MLB 09

[Guest Jules]

but the difference with Pete Rose was determination. "You're not going to beat me. In the end, I will win," was pretty much his mindset.

This "mindset", whether real or not, has little to do with wins or losses. Especially at the professional level. Heart, passion, "the will to win", etc. etc. For the most part this is all bull shit.

[Sir Stewart]

Sox cut Lugo.

 

 

Adios, you wifebeating fuck-up.

[The High Heat]

This "mindset", whether real or not, has little to do with wins or losses. Especially at the professional level. Heart, passion, "the will to win", etc. etc. For the most part this is all bull shit.

 

What do you think Yogi meant when he said, "90% of the game is half-mental?"

 

I never said anything about heart and passion. You did.

 

Athletes like Rose, Jordan, Magic, Bird, Tiger Woods, Bob Gibson, Kirk Gibson, Joe Montana, Ali, etc. did not rise to the top of their profession merely because their physical ability took them there. Their whole being - everyhting they did revolved around a near obsession to be the absolute best at what they do. Everything they did was focused to an end, the end being a victor and a champion. Montana did not out-class the opposition with his arm and legs only. Foreman should have killed Ali, but he ended up looking a damn fool because Ali out-witted him. Drew Bledsoe had the same team Tom Brady had, yet Brady proved to be a winner, despite Bledsoe being "a superior athlete." Dave Winfield compiled a ton of impressive stats, but I wouldn't call him a champion. The guy got to choose his sport, he was that great athletically. Jackie Robinson was a true multi-sport athlete, but he was a winner ~ in so many ways. Winfield did not have a mental edge on anybody. I really like Dave Winfield, but he was just a jock. The guys with the mental edge not only take advantage of errors and mistakes, they anticipate mistakes by their opponets, often forcing them. An athlete performs within his physical ability. A winner, a competitor, exceeds it, gaining every edge he can, relentlessly persuing his crown. There are many athletes who could be so much more successful if they were more prepared mentally. Some don't know they take their game to another level, some don't care and some are just satisfied being what they are, just doing their part. Joe Morgan said in his book that his former team mate Jimmy Wynn had Willie Mays abilty and would have become one the best players ever if he would taken being the best seriously. It took Morgan 30 years to understand that not every athlete cares about being the best, a champion, an all star, a hall-of-famer. That's why super-talented Wynn had a good, short career and little Joe went to a HOFer and quite possibly the best second baseman ever. In his MIND, he decided to achieve at the highest level. The body does not accomplish ultimate success by itself. The mind pushes it. Lots of gifted jocks never got past A-ball, and lots one or two tool players have rings and trophys. The difference is the mind and the choice to work and persue, to be relentess in that pursuit or not.

 

A mental advantage can be achieved in any profession or endeavor. A detective, a journalist, a businessman, a politicain, etc. Pick a field, the people at the top aren't there because of luck and happenstance. There is no equality. Whoever chases it hardest gets to the top. Take Jeff Tweedy. He was let into Uncle Tupelo because he had an amp and he was always around pestering the other guys to play. He was not let in because of talent at that time. He was persistant. Little did the Farrars know just how ambitious Tweedy was. His whole mind was hell-bent on one thing: Rock Star. He wasn't supposed to have a chance, but now where is he? He became a Rock Star, not the way he enviosioned, but yet there he is, top-five on Billboard. His MIND pushed his talent.

 

The people who make it to the pinnacle get there being deciding in their mind to pursue it relentlessly.

 

...it's alot like your endless pursuit of constant attention on this board, Jules.

 

We were having a pointed discussion on here, which many of us contributed with intellect and argument to a point, yet you just jump in and say "that's bull shit" with no eloboration. If you want to participate, then actually make a pointed statement of intellect and dignity. You seem like a smart fella, but if you don't care to particiapte in this discussion by sharing your intellect in an adult fashion, then don't bother interrupting with your empty statements which only serve the singular purpose of putting yourself over.

[bobbob1313]

I think Rose certainly didn't have the natural gifts a guy like Joe Morgan had, and I do think he had to put more effort in to get to the level he did.

 

But the Reds weren't great because of him; he was a complimentary player. They did have the greatest second baseman of all time, after all. And when he went to Philly, he played with the greatest third baseman in the history of the game.

 

He was alwys obviously trying harder than anyone, and that's admirable, but I think that might cause some to overstate his abilities. He was a good, not great, player who put everything he had into every play.

 

Though it's certainly possible rose might actually be underrated because of the whole hustle thing. He was a very good top of the order hitter, and his abilities might be understated because people might make the argument I did earlier.

 

His career is very interesting.

[John Smith]

I think Rose certainly didn't have the natural gifts a guy like Joe Morgan had, and I do think he had to put more effort in to get to the level he did.

 

But the Reds weren't great because of him; he was a complimentary player. They did have the greatest second baseman of all time, after all. And when he went to Philly, he played with the greatest third baseman in the history of the game.

