Pete Rose vs. Ken Griffey Jr.?

Question

Who was a better player in their prime.

Answer 1

not even close

griffey.

all rose gave you were hits and a few stolen bases. barely any average.

griffey was a 5 tool player who was pretty damn good in the field as well.

Answer 2

Ken Griffey Jr. He had the sweetest swing in baseball when he was in his prime. Pete Rose should just go away. He played the game well, but he is an embarrassment off the field.

Answer 3

Ken Griffey Jr. He was a 5 tool player. Pete Rose was basically a singles hitter. Don't get me wrong. Rose played the game as hard as anyone. But I still have to go with Jr.

Answer 4

Look at their career stats....Junior, hands down. So what? Rose didn't win a world series by himself..he was just a part of the team. This argument doesn't hold up like it does in the NFL when talking about QB's. A QB has no option but to be an integral part of the success or failure in a Super Bowl. Baseball?? Anyone wanna claim that, with a Series ring, that a backup utility infielder from ANY championship team is better than the Ringless Griffey?? I thought not. Plus, is it any wonder Rose played so damn hard, enough to garner the nickname "Charlie Hustle"....he had money on all his games!!

Answer 5

Pete Rose. Because Pete had a prime. Griffey had more career stats on the DL then he did in the game. Griffey is a good player but, he just isn't durable enough for 162 games. Rose had the stamina.

Answer 6

There is no question that KGJ is the better player, I will contend that Pete Rose had more hits and a higher BA, but he also played 24 seasons. Ken Griffey is among the leaders in HR, RBI and Slugging %. KGJ gets my vote

Answer 7

Pete Rose was a great hitter, but at his best he was still just a singles hitter. Griffey Jr. could do it all, and when he was healthy he was one of the most talented players of all time. Jr. at his best was much better than Rose at his best.

Answer 8

Pete Rose was better for a longer time. Rose was great for his whole career. Ken Griffey Jr. was great for a few years early in his career, but he has been just average since he went to Cincinnati.

Answer 9

Good question. In his prime, Rose played 3B, LF, RF, CF, and 2B, and was an all star at all of these positions, he won 2 batting titles during this time and 1 MVP.
Griffey was the best CF of his time and won the HR title once.
Griffey had a better arm, but Rose had a more accurate arm.
Griffey had more speed.
Rose had a better bat, but Griffey had more power.
It's a toss up, but I have to go with Rose.

Answer 10

Who should have been better? Jr. no doubt. Was he? Let's see. Jr has 18yrs. w/2234 games (124per/yr)
8298 ab (461per/yr-not enough to qualify for the batting title)
2412 hits(134per/yr) for a lifetime .290 ave.
he averaged 31HRs & 93RBIs
Oh, and by the way, no rings.

Rose, on the other hand, had far less talent. But don't kid yourself. During the years of "The Big Red Machine" sporting names like Bench, Morgan, Perez, Conception and Foster the leader and most respected player on that team was Rose.

Decibe for yourself. But I think I'll take Charlie Hustles 200 hits, and solid or better defense that you can count on 160 games a year.

Oh yea. I believe Pete owns 2 or 3 rings.

Answer 11

It totally depends on how you are looking at this. On a strictly individual look then I think Jr. is the correct answer. But if you look at what that player meant to the team and did that player make his teammates better then you I would argue that Rose is the better player in his prime. He took two organizations to World Series Championships in Cincy and Philly. Rose 3 rings--Jr Zero