Views
32
Comments
24
  • August 29, 2008 03:00 PM ET

Pete Rose is not one of the four greatest athletes to wear #14

The Pitt Panther is Jules (116-46-13) vs Porkins: You're all my dupes (155-14-1)
2
Votes
15
Votes
2
Votes
15
Votes


Sports Illustrated had Pete Rose as the greatest athlete to wear the number 14. I say he's not even the top 4. Disagree?

Here are my top 4 in no order:

-Otto Graham
-Don Hutson
-Ernie Banks
-Oscar Robertson

Who are you taking out for Pete Rose?


Pete Rose was a better athlete than Ernie Banks. I love Mr. Cub, and don't get me wrong- he was an all-tinme great, but Rose was better on the field.

I'll just throw it out there that TSN has Rose ranked as the 25th best player all-time (Ernie is down the list at 38), but that's not proof to me.

What IS proof:

17x all-star
ROY
NL MVP
In the Top 10 in MVP voting 8x
2 gold gloves


Rose played EVERY POSITION except catcher and short and his fielding % was above the league average at every single one of them. How's THAT for athletic talent? You could play him anywhere knowing he'd help your defense.

And we all know what Rose did at the plate. A career .303 average, the all-time leader in hits with 4,256. He led the league 7 times.

He had 10 seasons of double-digit steals, and led the league in # of times on base 9 times. He was also very tough to strike out.

Taken as a whole, his offensive and defensive prowess easily top Banks.


Pete Rose did go to a lot of All-Star games, but I don't think they were all deserved. For instance, he went to the All-Star game in 1985. That season, he hit .264 with 2 HR and 8 SB. Not exactly all-star caliber numbers.

Offensively, I give the advantage to Ernie Banks. While Rose was better at getting on base, Banks had a lot more power.
Rose's career high in home runs was 16. During one 16-season stretch (1954-1969), Banks had at least 18 home runs in every season except 1965.

At their respective peaks, there is no doubt that Banks had the advantage. Banks won back-to-back MVP awards in 1958 and 1959. Here were his stats in those seasons:
1958: .313 average, 47 HR, 129 RBI, .614 Slugging
1959: .304 average, 45 HR, 143 RBI, .596 Slugging
Rose never came close to that kind of single season production.

Banks was pretty good fielder in his own right. He won a gold glove at SS in 1960. He was good defensively at both SS and 1B.

Here are their 162 game averages:

Banks: .274 average, 84 runs, 33 HR, 105 RBI, 3 SB, .830 OPS

Rose: .303 average, 98 runs, 7 HR, 60 RBI, 9 SB, .784 OPS

Also, for what it's worth, Banks' *OPS+ is 122 while Rose's is 118.


No one would ever argue that Rose was a power hitter, and come on...Rose was a leadoff hitter for most of his career. Would you pick on Rickey Henderson for not having as many RBI as Mark McGwire?

You conveniently left off stats like HITS and OBP. Is that because Rose averaged nealry 30 MORE hits and had 45 MORE points of OBP in 162 games? Probably.

Despite playing 7 FEWER seasons, Banks had 93 MORE STRIKEOUTS than Rose. UNPRODUCTIVE OUTS.

Rose was also a lifetime .321 hitter in the post-season. The guy was ridiculous when it counted.

Banks and Rose were very different types of players each with their strengths, but in terms of overall athletic ability Rose takes it easily.

As for D, Banks was indeed a "pretty good fielder" but you can't seriously stack that up against a guy who filled nearly every spot on the field.

Rose had only 213 career errors...IN 3,528 GAMES!
Banks had 261 errors in 2,476 games.

Some of that is due to playing short, I'll grant you...but 50 MORE ERRORS in 1,000 FEWER GAMES? Defensively, it's no contest. And Rose was STILL playing D at age 45- no DH.

So aside from being the Hit King, Rose was ageless in the field. Crazy.


Rose had fewer errors, but shortstops generally have many more errors than outfielders. Let's compare them at the positions the both played for at least 50 games.

3B:
Banks: .968 FLD%, 2.62 RFg
Rose: .961 FLD%, 2.44 RFg

1B:
Banks: .994 FLD%, 10.18 RFg
Rose: .994 FLD%, 9.10 RFg

"Rose was also a lifetime .321 hitter in the post-season. The guy was ridiculous when it counted."
However, in the World Series, Rose was a career .269 hitter with an OPS of .725.

Banks could've played other positions as well as Rose, but a good SS is hard to find.

