't have Dallas O-line, and I don't like Rose having the all-time hits mark. ---------------- I also love arguing Pete Rose because his defenders are crazy. ---------------- "Also with guys like Ripken and Rose, they get huge bonus points for getting out on the field every day. In both their cases they did it at such a high level for so long, if they tail off at the end and hang on an extra year or two, they've earned the right to do it without derision. " Oh, good lord, get off your high horse. It isn't a value judgement? So you would say it's neither good nor bad to CRIPPLE your team in a team sport in DESPERATE pursuit of an individual mark? Yeah, good luck convincing someone that's not a value judgement. You took a guy with an "accumulation stat" which is the sabremetric lovers wheelhouse and argued every which way that Rose is overrated because of it. You even made up why he played in 1982, one year removed from a good season by any measure because you pulled up baseball reference and found a pattern that started in 1982. So you backed into him just pursuing the record. Guys who play baseball well for a long time don't know they're not going to get it back. That's why their "hanging on" especially at a "decent but not great" level isn't some sinister plot that you've uncovered using adjusted OPS. They really are playing baseball. And oh by the way, it's not playing 25 years to accumulate some arbitrary hall of fame milestone like 3000 hits. It's the all-time hits mark and nobody is close. So yeah, I'll stay on my "high horse" that I admire a guy who can play baseball well enough for long enough to keep going especially when he had enough for the HoF in 1979 and could have just said "screw it." If that's crazy, good. I'm glad I saw Pete Rose play. And I'm glad he didn't retire to protect his adjusted OPS so I had a chance to see history. Me neanderthal, remember caveman stat moment on television from childhood. Make little Giga happy. Pete Rose isn't the greatest hitter I've seen FYI just because has the most hits. But he's not "overrated" as a player either because of the reasons you state.
|
|
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 14, 2010 6:36:34 GMT -5
SF, my only question is how does someone break that record without playing beyond their prime? you have to play at least 20 years to even sniff the record. jeter needs 1500 hits to catch rose and he's going to be what, 36 this year.
i'm biased towards rose, i always admit that. it was a shame he ruined his career because he really knew how to teach young hitters to play the game. he couldn't manage a pitching staff to save his life but he'd be a heck of an hitting instructor. personally, i don't think he should ever be able to hold a job with a MLB team, but i think the time has come for selig to make a decision on the reinstatement one way or the other.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 14, 2010 10:52:03 GMT -5
SF, my only question is how does someone break that record without playing beyond their prime? you have to play at least 20 years to even sniff the record. jeter needs 1500 hits to catch rose and he's going to be what, 36 this year. i'm biased towards rose, i always admit that. it was a shame he ruined his career because he really knew how to teach young hitters to play the game. he couldn't manage a pitching staff to save his life but he'd be a heck of an hitting instructor. personally, i don't think he should ever be able to hold a job with a MLB team, but i think the time has come for selig to make a decision on the reinstatement one way or the other. With the hits record, that's probably true. I just prefer my records to be won while the player is still good -- and I gave a few examples above of players who did that. Aaron, Mays, Ryan, etc. I used too strong of language in my initial post -- I was being cavalier because I didn't think anyone would react that way. I wouldn't even mind Rose having a job with an MLB club if he was in Gamblers Anonymous and monitored. Gambling is a cardinal sin for someone who can affect the game, and even if you don't bet on your team or sport, potential big losses put you in a situation where you could be influenced to alter your play. But while the safest measure is to toss the person permanently from the game, I don't know that it is the fairest. Baseball isn't where it was in 1919 -- that scandal was the tipping point, involving eight players and was hardly the first thrown WS of the decade. People didn't trust the sport to the point of not watching. Now? Donaghy-like stories can break and no one bats an eye. I think fans are more concerned about PEDs as a threat than gambling. Of course throwing a game is worse than PEDs in most people's eyes -- but the probability of many players doing the latter is so much greater. Especially now that players aren't making minimum wage. That's why I think the refs are such easier targets for corruption. Anyway, players are constantly gambling and wracking up huge debts. What if Barkley's massive Vegas debt had happened while playing? Of course he could pay, but what if he didn't want to fork over $50k? What if he had been offered a way out that only required his team to lose a few games? Gambling is an issue, but Rose's punishment seems somewhat extreme. And it doesn't seem like it is that big a deterrent.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jan 15, 2010 23:17:30 GMT -5
SF, my only question is how does someone break that record without playing beyond their prime? you have to play at least 20 years to even sniff the record. jeter needs 1500 hits to catch rose and he's going to be what, 36 this year. i'm biased towards rose, i always admit that. it was a shame he ruined his career because he really knew how to teach young hitters to play the game. he couldn't manage a pitching staff to save his life but he'd be a heck of an hitting instructor. personally, i don't think he should ever be able to hold a job with a MLB team, but i think the time has come for selig to make a decision on the reinstatement one way or the other. With the hits record, that's probably true. I just prefer my records to be won while the player is still good -- and I gave a few examples above of players who did that. Aaron, Mays, Ryan, etc. I used too strong of language in my initial post -- I was being cavalier because I didn't think anyone would react that way. I wouldn't even mind Rose having a job with an MLB club if he was in Gamblers Anonymous and monitored. Gambling is a cardinal sin for someone who can affect the game, and even if you don't bet on your team or sport, potential big losses put you in a situation where you could be influenced to alter your play. But while the safest measure is to toss the person permanently from the game, I don't know that it is the fairest. Baseball isn't where it was in 1919 -- that scandal was the tipping point, involving eight players and was hardly the first thrown WS of the decade. People didn't trust the sport to the point of not watching. Now? Donaghy-like stories can break and no one bats an eye. I think fans are more concerned about PEDs as a threat than gambling. Of course throwing a game is worse than PEDs in most people's eyes -- but the probability of many players doing the latter is so much greater. Especially now that players aren't making minimum wage. That's why I think the refs are such easier targets for corruption. Anyway, players are constantly gambling and wracking up huge debts. What if Barkley's massive Vegas debt had happened while playing? Of course he could pay, but what if he didn't want to fork over $50k? What if he had been offered a way out that only required his team to lose a few games? Gambling is an issue, but Rose's punishment seems somewhat extreme. And it doesn't seem like it is that big a deterrent. I was kind of a jerk about this whole argument, I admit. But my problem always is Rose deserves the bed he's made with gambling. I'd put him in the hall but that's just me. But it's the implication that he's "not that good" or playing for any other reason than because of his dedication to the game, that upsets me. We will never see a player play anything close to 3500 games in a career without one millisecond at DH. And to do it at (to saber it up) a 118 OPS+ is ridiculous. Pete Rose had Mark Grace's career almost twice. His longevity is part of his greatness not a detriment to his legacy. I can't believe I saw a guy play who has records reserved for guys who have one living fan.
|
|