RIP Tony Gwynn

[nuts4xu]

Padres media reporting he passed away this morning at 54 years of age, died of cancer.

One of the best hitters my generation was able to see.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BqQsobuCEAEZUnG.jpg

Tony Gwynn hit .300 in 18 consecutive seasons from 1983 to 2000. Only Ty Cobb (23 straight) had a longer such streak.

Even more incredible....Tony Gwynn struck out just 434 times in 20 seasons. Averaged 22 k's a year. No one does that.

[Mel Cooley XU'81]

Ouch!

How did that happen? Didn't know he was sick.

54 is young (if you know what I mean).

You just put him down for a hit when he stepped in.

RIP.

[Pete Delkus]

Ouch!

How did that happen? Didn't know he was sick.

54 is young (if you know what I mean).

You just put him down for a hit when he stepped in.

RIP.


No direct link to dipping, but his camp thought this was the possible cause.

Sad about this one.

[Muskie]

Espn Story (http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/11091626/hall-famer-tony-gwynn-san-diego-padres-died).

[GoMuskies]

He was coaching San Diego State two weeks ago, no?

[toledodan]

great player and always seemed like a great person. RIP

[GreatWhiteNorth]

RIP Tony Gwynn. Good player. So young.

[XUGRAD80]

Always sad to see one of the greats pass away, especially when they are reputed to be even a better person than they were a player.

RIP TG....you will be missed, but not forgotten.

Condolences to all his family, friends, and fans

[MHettel]

I always loved Tony Gwynn's voice. Very unique. What a freaking hitter.

[flatspat]

He was the coach but was on a leave of absence due to his health.

[X-band '01]

Always sad to see one of the greats pass away, especially when they are reputed to be even a better person than they were a player.

RIP TG....you will be missed, but not forgotten.

Condolences to all his family, friends, and fans

Echo those sentiments. The game of baseball lost a great player and a great human being, but especially to the city of San Diego, Gwynn was one of their all-time favorite athletes (if not #1).

[Kahns Krazy]

1983 was the peak of my baseball card collecting days. I can see Tony Gwynn's rookie card in my mind. What a bummer.

[chico]

Damn that's a shame. Always seemed like one of the nicest guys in baseball, and was probably the best hitter I've seen in my lifetime. There was no such thing as the "5.5 hole" before Gwynn played, but he owned the spot between short and third.

I loved hearing Gwynn get interviewed as well. Loved that voice and he always gave such great, thoughtful answers, not the typical cliche responses. Gwynn also did a great Rickey Henderson impersonation. Unfortunately the only thing I found was this Jim Rome clip - go to the 3:20 mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WFW8uO8Jcw

[PM Thor]

Too young, way too young.

He was the best hitter I ever saw in person (outside of Rose).

Think about this. In 20+ seasons, he only struck out 434 times in almost 9300 AB (Bruce has 881 SO in 3200AB, Votto has 736 SO in 3300 AB). His highest total for any one year is 40. He only had ONE game in his career where he struck out 3 times.

And none of that matters, because from all the stories I've heard about people and friends meeting him, he was an even better person. I am truly saddened to hear of this loss for the sport and for the city of San Diego.

[GoMuskies]

He was the best hitter I ever saw in person (outside of Rose).


Gwynn was a better hitter than Rose. And a much better all-around player. Unfortunately, Gwynn just didn't take care of himself properly, and it seriously shortened his career.

[chico]

Gwynn was a better hitter than Rose. And a much better all-around player. Unfortunately, Gwynn just didn't take care of himself properly, and it seriously shortened his career.

Absolutely. Most people probably find this hard to believe but Gwynn actually was a very good base stealer early in his career.

He also started at point guard at SDSU.

[MHettel]

He was the best hitter I ever saw in person (outside of Rose).



Here is how I would describe Pete Rose.

"A very good hitter that played longer than everyone else, and consequently has the all-time hits record"

Pete Rose is not one of the Top 25 hitters of all time. He's like a good actor that gets a lifetime achievement award.

