Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: B.REVERE who wrote (213573)	1/10/2003 10:22:34 AM
From: reaper	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

<<Rose is considered by many the best clutch hitter that ever lived>> actually, Rose is considered by most to have not even been the best clutch hitter on his own TEAM. Tony Perez is widely credited with that honor. and though i'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to convice you (i've had this argument w/ MM regarding Jeter and others) there is no such thing as a clutch hitter. by "clutch" i mean somebody who does even better than you would expect them to in "clutch" situations. Pete Rose career OPS was 784 (it would have been even higher but for the woeful last 1000 ABs he had in his career chasing the hit record when his OPS was 665). Pete Rose career World Series OPS was 718, fully 66 points lower than his career total. if Rose was so "clutch", why did he perform worse (on average) in the World Series than he did during the regular year? (fwiw, Perez was no more "clutch" than Rose. his 804 career OPS was miles higher than his 689 career World Series OPS). and frankly, i don't have to "think" Santo was a better hitter than Rose, the numbers tell me that he was. Career OPS: Santo 826; Rose 784 Career OPS relative to the league: Santo 25% higher; Rose 18% higher Average OPS 1964-1973 Santo 864; Rose 818 Rose's batting average was almost always higher than Santo's. but batting average is a useless stat for measuring the value of a hitter. Santo's ON-BASE percentage was just as often as not higher than Rose's, and his slugging average was nearly always higher. OK, so Santo got on base more often, and when he hit he hit for more power (i.e. more total bases). so in what way exactly was Rose the better hitter?? the only thing Rose has over Santo is that his mediocre career lasted 10 years longer (for example, you are aware are you not that in 6 of his last 7 years Rose was statistically worse than the AVERAGE player in league?) anyway, i'm sure you can throw much heresay and anecdotal evidence at me, but frankly you cannot make any reasonable statistical argument that, when both were in their primes, that Rose was a better hitter than Santo. the only difference is that Rose played forever (when he wasn't even mediocre) and Santo quit early. Cheers