The reason I compared power stats is because I believe a great power hitter is harder to find than a great lead-off hitter. Also, I think Banks is better at what he does than Rose is at what he does.
Rose was not a very good base stealer for a lead-off man. He never stole more than 20 bases and his career stole base percentage was just 57%. You'd expect more from a lead-off man.

What it comes down to is a matter of priorities. Do you want the power hitting shortstop, or do you want the lead-off man who can play many positions?
I take Banks because what he offers is more valuable and harder to find.

Both are great, but Banks is better


"However, in the World Series, Rose was a career .269 hitter with an OPS of .725"

Yeah...the WS. Where you face the BEST team from the other league.

By the way, that .269 is only 5 points lower than Banks' CAREER average, so...yeah.

"Also, I think Banks is better at what he does than Rose is at what he does."

Uh...what? Rose had more hits than anyone. Ever. How could Banks be better at what he did than Rose was at hitting?

"Do you want the power hitting shortstop..."

Banks played MORE games at 1B than SS. Some ranking sites don't even put him at short. He didn't hit for avg and didn't steal. I'll give you the power category, but that alone doesn't come close to overtaking Rose.

Rose-

-MORE seasons
-MORE games
-FEWER errors
-MORE positions
-FEWER Ks
-FEWER GIDP
-BETTER avg
-MORE hits
-MORE all-stars (made it 70.8% of the time compared to Banks' 57.9%)

There's just no doubt that Rose played an as high or higher caliber of D at more positions for a longer period of time. He WAS the BETTER of the 2 away from the plate.

Power aside- at the plate Rose was the superior hitter. Hence the whole HIT KING thing.

Rose- better overall ATHLETE.

Comments (24) Add A Comment

August 29, 2008  03:26 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

This should be good.

August 29, 2008  03:34 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Rose was amazing..Your top four is solid but I take Rose.

August 29, 2008  04:05 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Ouch! Gonna be hard to counter Porkins' first argument.

August 29, 2008  04:22 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

OOOOoooooh, this is gonna be good.

August 29, 2008  04:28 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

I couldn't agree more with Porkins. Banks was amazing for a six year stretch but was basically an average player after those years.

August 29, 2008  04:32 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Is Robert having an orgasm?

August 29, 2008  04:43 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Porkins nailed it. Rose is the more complete player all around defensively and offensively. Sure Banks had more power, but Rose was rarely going for the long ball. He was always about the hits and hustling the bases.

August 29, 2008  04:46 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Oso! We hardly knew ye!!

August 29, 2008  04:52 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Banks OBP was .career 330. He struck out over 1200 times over a 19 year career
Rose career OBP was .375 and his career strike outs were less than 1150 over 23 years.

If i'm coaching, I want the guy who gets on base 37.5% of the time and strikes out about 55 times a year as opposed to the guy that gets on base 33% of the time and strikes out close to 70 times a season

Also, is bringing up awards to stack up against Pete Rose a really good idea ?

August 29, 2008  04:52 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Yes, Ghost. Yes I am. But not over this TD.

August 29, 2008  05:06 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

If i'm coaching, I want the guy who gets on base 37.5% of the time and strikes out about 55 times a year as opposed to the guy that gets on base 33% of the time and strikes out close to 70 times a season

Mr. Wiz's helper | 08/29/08, 04:52 PM

I agree with your thinking about OBP but completely disagree about strikeouts. Are strikeouts really more detrimental to a team then hitting into double plays? After all, a strikeout is only one out while GIDP causes a team two outs. Also, hitters that rarely strike out tend to be free swingers that don't know how to work a count and rarely get on base. Just look at the current league leaders in contract: Juan Pierre and Yuniesky Betancourt. Both players seldom strike out but are very unproductive hitters because they are never on base.

August 29, 2008  05:08 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Is Robert having an orgasm?

Ghost. | 08/29/08, 04:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I thought he was snapping into a Slim Jim...OOOOoooooh Yeah!!

August 29, 2008  05:42 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Both players seldom strike out but are very unproductive hitters because they are never on base.

TradeAngelos | 08/29/08, 05:06 PM

True, but Rose's OBP coupled WITH the low strikeout rate is the key here.

And for the record, Rose had 247 GIDP in 3,528 games, or one every 14.3 games. Banks had 229 GIDP in 2,476 games, or one every 10.8 games. So Rose was MUCH less likely to initiate the double play.

That covers all the angles.

August 29, 2008  06:12 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

I thought he was snapping into a Slim Jim...OOOOoooooh Yeah!!

nemie_rock | 08/29/08, 05:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment


Lol! Nice.