[XU 87]

Here is how I would describe Pete Rose.

"A very good hitter that played longer than everyone else, and consequently has the all-time hits record"

Pete Rose is not one of the Top 25 hitters of all time. He's like a good actor that gets a lifetime achievement award.

Because he didn't hit for power, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you about him not being a top 25 hitter all time. On the other hand, he was a great player, even setting aside to some extent the fact that he played more games than anyone else. He was an all-star 17 times, was top a 10 vote getter for MVP 10 times (winning in 1973 and finishing second in 1968), led the league in average three times, led the league in OBP twice, led the league in runs scored 4 times, led the league in doubles 5 times, and led the league in hits 7 times. He even won a couple of gold gloves.

[waggy]

Tony Gwynn was a much better all around player than Rose? The guy wasn't fleet of foot. Didn't he play first?

[GoMuskies]

Yes, Pete Rose played first. Tony Gwynn played left and was quite fleet of foot until he got fat.

[waggy]

You're on crack. Pete also played Left. I think he also played some 3b.

[GoMuskies]

From '84-'89, Gwynn stole 33, 14, 37, 56, 26 and 40 bases.

[waggy]

I'm not a lawyer, I'm unemployed.. I don't have time for a stats argument.

[nuts4xu]

When Tony Gwynn got his first hit, he was playing against the Phillies and Pete Rose was playing first base. Gwynn reached first and Pete turns to him and says "Congratulations. Don't catch me in one night.

It took more than one night, but he did come within 1100 hits of Pete.

[GoMuskies]

I think Pete actually said "Take #3 in the 8th at Philadelphia Park. Trust me, it's a lock."

[nuts4xu]

It is certainly debatable but I think Pete Rose was a better overall player than Tony Gwynn.

Tony Gwynn was a much better human being than Pete Rose, but in the game of baseball, Pete still stacks up pretty well against the career of TG.

[GoMuskies]

Other than in longevity and durability, I'm not sure there's any category where Rose beats out Gwynn.

[waggy]

Other than in longevity and durability, I'm not sure there's any category where Rose beats out Gwynn.


I think you're right. Also looks like Tony played the outfield his entire career. If the Baseball Reference website is correct I don't see any games as an infielder.

[PM Thor]

I don't get the "longevity" argument. Rose played only 4 more years than Gwynn, and had 5,000 more AB. Roses' last 4 years were him just hanging on. As for heads up stats, Rose had more runs by a longshot (yeah, that speaks to the team around him too) and a doubled him in walks.

Can one make the argument that Gwynn "might" have caught Rose in hits if he had 5k more at bats? Maybe, but it's all conjecture. And I would take both of them on my all time team. (I could have sworn that Rose played at least 3 games in every position, including pitcher)

[chico]

Picking between Rose and Gwynn is kind of like choosing which steak to get at Ruby's. They both were all-time greats, and each had a particular quality about them which put them above their contemporaries. But comparing the two is kind of like apples and oranges, because they were two distinctly different types of players. Just because both got a lot of hits and most of them were singles does not make them a good comparison.

[flatspat]

You're on crack. Pete also played Left. I think he also played some 3b.

You are correct. Rose did play some 3rd base. He was moved there so George Foster could play left field.

[nuts4xu]

I could have sworn that Rose played at least 3 games in every position, including pitcher

He never made an appearance at Shortstop, Catcher or Pitcher that I am aware of.

[GoMuskies]

they were two distinctly different types of players

Go on

[XU 87]

Picking between Rose and Gwynn is kind of like choosing which steak to get at Ruby's. They both were all-time greats, and each had a particular quality about them which put them above their contemporaries. But comparing the two is kind of like apples and oranges, because they were two distinctly different types of players. Just because both got a lot of hits and most of them were singles does not make them a good comparison.

Rose was actually a semi-power hitter beginning in the mid 70's when he led the league in doubles 5 times.

