On MLB network they asked who deserves to be in the hall more Rose or Bonds, as a poll question. A friend of mine and myself got into a arguement on not the above question, but of which was a better overall player. After not being able to just say Bonds was as equal or better player then Rose I decided to back up my prejudice. Here's what i ended up emailing him, thought the numbers were intresting any others may enjoy.
Hall of Fame is about the best all around player in comparison of Bonds and Rose and who should be in the hall of fame the numbers tell all. Yes Rose has lots of hits, but Bonds has almost double amount of walks. But again total overall player should be looked at here's some numbers to chew on. Using a level field of comparison of Career games played, since both players were only in the national league.
Pete Rose:Games: 3562Career batting avg: .303Hits: 4256Walks: 1733 (taken and intentional)Stolen Bases: 198FLD%: .973 Barry Bonds:Games: 2986Career batting Avg: .298Hits: 2935Walks: 3246 (taken and intentional)Stolen Bases: 514FLD%: .983
Looking at hits per game per player: (Slight advantage ROSE, only .03%)
Assuming that the walks could have been hits for each player if they were not walked if we convert a percentage of walks into hits based off the players career batting avg, we could add additional hits this way:
Rose: 1733 (career walks) ÷ .303 average = 525 additional hitsBonds: 3246 (career walks) ÷ .298 average = 967 additional hits
Rose: 525 assumed + 4256 actual hits = 4781 assumed hitsBond: 967 assumed + 2935 actual hits = 3902 assumed hits
Rose: 4781 hits ÷ 3562 (games played) = 1.34 hits per game Bonds: 3902 hits ÷ 2986 (games played) = 1.31 hits per game
Basically equal hitters
Running Game: (Advantage Bonds)
Getting a hit is great, but how productive once you reach the bases.
Stolen Bases: Rose: 198 ÷ 3265 (games played) = 0.06 Stolen bases per game (for every 16.5 games one base was stolen)Bonds: 514 ÷ 2986 (games played) = 0.17 Stolen bases per game (for every 5.75 games one base was stolen)
Total Bases: (this is a count of how many base the player reached, a walk would = 1 base, a home run = 4, etc.)Rose: 4256Bonds: 5976
Runs Scored: (Individual runs, not to be confused with RBI, runs batted in)Rose: 2165 runs ÷ 3265 games played = 0.66 runs scored per game Bonds: 2227 runs ÷ 2986 games played = 0.75 runs scored per game (Bonds score 75% of the time he got on base)
Fielding: Advantage Bonds
As previously mentioned neither player played in the American league, so they had to field during games played, argument can be had for which is a tougher position outfield or infield, but that's not used here.
Rose Career Fielding percentage: 0.973%Bonds career fielding percentage: 0.983%
Although .10% seems small in fielding percentage its massive.
Overall you look for a five tool player, (hits, power, base running, throwing, fielding).
Since throwing is a hard statistic to measure who was better although you could argue an outfielder's arm has to be stronger than an infielder, I digress, and excluded this statistic.
Power likewise would not be an easy comparison due to the steroids issue, but its fair to say that Bonds had 142 home runs becoming a Giant, and a total of 762, compared to Rose having only a career total of 160 home runs. So even discounting the power part of a five tool player and striking all of Bond's SF home runs, he would have only been 18 behind Rose after his sixth year. Rose only had 59 home runs after his sixth year, compared to Bond's 142. Steroids can't help you hit a ball, but it may make you hit it farther, but home runs aren't the discussion.
This leaves hitting, base running, and fielding of which two of the three Bonds has the advantage, and the only one that Rose has a very slight advantage on. In conclusion, when looking at who deserves to be in the Hall of Fame more, both deserve to be in the Hall, public sediment has soften for Rose over the years, but not as much for Bonds. What Pete Rose did at the time to get his lifetime ban was illegal at the time. Although Bonds steroid use, intentional or not, at the time was not against baseball rules. Steroids were also no different then the coke heads and player performance enhanced on amphetamines in the 70's and 80's when Rose played. Even so you have to be given the opportunity to hit a ball if your on roids, Barry Bonds with a majority of his walks coming during the steroid era, he maybe only received 1-2 pitches to swing at during a game of 3+ at bats per game. His ability and hand eye coordination to be able to connect on one of those 1-2 pitches seen a night shows what an amazing hitter he was.
Pete Rose was not feared by opposing pitchers and managers.Barry Bonds was.End of discussion!
<But do carry on, I don't seriously mean "end thread", I just meant that I've entered my opinion!>
Some of your numbers are off there. Rose had 5752 total bases, not 4256. And the hits per game difference is .30 hits per game in Rose's favor, not .03%.
Bonds had over 200 more total bases than Rose, with over 3000 less plate appearances. That alone is case closed as far as I'm concerned. Bonds' OPS blows Rose's out of the water. Absolutely crushes him in each of OBP and SLG. Rose has a .005 advantage in AVG..... whoopadeedoo. If Bonds wanted to, he could have done what Rose did, hit a bunch of singles and break the hit record. He could have done that no problem. Instead, Bonds went the route of a way better and more productive player, hitting for power and consistently making the pitchers poop their pants. Rose was more of a nuisance than a threat.
Better hitter - Bonds
Better fielder - Bonds
Better baserunner - Bonds
Winner - Bonds in a landslide-To argue otherwise is just absurd.
By the way-Have you ever seen the video of when Pete Rose wiped out the (future) annoying A's homer-- Ray Fosse?
(All star Game, 1970.)