August 29, 2008  06:13 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Punch, counter punch, punch...nice TD. In the end, decision goes -------->

August 29, 2008  06:18 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

This is a tough call. Arguments are good, but these players had totally different roles. Rose bat leadoff because he could get on, but didn't steal many bases. Banks was the power guy that is supposed to hit people home. Arguments are slightly better to the right, but that could change.

August 29, 2008  07:37 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Final thoughts...Great TD with great arguments. Slight advantage to the right. Vote right.

August 29, 2008  08:01 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

"The reason I compared power stats is because I believe a great power hitter is harder to find than a great lead-off hitter."

Is that why more players have been hitting the milestone of 40 homeruns than they have reached the milestone of 200 hits? Or that there are much more players reaching 500 homeruns now then there are reaching 3000 hits?

Since 2000 there has been a total of 40 players that hit 40 or more homeruns, for a combined total of 80 times.

Since 2000 there has been a total of 30 players that got 200 or more hits, for a combined total of 51 times.

Of the 27 players to get 3000 hits, only Ripken, Gwynn, Biggio and Palmeiro played after 2000 (Ichiro also has 3000 hits)

Of the 24 players to get 500 homeruns Thome, Arod, Griffey, Manny, Frank Thomas are all active NOW. Palmeiro, Sosa, Bonds and McGwire also played since 2000.

So in the MLB right now it is much easier to find a power hitter than it is to find a good leadoff hitter.

August 29, 2008  08:06 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Baseball today isn't the same as it was when Banks and Rose played. Back then, hitting 40 HR in a season actually meant something.

 
August 29, 2008  08:23 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Baseball today isn't the same as it was when Banks and Rose played. Back then, hitting 40 HR in a season actually meant something.
The Pitt Panther loves RUBIO! | 08/29/08, 08:06 PM

Are you sure you want to make that claim there Pitt Panther? Do you remember who played in the time of Ernie Banks? between 1953-1971 in case you didnt know.

There was 32 players to hit 40 homeruns during that time frame, for a combined total of 69 times. Care to wonder who some of these guys might be?

Well Banks is 1 of the 9 players in the 500 homerun club to have a 40 homerun season during this time. The other 8? Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Frank Robinson, Harmon Killebrew, Reggie Jackson, Mickey Mantle, Willie McCover and Eddie Matthews.

Some other notable players of this era to hit 40 homeruns in a season, Duke Snider, Carl Yasztremski, Willie Stargell, Johnny Bench and Orlando Cepeda. Oh yea there was also a guy named Roger Maris who happened to hit 61 homeruns during that time frame.

So yea I dont think hitting 40 homeruns when Banks played was really as special as you make it out to be.

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Leaderboard

  Fan W L T Win %
1 YODA 46 3 2 92.2%
2 Porkins: You're all my dupes 155 14 1 91.5%
3 Detroit... 132 9 8 91.3%
4 The Ram 149 17 4 88.8%
5 Baun-de... 61 7 2 88.6%
6 FoosBal... 82 12 2 86.5%
7 Hyped78 128 19 5 85.9%
8 PhillyE... 75 11 4 85.6%
9 Dookie: Here We Go Steelers 119 19 8 84.2%
10 [The] Coach 103 18 5 83.7%

Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    T.O. frustrated with Cowboys offense
    Views
    14121
    Comments
    1593
  2. 2
    Would Red Sox dare to shop Big Papi?
    Views
    11438
    Comments
    1276
  3. 3
    Notre Dame nixes students' recruiting plot
    Views
    8774
    Comments
    86
  4. 4
    Agent: Ocho Cinco's future in owner's hands
    Views
    7504
    Comments
    77
  5. 5
    Michigan, Ohio State sparring for recruits
    Views
    7381
    Comments
    68

Most Active Users

Comments + Blog Posts + Throwdowns

  1. 1
    PimpyLooka
  2. 2
    bcoltrinari
  3. 3
    Epoch1
  4. 4
    Dyhard is Jimmie Johnson
  5. 5
    Three Tracks In Dirt

Message Boards

  1. NCAAF > General NCAAF

    The love for USC had died
    Views
    401
    Replies
    69

  2. NCAAF > General NCAAF

    The most anticipated game.
    Views
    81
    Replies
    7

  3. NCAAF > General NCAAF

    Gameday Predictions: Texas…
    Views
    59
    Replies
    3

Blogs

SI.com

Swimsuit

Anne VAnne V
Brooklyn DeckerBrooklyn Decker

SI Photos

Baseball's $100 Million MenBaseball's $100 Million Men
Mavs DancersMavs Dancers