Gwynn was a better pure hitter, but after his first 5 or 6 years, he was playing, for the most part, 120-130 games per year. Rose was playing 160 games until the early 80's.

[GoMuskies]

[http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/06/17/thumbnail/3ubyreba.jpg

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/06/17/thumbnail/eja3a5uj.jpg

[chico]

Go on

To go along with what 87 said.

Rose was an everyman - he played any position you needed him to play, and did anything you needed him to do to win a game. He was the ultimate battler and scrapper. Gwynn, though a grinder, was much more of a pure hitter. As I mentioned earlier, Gwynn was a pretty good base stealer when he started out, who became the prototypical 3-hitter for the era he played. An he pounded the left side of the field when at the plate. Much more a disciple of hitting than Rose was. Not saying Rose didn't work at hitting, but that was pretty much all Gwynn was about. He'd be in the film room, in the cage, always thinking about hitting. Rose's game was more outwardly psychological, like running down to first on a walk and playing third about 40 feet from Mickey Rivers in the 76 Series.

[XU 87]

The Mickey Rivers defense was pure Rose. Not many, if any, third basemen would have the balls to play that close to a batter who was swinging away.

[XU 87]

Other than in longevity and durability, I'm not sure there's any category where Rose beats out Gwynn.

See my post above- On a year by year comparison- Pete beat Gwynn regularly in runs scored, total hits, and doubles. Now some of this was due to durability- Gwynn was only playing 120-130 games a year his last 10 years or so.

[GoMuskies]

Basically all of it was durability. Gwynn has a better per 162 game average in just about every category.

[XU 87]

Basically all of it was durability. Gwynn has a better per 162 game average in just about every category.


Per Baseball Reference.com, Rose's 162 game average was 194 hits, 34 doubles, and 98 runs per year.

Gwynn's was 209 hits, 36 doubles and 92 runs per year.

I'm not sure how skewed these numbers are based on end of career performance.

[drudy23]

Only struck out 3 times in a game...once.

Batting avg against Greg Maddux....450 or something crazy like that.

Over .300 18 seasons in a row.

Something like only 320 K's over his ENTIRE career.

[xsteve1]

Best hitter I've ever seen. Just a magician with the bat. RIP Mr. GWynn.

[bleedXblue]

Why does someone have to do a Rose comparison and even start the ridiculousness ? Both great hitters. Who cares

[GoMuskies]

Who cares

Everyone who responded, I suppose.

But thanks for the valuable feedback.

[DC Muskie]

Over .300 18 seasons in a row.

19 actually.

And he only played 20.

[gladdenguy]

Tony Gwynn over Peter Liar Rose anyday.

[Fireball]

Why does someone have to do a Rose comparison and even start the ridiculousness ? Both great hitters. Who cares

Because that's part of what makes baseball and talking baseball so much fun...the fact that we can have this debate.

I will say this to compare the two. At their peaks, Tony Gwynn was a better player than Rose. But, when you compare their careers as a whole, they're much closer. Because say Rose set all of his records "just because he stuck around longer", but longevity is a skill. If you keep yourself and your game in a state where people wont to keep hiring you to play longer than other players, that's not reason to criticize a player...is reason to praise a player.

Hank Aaron wasn't a better hitter in his prime than Ruth, but kept himself in good enough shape to stick around long enough to own the home run record, but you don't hear people criticize him for sticking around long enough to set the home run record.

[XU 87]

Hank Aaron wasn't a better hitter in his prime than Ruth, but kept himself is good enough shape to stick around long enough to own to home run records, but you don't hear people criticize him for sticking around long enough to set the home run record.

And Babe was a pitcher his 4 years, although it looked likes he played both field and pitched his 4th year. If he started solely as a hitter, he probably would have hit over 800 home runs.

[Juice]

Because that's part of what makes baseball and talking baseball so much fun...the fact that we can have this debate.

