Rose. Nobody played the game like 14 did.

 

 

No they did not. There's stats they people can throw out there all day long, and everyone is intitled to their opinion. In my opinion, there has never been a leader like Pete Rose was, and I don't believe there's ever been a stat for intangibles, but he sure brought alot to the table. In Basketball we always hear the saying "he makes the players around him better". You don't hear that to much in Baseball, but I believe Pete actually did. The Phillies were in the middle of the greatest era in the history of the franchise when Rose came on board. They had won the National League East three years running 1976-1978) two of which were won with 101 win seasons. Although they missed the postseason in his first year with the team, they earned three division titles (one in the first half of the strike shortened 1981 season), two World Series appearances and one World Series title (1980) The Phillies were very good before Pete got there, but they had not been to a WS since 1950. I believe most of the Phillies players back then will tell ya today, that Pete was the final piece to their puzzle. The way he played, had to make his Teammates play as hard as they could. It didn't matter where you put him, 2b, LF, 3b, or 1st, he played that postion as hard as anyone ever did. Love him, or hate him, he was IMO the leader of the Big Red Machine, and the best player in Reds history.

Hardly ... he hit only .255 in his last four seasons. With any other team, he wouldn't have been in the lineup.

I disagree, and so do most of the voters in our poll.:thumb:

I voted Frank Robinson but I will also say that a Pete Rose vote is certainly legit. Either one of those two imo would be a good choice as the best ever along with John Bench.

 

As for favorite, my fav was always Tony Perez (pure clutch) followed by Rose and Bench.

Rose. Nobody played the game like 14 did.

 

:thumb: I agree here, Charlie Hustle "played" the game like it is meant to be played.

Bench redefined the position, he played D like he was on offense. Disrupted the other teams running game and was an incredible caller of a game. In the end while I did give it some long thought, I kept coming back to Bench. JB is probably the starting catcher on the All-Time MLB Team.

 

:thumb::thumb: Bench imo is by far the best catcher to ever play the game.

Johnny Bench was definitely the best all around player.

 

Define All-Around. I don't think that Bench's power and defensive prowess are better than what Morgan brought to the field.

Hard to pick. Found an amazing stat though.

Eddie Roush had only 170 strikeouts in 5384 ABs! Wow

 

He's also one of the greatest hitters in the history of the game. 1919 World Series Champ, but hardly anyone has ever heard of him.

 

http://www.thedeadballera.com/Obits/Roush.Edd.Obit.html

Edited August 6, 200818 yr by mexitucky

Can't see how Rose is leading this besides blind fandom.

Defensively he cannot hold a glove next to Bench nor Morgan.

He just hit a bunch of singles and doubles and hustled.

Can't see how Rose is leading this besides blind fandom.

Defensively he cannot hold a glove next to Bench nor Morgan.

He just hit a bunch of singles and doubles and hustled.

 

 

Blind fandom? I think it's more like speaking the truth. This isn't about what he did off the field as a player, or as a Manager. This thread is about the best player on the field. He did so much more than just hit singles, and hustle. Read post #46 to get a better idea.

No they did not. There's stats they people can throw out there all day long, and everyone is intitled to their opinion. In my opinion, there has never been a leader like Pete Rose was, and I don't believe there's ever been a stat for intangibles, but he sure brought alot to the table. In Basketball we always hear the saying "he makes the players around him better". You don't hear that to much in Baseball, but I believe Pete actually did. The Phillies were in the middle of the greatest era in the history of the franchise when Rose came on board. They had won the National League East three years running 1976-1978) two of which were won with 101 win seasons. Although they missed the postseason in his first year with the team, they earned three division titles (one in the first half of the strike shortened 1981 season), two World Series appearances and one World Series title (1980) The Phillies were very good before Pete got there, but they had not been to a WS since 1950. I believe most of the Phillies players back then will tell ya today, that Pete was the final piece to their puzzle. The way he played, had to make his Teammates play as hard as they could. It didn't matter where you put him, 2b, LF, 3b, or 1st, he played that postion as hard as anyone ever did. Love him, or hate him, he was IMO the leader of the Big Red Machine, and the best player in Reds history.

 

I don't think anyone is denying the on field leadership Rose could bring. But to point out that he showed up at the Phillies and they won the World Series is a little simplistic. Where were they in '79? That was a combo of maturation of Schmidt and company and Pete brought the will to win and confidence needed to get over the hump. I don't think that makes him the best player on the team.