 

He was alwys obviously trying harder than anyone, and that's admirable, but I think that might cause some to overstate his abilities. He was a good, not great, player who put everything he had into every play.

 

Though it's certainly possible rose might actually be underrated because of the whole hustle thing. He was a very good top of the order hitter, and his abilities might be understated because people might make the argument I did earlier.

 

His career is very interesting.

 

Within his own team Rose did not have the speed of a Morgan or Concepcion but was as good a base runner as anyone on the team. His throwing arm could not match Geronimo’s nor was his range in the outfield, but he had a decent arm and good range. His power was not home run power like Foster or Bench, but he had Double power and was able to hit the occasional homer. In the long run he was able to play all three outfield positions at an all-star level as well as third and first. He started at second and I believe he played short too. Each position requires a slightly different set of skills and he had those skills in sufficient quantity to be an all star time and time again. Probably at each skill except for hitting he was not the best on his team, let alone the league, but he possessed every skill in sufficient quantity that I still would consider him a great athlete within the confines of his sport and time. I can't believe I'm defending Pete Rose because I think the guy is an incredible prick.

 

Side note…MLB network was replaying old all-star games this weekend and I happened to tune in while 1971 was playing and Reggie was stepping to the plate. I looked at my son and told him to watch this hit, then Reggie blasted the light tower. It really was a thing of beauty.

[bobbob1313]

All star game selections suck.

[Lammycat]

What's your preferred way? I like the voting (fans, players, managers all have a say) but don't like the pity (every team needs to be represented) selections.

[bobbob1313]

What's your preferred way? I like the voting (fans, players, managers all have a say) but don't like the pity (every team needs to be represented) selections.

 

i was simply referring to John smith's points that rose was an all star at so many positions, and that that is an indication of anything other than that he was extremely popular.

 

I'm fine with picking it how it is, but I hate when people turn around and say 'so and so was a great player. Look how many all star games he made.'

 

For the most part, all star games are based on popularity and reputation. I think the baseball all star game is by far the best of the major sports (most watchable), but i don't like it being used as an argument for a player's greatness. Yes, there is some merit to it (players are rarely picked when they are absolutely undeserving), but there are so many better ways to judge a player that it should never even come up.

[bobbob1313]

Double post!!!!!!!

[Lammycat]

i was simply referring to John smith's points that rose was an all star at so many positions, and that that is an indication of anything other than that he was extremely popular.

 

I'm fine with picking it how it is, but I hate when people turn around and say 'so and so was a great player. Look how many all star games he made.'

 

For the most part, all star games are based on popularity and reputation. I think the baseball all star game is by far the best of the major sports (most watchable), but i don't like it being used as an argument for a player's greatness. Yes, there is some merit to it (players are rarely picked when they are absolutely undeserving), but there are so many better ways to judge a player that it should never even come up.

 

Yeah, I agree with this. Every year there will be guys left off that probably should be on and guys that are on that probably are less deserving than another guy who was left off. There's that human element about the process that is in tune with the sport, in general, being subject to human error that agrees with me, though.

[bobbob1313]

My gripe is more with how people react to and interpret all star selections. It's an exhibition that features most of the well known players in te game and some great younger ones.

 

It's become a lot better at identifying greatness regardless of reputation and for recognizing a great year, which is more intune with how I feel It should be, but for a longtime it was strictly a popularity contest. Fans stuffed the ballots and one year the entire starting lineup was cincy players, though not every player deserved it. This should be recognized, and all star games shouldn't really come up in discussing a plauer's abilities.

[MattZ]

Sign me up for the "very good" and "complimentary" guy who will get me over 4200 hits in 24 years. And I'll take 17 all-star games at different positions, too. Even if the selection process isn't perfect.

[John Smith]

i was simply referring to John smith's points that rose was an all star at so many positions, and that that is an indication of anything other than that he was extremely popular.

 

I'm fine with picking it how it is, but I hate when people turn around and say 'so and so was a great player. Look how many all star games he made.'

 

For the most part, all star games are based on popularity and reputation. I think the baseball all star game is by far the best of the major sports (most watchable), but i don't like it being used as an argument for a player's greatness. Yes, there is some merit to it (players are rarely picked when they are absolutely undeserving), but there are so many better ways to judge a player that it should never even come up.

 

 

I don't disagree that popularity plays into the voting and have always felt that there are a number of players who make it based on past reputations and that some teams do encourage fans to stuff the ballot box etc... But generally popular players are also good players. Not too many "Don Mossi's" are very popular because they are not very good. Then there are the coaches decisions on who to add, tha is where the overlooked deserving players should get their shots.

 

Unfortunately the league has their at least one member per team rule and in some years a team may have zero all star calibur players, but they still get the nod while others get squeezed out because of either the minimums, or positions being overloaded, or because an undeserving player is added to the team. Regardless it is the system that is in place and I don't see it changing any time soon.

