Why does everyone love Pete Rose? His stats are only slightly better than average, but he is always praised?!

Question

Pete Rose had an entirely normal career, save for a couple remarkable seasons. His career batting average of .303 is decent, but by no means astounding. His career slugging and OBP of .409 and .375, respectively, would be among the worst of hall-of-famers. Yes, he had a few seasons over .325. But most of his success is attributed to his career hits record, which was gained only because of him sticking around for so long. What kind of an accomplishment is it to "set the record" for most games played, most at-bats, and ONLY set the record for most hits and doubles. Ty Cobb, for example, would have ended up with over 5000 hits with that many at-bats. And to play yourself, as player-manager, when your last four seasons you haven't slugged over .340, have hit about .260 and have 0 home runs with about 35 rbis each year is disgraceful. You would be benched on a major league team with those numbers. Oh, and, for "Charlie Hustle," a steal to caught stealing ratio of 4:3 is abhorrent.

I agree that he is a GOOD player, and many only GOOD players are in the hall. All other antics aside, he would certainly be voted in for his playing accomplishments, along with other GOOD players from his era. He would belong in the hall--I just don't think he has any place being mentioned on "all-time" lists, or as being one of the greatest baseball players of all time. The fact is, he was a good hitter. But I could name more than 100 hitters who have a career batting average higher than him--and his whole reputation is built on hitting for average, not power. Lastly, it it doesnt make sense to argue that his career BAA is low because he played longer, then also credit him for the records he racked up while playing that long. It's one or the other.

Admittedly, I did the opposite of what I just described in my first post (haha) so I can understand the appeal to doing so.

Moreover, it is foolish to compare Aaron to Rose. Aaron had almost 2000 fewer at-bats than Rose, yet he ended up with: almost five times the number of home runs, almost 1000 more RBIs, a SLG% 150 points higher, and even a BATTING AVERAGE two points higher than Rose's. In other words, the man known purely for hitting home runs still outhit the "hit king." And with a higher batting average, it is interesting to note, Aaron would also have more hits than Rose's had he played a few more seasons. Rose's "accomplishments" just aren't as special when compared against the top 50 or so players of all time.

Answer 1

If there is an all-time over rated team - Pete Rose is the Captain

A below average fielder - Who averaged 6.67HR and 54.8RBI's per year with a SLG% of .409...

Pete was a good player for a very long time(24Y) but, great? NO! Pete Rose was never a great baseball player...He had a few very good years, NEVER a great one...

Would Rose be in the HOF (IF) he wasn't an idiot, yes, longevity does count.....But If I were to list the great players in baseball history I would run out of ink before I got to Pete Rose...

Answer 2

Like it or not, but longevity counts. You could say the same for Hank Aaron. His percentage numbers aren't the best, but he has the home run record because he played many years and was healthy for almost all of his career. That does count.

In addition to the hits record, Rose also played on a couple championship teams. I personally hate the idea that team championships enhance individual accomplishments, but many HOF voters take that into consideration. Look at Warren Moon in the NFL. The first thing that a lot of news articles about him said was "He was inducted into the Hall of Fame despite never winning a Super Bowl." Baseball HOF voters look at guys like Rose and reward them for being leaders of a championship club.

Lastly, compare him to the other players of his era. I know All-Star appearances can be a joke as often as not, but Rose made the All-Star team 17 times. Somebody out there though he had enough talent to be among the best players in the league.

Answer 3

First you aren't making sense when you say a person only has the record for hits and doubles. You get career records for playing a long time and what you said about Ty Cobb was an if/woulda coulda shoulda. If I had a million dollars then I "would" be a millionaire (get it pal[ee]).

These are some of Pete's accomplishments - Runs 2,165 - Hits 4,265 - Doubles 746 - 200H 10 times - 100R 10 times - .300BA 15 times - 50 doubles once - 40 doubles 6 times - 30 doubles 8 times - 3 World Series wins.

The best critics are fair and objective.

Answer 4

He was the kind of player who's value wasn't in the stats, it was in what he brought to the field. He was just a winner. He just got hits. He just got on base. He just did all he needed to do to help his team win. Baseball is so much more than numbers. Do you know how many positions he played? Look up that number.

I don't know why you think having the most games played and the most at bats detracts from his value. and you're writing off having the record for hits and doubles?

It seems like you either never saw him play, or don't see what makes a baseball player great.

Answer 5

First, you can't compare Aaron's longevity to Rose. Aaron was a great player for most of his career. Rose wasn't. He was a good player for a long time, and much of his career success is based on the luck of not missing many games. He was a very good player who played balls out all day, every day, but there wasn't a season where he was among the top five or ten players in baseball.

Answer 6

He played every game like it was the World Series. His work ethic was impeccable. A lot of people have played as many seasons as he did and didn't come close to his hits, such as Ricky Henderson, Harold Baines, Brooks Robinson. 4256 hits is a record that will never be broken. He even had a 47 game hit streak. He was the most aggressive player that ever lived. The real question is why does everyone love Mark McGwire or Barry Bonds. Using anything to enhance your performance is cheating the great game of baseball.

Answer 7

Was he a great slugger? No.
Did he exhibit great character as a manager and during his enforced retirement? Of course not.
Should he be in the HOF (considering his black marks)? That's debatable.

Now, without the black marks, was he a HOF player? Absolutely! He was one of, if not, the clubhouse leader of the Big Red Machine that won back-to-back titles in '75 and '76, and the great Mike Schmidt gives a ton of credit to Rose for the Phils' lone title in 1980. By the way, even though his average dropped in his latter years, a .303 career BA is very good.

The analogies with Emmitt Smith (longevity) and Tom Brady (winner) were pretty good.

Answer 8

He is Charlie Hustle, he played hard and was the arguably the best player on the Big red Machine. However Ty Cobb was probably better and would still be a name in todays game.

Answer 9

He was a great player. He has the most hits in the game because of his attitude of playing hard. His antics after he retired from being a player is his downfall but take nothing away from how he played the game. For my vote, let him in.

Answer 10

I don't love the guy, but it's hard to argue with surpassing 4000 hits, only done by him and Cobb. Praise him for the longevity.

He also was one of the ugliest SOBs to ever play the game.