 

The Big Red Machine was the sum of ALL the parts and Rose was a huge piece of that. But he didn't win a lot of games or lead the team in the 60's to the post season. If you go by the notion of "arriving and post season success occurs" then Bench and Morgan may hold an even bigger place.

 

In his 3rd season Bench leads the Reds to the World Series and wins NL MVP. In his first season at Cincy Morgan helps the club get to the World Series. (Then helps them get to 2 more and wins 2 MVP's)

 

In Rose's 6th or 7th year he helps Cincy get there. If we look at things in that direction (Rose arrives with Phillies) I see an even stronger case for Bench and Morgan. :thumb:

Blind fandom? I think it's more like speaking the truth. This isn't about what he did off the field as a player, or as a Manager. This thread is about the best player on the field. He did so much more than just hit singles, and hustle. Read post #46 to get a better idea.

 

See Post #55 :thumb:

I don't think anyone is denying the on field leadership Rose could bring. But to point out that he showed up at the Phillies and they won the World Series is a little simplistic. Where were they in '79? That was a combo of maturation of Schmidt and company and Pete brought the will to win and confidence needed to get over the hump. I don't think that makes him the best player on the team.

 

The Big Red Machine was the sum of ALL the parts and Rose was a huge piece of that. But he didn't win a lot of games or lead the team in the 60's to the post season. If you go by the notion of "arriving and post season success occurs" then Bench and Morgan may hold an even bigger place.

 

In his 3rd season Bench leads the Reds to the World Series and wins NL MVP. In his first season at Cincy Morgan helps the club get to the World Series. (Then helps them get to 2 more and wins 2 MVP's)

 

In Rose's 6th or 7th year he helps Cincy get there. If we look at things in that direction (Rose arrives with Phillies) I see an even stronger case for Bench and Morgan. :thumb:

Exactly. Heck, the Phillies won three straight divisional titles before Rose got there, then came up empty in his first year there.

 

Rose walked into a great situation in Philly, which was already built around greats like Mike Schmidt and Steve Carlton and a cast of solid players.

Can't see how Rose is leading this besides blind fandom.

Defensively he cannot hold a glove next to Bench nor Morgan.

He just hit a bunch of singles and doubles and hustled.

 

Hits by Morgan - 2,517

Att./E's by Morgan - 6,967/244 as 2B only (.981%)

 

Hits by Bench - 2,048

Att./E's by Bench - 850/97 as catcher only (.990%)

Hits by Rose - 4256 (4,565 Morgan & Bench combined)

Att.'s/E's by Rose - 3,349/213 every position he played(.987%)

 

I'm not saying Rose is better than either but he did very well, defensively and if you feel his only contribution, was a "bunch of singles/doubles and hustling", then difficult at best to debate the question.

 

I don't think anyone is denying the on field leadership Rose could bring. But to point out that he showed up at the Phillies and they won the World Series is a little simplistic. Where were they in '79? That was a combo of maturation of Schmidt and company and Pete brought the will to win and confidence needed to get over the hump. I don't think that makes him the best player on the team.

 

The Big Red Machine was the sum of ALL the parts and Rose was a huge piece of that. But he didn't win a lot of games or lead the team in the 60's to the post season. If you go by the notion of "arriving and post season success occurs" then Bench and Morgan may hold an even bigger place.

 

In his 3rd season Bench leads the Reds to the World Series and wins NL MVP. In his first season at Cincy Morgan helps the club get to the World Series. (Then helps them get to 2 more and wins 2 MVP's)

 

In Rose's 6th or 7th year he helps Cincy get there. If we look at things in that direction (Rose arrives with Phillies) I see an even stronger case for Bench and Morgan. :thumb:

Schmidt has been on record saying that Rose was the difference in them. He's been one of his biggest proponents for admittance to the HOF. That should speak volumes on behalf of Pete. Personally, I think that we get caught up in the #'s alot, me included, but what Pete brought was immeasurable, IMO.

Hits by Morgan - 2,517

Att./E's by Morgan - 6,967/244 as 2B only (.981%)

 

Hits by Bench - 2,048

Att./E's by Bench - 850/97 as catcher only (.990%)

Hits by Rose - 4256 (4,565 Morgan & Bench combined)

Att.'s/E's by Rose - 3,349/213 every position he played(.987%)

 

I'm not saying Rose is better than either but he did very well, defensively and if you feel his only contribution, was a "bunch of singles/doubles and hustling", then difficult at best to debate the question.

 

Comparing fielding percentage of guys who play different positions means nothing ... and let's not get carried away, Rose's defensive value was nil compared that of Bench and Morgan.