 

Like I said before I can't believe I'm defending Rose, but there is no way anyone can make an argument that between 1965 and 1982 he didn't deserve to be on at least 13 - 14 all star teams? The guy was and still is a dick of major proportions, but he could play.

[bobbob1313]

You can make an argument for anything. Believe me.

 

I'm not necessarily saying rose should or shouldn't have been an all star however many times he was, I'm just saying that in judging his value as a player the fact that he made so many all star games at so many different positions doesn't really matter.

 

He was a good player who's career is great because he played a very long time (though it's clear he was probably hurting his team more than helping in 6 of his last 7 seasons). He was very versatile because he could play 5 different positions (I'm not going to count cf. He did play there, but only 2.5% or so of his total innings in the field were there) adequately, he walked a lot, rarely struck out, and hit for a very good average. He was a pretty crap basestealer (career 57% rate), but had a reputation as a good baserunner, so I'll give him that benefit.

 

I'm not discounting him as a player. I just hate using all star games as a reason why he was a very good player.

 

I stand by my statement that he is both underrated and overrated.

[Sir Stewart]

Oh wow.

[bobbob1313]

Ok.

[Sir Stewart]

I'm totally with you that the greatness of a player should not be argued using All-Star game selections.

[bobbob1313]

It is settled, then.

 

Did you say 'wow' because you agreed with something I said?

[Sir Stewart]

It was your finale. Check my sig. You gotta admit, that's some sigworthy stuff right there.

[bobbob1313]

I can't see sigs because I'm using the mobile theme.

 

I swear, it made sense to me!

[rareair]

It was your finale. Check my sig. You gotta admit, that's some sigworthy stuff right there.

 

i have been pondering the statement since posted. i am even compiling my top 5 most overrated (and simultaneously) underrated players in mlb history.

[Sir Stewart]

I can't see sigs because I'm using the mobile theme.

You kids today.

[bobbob1313]

That sounds like fun, actually. Off the top of my head and without really looking at stats or anything, and without much care given to the order:

 

5. Jim Rice- A really really good, Albert belle type of power hitter who, like Belle, dominated for a short time frame and then dissapeared. Probably shouldn't be a hall of famer (ergo, overrated), but his selection isn't as terrible as his detractors might make it seem (ergo, underrated).

4. Bert blyleven- pretty much the exact opposite of Rice: should be in the Hall of Fame (more so than rice), but he was not nearly as good as many sabermetrics types say in hindsight.

3. Curt Schilling- overrated: bloody sock. Underrated: 9.58 bb/k ratio in 2002 second best for a season in the modern era, led the nl in bb/k ratio four years in a row.

2. Pete rose- both sides look at the same thing(Charlie hustle) and come to widely different conclusions that are both kind of pointless. He had a great career, and the fact that he hustled neither adds nor detract from this, realy. Though the side that is inclined to say he is overrated do so only as a reaction to those who say his contributions didn't show

up in the stat line. Not sure if this makes sense, but probably not.

1. I don't know. I'm tired of typing with my thumbs. Maybe Mark McGwire, or someoen who was undoubtedly a great player but who's reputation has been so tarnished that people gloss over him. Both his flaws and his greatness are overlooked as both sides of the argument fight to try and control his legacy(?)

[MattZ]

bobbob, is Rose a first ballot HOFer if you had a vote and he wasn't banned from the game?

[John Smith]

You can make an argument for anything. Believe me.

 

I'm not necessarily saying rose should or shouldn't have been an all star however many times he was, I'm just saying that in judging his value as a player the fact that he made so many all star games at so many different positions doesn't really matter.

 

He was a good player who's career is great because he played a very long time (though it's clear he was probably hurting his team more than helping in 6 of his last 7 seasons). He was very versatile because he could play 5 different positions (I'm not going to count cf. He did play there, but only 2.5% or so of his total innings in the field were there) adequately, he walked a lot, rarely struck out, and hit for a very good average. He was a pretty crap basestealer (career 57% rate), but had a reputation as a good baserunner, so I'll give him that benefit.

 

I'm not discounting him as a player. I just hate using all star games as a reason why he was a very good player.

 

I stand by my statement that he is both underrated and overrated.

 

I was simply using the multi position all-star appearances as support for my original answer to the notion that Rose was not a great athlete. He was a great athlete and that allowed him to perform at a high level at multiple positions. Generally though a not so great player my make one or two all star games, not 17. I will stand by my position that popular players tend to be good players. They may not be the best every year, but year in and year out when you make multiple all star teams it is usually not for no reason. Regardless I don’t disagree that some of Rose stats were due to longevity, I used similar arguments years ago just as in the early 1970’s the same arguments were used when comparing Aaron to Ruth. Being a great athlete allowed him to compete for 24 years just as being a great athlete allowed Aaron to compete for so long.

 

Oh well, my last word on the subject is f*&k Pete Rose.