I will say this to compare the two. At their peaks, Tony Gwynn was a better player than Rose. But, when you compare their careers as a whole, they're much closer. Because say Rose set all of his records "just because he stuck around longer", but longevity is a skill. If you keep yourself and your game in a state where people wont to keep hiring you to play longer than other players, that's not reason to criticize a player...is reason to praise a player.

Hank Aaron wasn't a better hitter in his prime than Ruth, but kept himself is good enough shape to stick around long enough to own to home run records, but you don't hear people criticize him for sticking around long enough to set the home run record.

Gwynn never had a year where his OPS+ went below 100. Rose had 6 seasons where his OPS+ dipped below 100. Gwynn had much more of an argument to be kept around than Rose.

[MHettel]

Hank Aaron wasn't a better hitter in his prime than Ruth, but kept himself is good enough shape to stick around long enough to own to home run records, but you don't hear people criticize him for sticking around long enough to set the home run record.

Thats a good point. Another good point is that you dont really hear people trying to make the case for Aaron being a better player than Ruth. Becasue it's absurd. Kind of like saying Pete Rose is a better hitter than Gwynn.

[nuts4xu]

Gwynn never had a year where his OPS+ went below 100. Rose had 6 seasons where his OPS+ dipped below 100. Gwynn had much more of an argument to be kept around than Rose.

But Gwynn got fat and slow. Pete didn't get fat until he retired, he could still score from first on a single in the gap his last year playing. TG couldn't do that in his last year, and he was a lot younger than Pete when he retired.

You don't keep around a fat guy that is going to break down a few times a year over the player with more hits than anyone in the history of the game.

[GoMuskies]

I was just looking at the stats. I didn't realize how awful Pete was in '83 with the Phillies team that went to the World Series. It's kind of amazing he found a job in '84. He actually put in a couple of solid years for the Reds in '84 and '85, but he never should have played in '86.

[XU 87]

Gwynn was a better pure hitter than Pete. But Pete played every day and Gwynn would regularly miss 30-40 games per year. And therein lies the difference between the two. I'll take the guy who is playing every day.

[XU 87]

I was just looking at the stats. I didn't realize how awful Pete was in '83 with the Phillies team that went to the World Series. It's kind of amazing he found a job in '84. He actually put in a couple of solid years for the Reds in '84 and '85, but he never should have played in '86.

I think Pete got benched in the middle of the world series. Anyone remember the nickname for that Phillies team, which also had Perez and Morgan?

I think the Expos picked up Pete the next year because they thought he would help with attendance.

[THRILLHOUSE]

Anyone remember the nickname for that Phillies team, which also had Perez and Morgan?


Wheeze Kids

[MHettel]

I did a really quick analysis yesterday of Gwynn and Rose. Gwynn played 20 years, but the first 2 would be considered partial years (as a rookie) as would the last 2 (as an old guy hanging on). For the 16 years that constitute the real "meat" of his career, he hit .341. Pete Rose, over the most productive 16 years of his career hit .313.

Powerwise, they were largely equal. I dont have the numbers in front of me, but Rose had a handful more doubles each year and they were essentially equal in HRs. Gwynn stole more bases. Pete had more walks and their OBP were fairly equal.

Again, I dont have the actual numbers in front of me but Rose averraged like 158 games per year and Gwynn was in the high 130s or low 140s. So some of that power and walk differential of Rose gets absorbed through more games.

Lets put it this way:

-Bottom of the ninth, tie game, 2 outs, runner on second. I've got 2 pinch hitters available, Gwynn and Rose. Easily Tony Gwynn. In fact, in that situation I might even pick Gwynn over almost any other hitter in history.

- For 1 game: Gwynn

- For 1 series: Gwynn

- For 1 season: probably Rose, due to durability. I'd rather take Rose for 162 games than Tony Gwynn for 140 and his backup for 22....

[Juice]

I did a really quick analysis yesterday of Gwynn and Rose. Gwynn played 20 years, but the first 2 would be considered partial years (as a rookie) as would the last 2 (as an old guy hanging on). For the 16 years that constitute the real "meat" of his career, he hit .341. Pete Rose, over the most productive 16 years of his career hit .313.