I never wish injury on a player, but after listening to Fosse hate on the Giants for YEARS -- I can't say that I am sad that it was Fosse, rather than a likable future announcer that Rose punked in the AS game. I don't applaud the fact that it also ended Fosse's baseball playing career though.That's very unfortunate, and I do think it was super lame of Rose to do that to a player in an exhibition game. He just happened to inadvertently choose a guy to do it to-- that ended up being a Giants hating, A's homer.
Here is Rose being a d*ck about it, while stuttering fanboyz kiss his a** ss:
At the end of video He even goes so far as to think it's funny to say-- that after he asked him how he was-- that he "he spit on him and left".
I don't find that to be funny.In fact, it's the epitome of the expression "Adding insult to injury".
Hard to like Rose, when seeing him be an a**ssclown like that.You can really imagine just how much Fosse hates him!Rose basically ended his career, and in that video linked above, he also even says he put Ray Fosse on the map.(By injuring him)
That's probably an even worse insult.
Rose is a jerk. But he sure could play baseball.
.03 would be the correct stat
Rose: 4781 hits ÷ 3562 (games played) = 1.34 hits per game Bonds: 3902 hits ÷ 2986 (games played) = 1.31 hits per game
I was incorrec on total bases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pete Rose:Games: 3562Career batting avg: .303Hits: 4256Walks: 1733 (taken and intentional)Stolen Bases: 198FLD%: .973
Barry Bonds:Games: 2986Career batting Avg: .298Hits: 2935Walks: 3246 (taken and intentional)Stolen Bases: 514FLD%: .983
Looking at hits per game per player: (Slight advantage ROSE, only .03%)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You posted the stats then said the above. It was incorrect. Hits per game favors Rose about .30, not .03. You later went on with a theoretical stat scenario (that you mentioned again) that the .03 would have applied to, but that was wrong too. It would be .03 hits per game, not .03 percent. It's no big deal, but yes you were wrong.
You're argument is spot on correct though.
Guess how many more batting titles Rose has than Barry?
One. (Rose 3, Barry 2).
Here's a quick tidbit about how good a hitter Barry was.
In 2002 he hit .370 and won the batting title. He had 403 BA and 198 walks. He was only 12 hits shy of hitting 400 that year. He had 149 hits and only needed 161 to hit .400. A combination of a couple more walks and a handful of hits, and he's there.
In 2004, when he was 232 times, he hit .362 and only had 373 ABs. He was only 14 hits shy of hitting .400. How many hits did he need to reach .400? 149.
That's how close he was TWICE to reaching Teddy Ballgame. Yet it doesn't get talked about because he wasn't racking up 200 hits/year due to his insane walk numbers.
the huge stat is the walks
rose got pitches to hit....bonds had to be much more selective
rose played on the big red machine...bonds had little to no protection when he was a giant
"the huge stat is the walks
rose got pitches to hit....bonds had to be much more selective"
100% agree, the amount of pitches seen and ability to have the numbers he had is monsterous!
PEDs or not. Bonds had the greatest 3-year period (01,02,03) in the history of the game! Before 2000, had any of you seen an intentional walk with 1st base not open? Hel!, he was walked once with the bases juiced (pun intended).
Guys like Rose and Aaron would be a better comparison because of their consistent greatness and longevity.
Rose played the way he played, all out. Watched him play for a lot of years, he earned your respect with his style. Very clutch, hard nosed player always. A bit like a ty cobb but not as mean.
Loved watchng Rose play. Fosse like in the video needed to clear out, do a swipe tag whatever. Cause once he blocked Rose from the plate it was on, Fosse found out. Exhibition or not Rose played one way.
Back in those days the All Star Game did'nt carry a home field advantage in the WS either. Did'nt matter to Rose. The All Star game was a show of pride and the players took it very seriously. These days they need the homefield adv. to have something to play for.
"Use of steroids by MLB players in the 90's were most certainly a violation of the rules of the game. By that time MLB had banned the unprescribed use of any controlled substance as defined by the US Government. Anabolic steroid use became a violation of MLB rules the moment they were declared by the Feds to be a Schedule III controlled substance."
What good is a rule if you are unwilling to actually enforce it. MLB took a blind eye to Steroids/PEDs etc. in the 80s, 90s and early 2000s. Nobody was complaining when Sammy and Mark were hitting 70 bombs in 98, not being tested and making the MLB millions and bringing fans back from the strike 4 years earlier.
Sorry...I couldn't take anyone who believes Rose is anywhere near the same player as Bonds seriously.
If you look at Bonds' performance through 1997 (since 1998 is when he started doing whatever it was he was doing, PEDs-wise), you see a player, at age 32, who had won 3 MVPs, 7 Gold Gloves, and 7 Silver Slugger awards over 12 MLB seasons. He was clearly the dominant player of the 90's, even before the PEDs issue came up.
During this period, he AVERAGED 146 hits and 102 walks, against only 80 strikeouts, to go with 31 HR, 30 doubles, 104 runs, and 91 RBI. His slash line for this period was .288/.408/.551.
That's a 12 year OPS of .959....and he was only 26 HR away from becoming a 400/400 player.
While those numbers and accomplishments probably wouldn't have gotten Bonds in on a first ballot vote, there's no doubt in my mind he would have eventually gone into the Hall had he retired following the 1997 season, at age 32.
Rose's first 12 years, which ended at age 34? 2,337 hits, with a slash line of .309/.376/.432. That's a very good, but relatively punchless, line. And Rose only had 97 SBs during that period, more than 300 less than Bonds. Rose did win a ROY award, as well as 1 MVP and 2 Gold Gloves, but there's no question as to the fact Bonds was the far superior player in every way other than his career hits total.
But Pete has his own reality show.....