Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Paul Waner vs. Pete Rose (peak)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Paul Waner vs. Pete Rose (peak)

    Obviously Rose played more and has better counting stats, but at their respective peaks, who was better?
    3
    Waner has a better peak (1-year)
    66.67%
    2
    Rose has a better peak (1-year)
    33.33%
    1
    Waner has a better peak (3-years)
    66.67%
    2
    Rose has a better peak (3-years)
    33.33%
    1
    Waner has a better peak (5-years)
    66.67%
    2
    Rose has a better peak (5-years)
    33.33%
    1
    “There can be no higher law in journalism than to tell the truth and to shame the devil.” Walter Lippmann

    "How the #### are you supposed to hit that ####?" Mickey Mantle after striking out against Sandy Koufax in the 1963 World Series.

  • #2
    Too close to call definitively. Waner was a notch better with the bat, but Rose had defensive versatility.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by willshad View Post
      Too close to call definitively. Waner was a notch better with the bat, but Rose had defensive versatility.
      Both were below average defensively, though.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by jjpm74 View Post

        Both were below average defensively, though.
        Don't believe everything you see in defensive metrics, especially for older players. Waner had an excellent defensive reputation when he played. He had good speed and a strong arm. A couple of old timers I knew in the Pittsburgh area felt he was as good defensively as Clemente. I'm not confident about that, but I do believe that he was a good defender. Rose was a mediocre second baseman and a pretty decent- not at all exceptional- corner outfielder. He was okay at third base, nothing special. He was versatile, though.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by BigRon View Post

          Don't believe everything you see in defensive metrics, especially for older players. Waner had an excellent defensive reputation when he played. He had good speed and a strong arm. A couple of old timers I knew in the Pittsburgh area felt he was as good defensively as Clemente. I'm not confident about that, but I do believe that he was a good defender. Rose was a mediocre second baseman and a pretty decent- not at all exceptional- corner outfielder. He was okay at third base, nothing special. He was versatile, though.
          Yes, Rose was definitely versatile. I never saw him as a good defender, though and watched him play for a good amount of his career. Waner I can only rely on metrics for since he was way before my time (as suspect as they are from that period).

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by jjpm74 View Post

            Both were below average defensively, though.
            I don't know how you can say this!


            Originally posted by BigRon View Post

            Don't believe everything you see in defensive metrics, especially for older players. Waner had an excellent defensive reputation when he played. He had good speed and a strong arm. A couple of old timers I knew in the Pittsburgh area felt he was as good defensively as Clemente. I'm not confident about that, but I do believe that he was a good defender. Rose was a mediocre second baseman and a pretty decent- not at all exceptional- corner outfielder. He was okay at third base, nothing special. He was versatile, though.
            Absolutely! Waner had an excellent reputation and was well thought of in RF! He is fourth in career assists in RF (one behind Mel Ott for third). DRA has him at +78 runs, TZ has him at +23. Bill James raved about him, his contemporaries though well of his glove. Based on my readings, I think he was a A- to A thru age 34/35, then dropped down to B and then a C for a few more years. I personally believe he dropped to below average around age 37/38 when his career was extended by WWII. But before that, he was a gem.

            One of the very few players who actually played better partially sober; Pie Traynor got him intentionally drunk (as a manager!) when Pie tried to implement no drinking policies. Waner just wasn't hitting well, so he needed some drinks in him.
            Wait until Tommy meets the Lord and finds out he's wearing pinstripes - Gaylord Perry speaking of Tommy Lasorda
            Play the Who am I? game in trivia and you can make this signature line yours for 3 days (baseball signatures only!)

            Go here for a link to all player links! http://www.baseball-fever.com/forum/...player-threads

            Go here for all your 1920's/1930's OF info

            Comment


            • #7
              From 1972-74, Pete looks great out there in left field. I don't know what happened to him out there to make him look so great, but that's what the metrics show. These seasons also happen to be some of what makes up his overall peak years. Prime defense years matching up with prime/good offense years help make Pete's top few years look better to me. It was a short instance when everything was coming together for him. Now Pete did not have that happening in the beginning of his career while at 2B. And he didn't have that magic when he later moved to 3B. But for a short while, he seem to have command of both worlds.

              Outside of the Top 3 seasons of each player, Paul Waner then kind of has a run of the board.

              Comment


              • #8
                I gotta say Peter Rose's 1968 season, the Year of the Pitcher, was very impressive hitting wise.

                .335/.391/.470, 152 OPS+, 210 H, 42 doubles, 94 runs, 294 TB

                Rose won the batting title and also led the NL in OBP and hits. He finished second to Bob Gibson in the NL MVP voting getting six first place votes. Rose "only" had 5.5 WAR because his defense was poor.
                Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                Comment


                • #9
                  Both Waner and Rose had long continuous stretches of high level play. Both had unbroken 12 year stretches where they were really good. Twelve years is a long long time- not many players have been really good for longer than that. It's not Musial or Ruth or Aaron territory, but those guys and a few others were the best of the best.

                  From 1926 to 1937 Waner accrued 65.5 WAR and 40.4 WAA. Rose, 1965-1976, 67.8 WAR and 40.9 WAA in slightly longer seasons. From 26-37 Waner won 3 BA titles (would have been 4 under modern rules), led the NL in hits twice, doubles twice, triples twice, runs twice, RBI once, total bases once. He had 50 or more doubles 3 times, and 15 or more triples 7 times. During that period he had a 142 OPS+. Rose from 1965 to 1976 led the NL in BA 3 times, hits 6 times, doubles 3 times, and OBP once. His OPS+ was 132. Both had several more respectable, not outstanding seasons- Rose a couple more than Waner.

                  For sustained "peak"- a misnomer, but- they're just about equal offensively. I'd probably give Waner a very slight edge. Waner's defense was better, but Rose gets some points for versatility. Rose lasted longer, but he really wasn't very good his last 4 or 5 years. These two look neck and neck to me.
                  Last edited by BigRon; 01-14-2021, 03:43 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by dgarza View Post
                    From 1972-74, Pete looks great out there in left field. I don't know what happened to him out there to make him look so great, but that's what the metrics show. These seasons also happen to be some of what makes up his overall peak years. Prime defense years matching up with prime/good offense years help make Pete's top few years look better to me. It was a short instance when everything was coming together for him. Now Pete did not have that happening in the beginning of his career while at 2B. And he didn't have that magic when he later moved to 3B. But for a short while, he seem to have command of both worlds.
                    .
                    I agree that Rose was a good defensive corner outfielder- both in RF and LF- for more than a couple of years. I used to watch him closely- he got good jumps, tracked the ball well, and made accurate throws. He wasn't Gold Glove level, but he was good.

                    Comment

                    Ad Widget

                    Collapse
                    Working...
                    X