Tim Raines vs. Pete Rose

[1905 Giants]

This one comes from "Clearing the Bases."

Who was more valuable overall: Tim Raines or Pete Rose?

Some Highlights:

Raines:
808 Stolen Bases
2605 Hits
123 OPS+
7 All-Star Games
5 Top Ten WAR Finishes
7 Ton Ten OBP Finishes (One Win)
8 Top Ten Runs Scored Finishes (Two Wins)
11 Top Ten Stolen Base Finishes (Four Wins)

Rose:
4256 Base Hits
746 Doubles
118 OPS+
17 All-Star Games
4 WAR Top Ten Finishes
13 Top Ten Batting Average Finishes (3 Wins)
11 Top Ten OBP Finishes (2 Wins)
15 TOp Ten Runs Scored Finishes (4 Wins)
11 Top Ten Total Bases Finishes
15 TOp Ten Doubles Finishes (5 Wins)

For what it's worth, Allen Barra (Author of Clearing the Bases) picked Raines as more valuable

[brett]

I considered a while back that Raines may had been the best 5 year retired player not in the hall including Joe Jackson and Pete Rose. I have reconsidered though. Rose was probably more valuable through 1979 than Raines was through his career and that is through about the same playing time (2500+ games for Raines and a little over 2600 for Rose).

Looking at WAR, and WAA Rose was at about 80 WAR and 40 WAA at that point. Raines retired at +66 and +35 about. Rose retired at +77 and +29 so he lost both WAR and WAA after 1979 but I tend to not count negative value seasons much against a player because heck his coach (or in this case his owner) thought it was best for the franchise. From 1982-1986 he may have been the worst basically full time player in major league history for 5 years.

In addition to Rose being better through the same number of games, his versatility in the field helped to allow the Reds to build a better team even though it hurt him sabermetrically. From '75-'79 he played third base and racked up a net -5 WAR for position and defense while he had been about +2 in the four prior years as a corner outfielder. He would probably have had around 7-8 more WAR in those years but his team was strong in the outfield and it basically made a place for George Foster, or Ken Griffey Sr. Griffey had a 125 OPS+ and 16 WAR in those 5 years. Raines was not versatile. You would only use him in an emergency in CF, or even in RF because of his weak arm. He was almost a pure left fielder and later a DH.

Rose was also a great post season hitter. Not all time best, but very good with a .321/.388/.440 percentage line in 67 games. That's about a 130 OPS+ given the league rates for his career. Oddly he only scored 30 runs and drove in 22 in those 67 games.

[willshad]

I really don't see any way to give Raines the nod here. Rose simply aged much better. Through age 27 or so they were about even, with Raines even being a little better. After that, however, Rose had another really good 8 year run, and reached his peak, while Raines hit an early decline.

I don't think WAR is the be all and end all of stats, but sometimes it can give you a quick overall idea.

Rose had 12 seasons of 4 or more WAR; actually 12 in a row, from age 24-25.

Raines had 6 such seasons, and only one after age 27. Now, some of this may have been due to injuries, but Rose was still the superior player from age 28-35, and it isn't close.

I think a lot of Rose's superior value is due to his durability. He was amazingly durable...from age 33-39 he only missed a total of 3 games in seven seasons! Raines was probably better on a per game basis.

[PVNICK]

Agree with you guys. Rose's peak run was longer maybe 68-76. Raines 81-87. You could argue Raines ran the bases and certainly stole them at a higher level, but I'm not sure he has any other edge on Rose. Unfortunately Rose's personality, post-career issues tarnished his image. The dragging out the career to chase Cobb took his percentages down. With it were the articles and detractors in the vein of "he's still not as good as Cobb ..." In the end it is forgotten just how good he really was.

[BondsOverBabe]

I prefer peak value over longevity and Raines at his peak is much better than Rose

[willshad]

I prefer peak value over longevity and Raines at his peak is much better than Rose

Maybe a little better, but not MUCH better.

[Second Base Coach]

Rose was able to play five different positions and made the All-Star team time and again as he moved around the diamond.

While Raines stole more bases, both men worked hard at scoring runs atop their respective lineups. I would say this ability is about even.

I would have to say Rose was more valuable given his defensive versatility.

[BondsOverBabe]

Maybe a little better, but not MUCH better.

No its much better. Raines 84-87 seasons kill anything Rose ever did and mind you Raines was doing it in VASTLY inferior lineups

[Captain Cold Nose]

No its much better. Raines 84-87 seasons kill anything Rose ever did and mind you Raines was doing it in VASTLY inferior lineups

Those Expos teams Raines was on while he was a top player were every bit as good as the Reds teams Rose played on in the 1960's. Considering Raines stopped being an AS-caliber player after 7 seasons, that's where the comparison should go when comparing teams. Raines did play for some WS Yankee teams as well as contributed to a strong Chisox team so it wasn't like he was mired in the second division his whole career.

[Seattle1]

I voted for Pete Rose. The guy topped 200 hits in a season ten times! That is a real mark of excellence.