John Stockton vs Pete Rose?

Matt15 · Post #1 » by **Matt15** » Sun May 18, 2025 1:40 am

Most assists vs most hits, who was the better player at their respective sport?

Hook_Em · Post #2 » by **Hook_Em** » Sun May 18, 2025 2:12 am

Pete Rose in those peak Cincy years was better than Stockton at his best. I’d give him the nod. There were a lot of trash seasons trying to stack stats though from Rose.

Ol Roy · Post #3 » by **Ol Roy** » Sun May 18, 2025 1:16 pm

In their respective sports, Stockton ranks higher among his contemporaries than Rose does for me.

Post #4 » by **penbeast0** » Sun May 18, 2025 1:49 pm

Rose was a one dimensional singles hitter, he didn't walk much, didn't hit for power so when you look at stats like on base percentage or total bases he comes in surprisingly low. Bonus points for his love of diving into bases and hustling on every play.

Stockton was also a bit overrated for his assists, he was a great PG but not necessarily the greatest playmaker of all time despite dominating everyone else in this stat. But, in addition he was a good help defender (not a particularly good on ball guy) and extremely efficient scorer. Extra bonus for being a nasty pick setting and a guy who even bigs call out as being dirty (a good thing when you don't get called for it).

Value in sport isn't terribly close. Stockton was a far more valuable NBA player than Rose was a MLB player, not to say that Rose wasn't valuable, because he wasn't a one dimensional guy but brought a lot of extras.

B-Mitch 30 · Post #5 » by **B-Mitch 30** » Sun May 18, 2025 1:53 pm

Rose actually walked a lot, that's why his on-base percentage is very high, and why he has so much WAR in various seasons.

Cavsfansince84 · Post #6 » by **Cavsfansince84** » Sun May 18, 2025 7:51 pm

penbeast0 wrote:Rose was a one dimensional singles hitter, he didn't walk much, didn't hit for power so when you look at stats like on base percentage or total bases he comes in surprisingly low. Bonus points for his love of diving into bases and hustling on every play.

Stockton was also a bit overrated for his assists, he was a great PG but not necessarily the greatest playmaker of all time despite dominating everyone else in this stat. But, in addition he was a good help defender (not a particularly good on ball guy) and extremely efficient scorer. Extra bonus for being a nasty pick setting and a guy who even bigs call out as being dirty (a good thing when you don't get called for it).

Value in sport isn't terribly close. Stockton was a far more valuable NBA player than Rose was a MLB player, not to say that Rose wasn't valuable, because he wasn't a one dimensional guy but brought a lot of extras.

I think that's a little harsh on Pete. He is 2nd all time in doubles in mlb history(which is a stat that guys were racking up all the way back to the 19th century). Would also get a lot of triples and hit double digit hrs quite a few times. His ops+ was usually quite high relative to the league. Won 3 batting titles, 3 rings, and was also a gold glover a few times that could play many positions at a high level. I think this is very close and the cross sport comparison makes it that much harder to make a clear choice. I'd probably lean towards Rose though.

Post #7 » by **penbeast0** » Mon May 19, 2025 11:58 am

Cavsfansince84 wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:Rose was a one dimensional singles hitter, he didn't walk much, didn't hit for power so when you look at stats like on base percentage or total bases he comes in surprisingly low. Bonus points for his love of diving into bases and hustling on every play.

Stockton was also a bit overrated for his assists, he was a great PG but not necessarily the greatest playmaker of all time despite dominating everyone else in this stat. But, in addition he was a good help defender (not a particularly good on ball guy) and extremely efficient scorer. Extra bonus for being a nasty pick setting and a guy who even bigs call out as being dirty (a good thing when you don't get called for it).

Value in sport isn't terribly close. Stockton was a far more valuable NBA player than Rose was a MLB player, not to say that Rose wasn't valuable, because he wasn't a one dimensional guy but brought a lot of extras.

I think that's a little harsh on Pete. He is 2nd all time in doubles in mlb history(which is a stat that guys were racking up all the way back to the 19th century). Would also get a lot of triples and hit double digit hrs quite a few times. His ops+ was usually quite high relative to the league. Won 3 batting titles, 3 rings, and was also a gold glover a few times that could play many positions at a high level. I think this is very close and the cross sport comparison makes it that much harder to make a clear choice. I'd probably lean towards Rose though.

I don't remember Rose as a good defensive player at any position; they moved him around to hide him is how I remember him. Eventually they DH'd him but he didn't really have the power most teams wanted to have value there. Maybe I remember him more later career than earlier.

B-Mitch 30 · Post #8 » by **B-Mitch 30** » Mon May 19, 2025 1:45 pm

Rose played his whole career in the National League, he was never a designated hitter. As for his defense, he won gold gloves as a right fielder, and both his range factor and fielding percentages were pretty high. The same was true when he was moved to left field and 1st base, and while he wasn't wowing people with his range at 3rd or 2nd base, his fielding percentages were still good. The reason he moved from the outfield to 3rd base was so George Foster could take over his position and bat more regularly. When he came to the Phillies a few years later, he moved to 1st base because we already had Mike Schmidt, who was literally the best fielding and hitting 3rd baseman ever.

Cavsfansince84 · Post #9 » by **Cavsfansince84** » Mon May 19, 2025 4:49 pm

penbeast0 wrote:
I don't remember Rose as a good defensive player at any position; they moved him around to hide him is how I remember him. Eventually they DH'd him but he didn't really have the power most teams wanted to have value there. Maybe I remember him more later career than earlier.

I mean, he played for 24 years or w/e it was. By the 80's he was in his 40's with a ton of mileage so idk what part of his career you are referencing but he won gg's and was leading his league in multiple defensive stats in the 70's. I think he had a solid to very good defensive rep up until then at multiple positions.

Post #10 » by **penbeast0** » Mon May 19, 2025 4:55 pm

Fair enough.

Cavsfansince84 · Post #11 » by **Cavsfansince84** » Mon May 19, 2025 10:44 pm

penbeast0 wrote:Fair enough.

I think the 80's idea of him is what weighs him down for a lot of people when he was obviously just hanging around to get the hits record but he was pretty much a semi legend before then even. Being seen as the leader of the Big red machine then going to Philly and sort of leading them to a title while batting .325 at age 40. I mean that was back when most guys in sports in general were retired by age 34-35 and he also put up his numbers during the semi dead ball era of the late 60's-mid 80's(which includes the period where they raised the mound and stats really plummeted). I mean I have no idea how knowedgeable you are on mlb in general since this is a basketball site but I was really into mlb history and stats back in the 80's & 90's.