Powerwise, they were largely equal. I dont have the numbers in front of me, but Rose had a handful more doubles each year and they were essentially equal in HRs. Gwynn stole more bases. Pete had more walks and their OBP were fairly equal.

Again, I dont have the actual numbers in front of me but Rose averraged like 158 games per year and Gwynn was in the high 130s or low 140s. So some of that power and walk differential of Rose gets absorbed through more games.

Lets put it this way:

-Bottom of the ninth, tie game, 2 outs, runner on second. I've got 2 pinch hitters available, Gwynn and Rose. Easily Tony Gwynn. In fact, in that situation I might even pick Gwynn over almost any other hitter in history.

- For 1 game: Gwynn

- For 1 series: Gwynn

- For 1 season: probably Rose, due to durability. I'd rather take Rose for 162 games than Tony Gwynn for 140 and his backup for 22....

No they weren't. Gwynn's career slugging percentage was .459 and Pete's was .409.

Looking at Isolated Power, Gwynn's career rate was .120 and Pete's was .106.

[nuts4xu]

Tony Gwynn struck out 434 times in 20 years with the Padres.
Drew Stubbs struck out 588 times in 4 years with the Reds.

It may be debatable who was better, Gwynn or Rose. But it is clear Gwynn is better than Drew Stubbs.

[MHettel]

No they weren't. Gwynn's career slugging percentage was .459 and Pete's was .409.

Looking at Isolated Power, Gwynn's career rate was .120 and Pete's was .106.

My comparison was simply on a per year basis. All the doubles, triples and Hr's hit over the 16 year period, divided by 16 give you season averages. Rose had slightly higher averages, but he played in way more games.

Keep reading what I wrote....

"Again, I dont have the actual numbers in front of me but Rose averraged like 158 games per year and Gwynn was in the high 130s or low 140s. So some of that power and walk differential of Rose gets absorbed through more games."


I'd still argue that Rose and Gwynn had similar power in their primes. If you just take that 16 year comparison, Gwynn slugs .463 vs. Rose at .436. Thats an edge to Gwynn, but I wouldnt consider either guy to have much power.

Couple other interesting stats (over 16 years of "prime"):

- Gwynn: 2193 games played, 2918 hits (1.33 per game), 734 walks (.33 per game)= 1.66 times reached base per game.
- Gwynn: 1294 runs= .59 Runs per game
- Gwynn: 1294 runs after having reached base 3652 times= 35.4% score rate
- Gwynn: 1050 RBIs= .48 RBI per game
- Gwynn: 1050 RBIs + 1294 runs - 131 RBIs from HRs where he drove hime self in - 131 runs from HRs he hit= 2082 Runs & RBIs not attributed to HRs in 2193 games= .95 per game

- Rose: 2537 games played, 3248 hits (1.28 per game), 1155 walks (.45 per game)= 1.73 timer reached base per game.
- Rose: 1677 runs= .66 runs per game
- Rose: 1677 runs after having reached base 4403 times= 38.1% score rate
- Rose: 1002 RBIs= .39 RBI per game.
- Rose: 1002 RBIs+1677 runs-145 RBIs from HRs where he drove himself in- 145 runs from HRs he hit= 2389 Runs or RBIs not attriubuted to HRs he hit in 2537 games= .94 per game.

Pretty even using those analysis. The results reflect Rose spending alot of his prime batting leadoff, and Gwynn spending alot of time in the 3 hole.


I'd take both guys on my team, and have Rose leading off with Gwynn hitting third. I'd bat my grandmother second if she could lay down a bunt.

[GoMuskies]

I'd like to have Rose leading off and Gwynn hitting second myself. You could do a lot worse than starting your innings with guys on 1st and 2nd and nobody out.

[MHettel]

I'd like to have Rose leading off and Gwynn hitting second myself. You could do a lot worse than starting your innings with guys on 1st and 2nd and nobody out.

I'd just bunt Pete to second and have Gwynn hit with one out. Rose scores from second 80% of the time on a base hit by Gwynn.

[GoMuskies]

See, I'd have Barry Bonds hit a 3-run HR behind them.

[muskiefan82]

See, I'd have Barry Bonds hit a 3-run HR behind them.

The gambler, the hitter, and the enhancer. Like it.

[bobbiemcgee]

Gwynn was a better pure hitter than Pete. But Pete played every day and Gwynn would regularly miss 30-40 games per year. And therein lies the difference between the two. I'll take the guy who is playing every day.

"Pure hitter" to me means they both worked their asses off trying to hit a baseball and did it very successfully . Work ethic was never a problem with these two. That's where the similarities ended. When they asked Pete to go play 3rd to get Foster in the lineup, I remember he took so many ground balls he totally beat himself up with so many welts and bruises he couldn't play the next day. Gwynn maybe did it a little differently with studying pitcher video, but they both knew they had to hit to stick around.

[MADXSTER]

Rose was voted into the Allstar game as a right fielder, left fielder, 3rd baseman and 1st baseman. His later years, he was a player manager. Not that this has anything to do with Tony Gwynn.

Gwynn was actually one of the few opposing players that I liked as a kid while growing up. Outside of the Big Red Machine there were only a few players that I would pretend to be. Tony was one.

[Juice]

My comparison was simply on a per year basis. All the doubles, triples and Hr's hit over the 16 year period, divided by 16 give you season averages. Rose had slightly higher averages, but he played in way more games.

Keep reading what I wrote....

"Again, I dont have the actual numbers in front of me but Rose averraged like 158 games per year and Gwynn was in the high 130s or low 140s. So some of that power and walk differential of Rose gets absorbed through more games."


I'd still argue that Rose and Gwynn had similar power in their primes. If you just take that 16 year comparison, Gwynn slugs .463 vs. Rose at .436. Thats an edge to Gwynn, but I wouldnt consider either guy to have much power.

Couple other interesting stats (over 16 years of "prime"):

- Gwynn: 2193 games played, 2918 hits (1.33 per game), 734 walks (.33 per game)= 1.66 times reached base per game.
- Gwynn: 1294 runs= .59 Runs per game
- Gwynn: 1294 runs after having reached base 3652 times= 35.4% score rate
- Gwynn: 1050 RBIs= .48 RBI per game
- Gwynn: 1050 RBIs + 1294 runs - 131 RBIs from HRs where he drove hime self in - 131 runs from HRs he hit= 2082 Runs & RBIs not attributed to HRs in 2193 games= .95 per game

- Rose: 2537 games played, 3248 hits (1.28 per game), 1155 walks (.45 per game)= 1.73 timer reached base per game.
- Rose: 1677 runs= .66 runs per game
- Rose: 1677 runs after having reached base 4403 times= 38.1% score rate
- Rose: 1002 RBIs= .39 RBI per game.
- Rose: 1002 RBIs+1677 runs-145 RBIs from HRs where he drove himself in- 145 runs from HRs he hit= 2389 Runs or RBIs not attriubuted to HRs he hit in 2537 games= .94 per game.

Pretty even using those analysis. The results reflect Rose spending alot of his prime batting leadoff, and Gwynn spending alot of time in the 3 hole.


I'd take both guys on my team, and have Rose leading off with Gwynn hitting third. I'd bat my grandmother second if she could lay down a bunt.

I was strictly looking at power numbers. Gwynn's slugging and isolated power (ISOP) numbers are higher. Those stats measure power better than counting double, homers, etc. Those are counting stats, they're misleading.

Now if we are talking about who was an all around better player? Well Rose averaged a better WAR on a yearly basis, but only by a minuscule amount. So that argument could go either way.

[Mel Cooley XU'81]

Great thread.

Put me down for George Brett.

[Snipe]

Tony Gwynn is a Great American.

The Greats make it look like the game is played in slow motion. Like everything just slows down just for them. The guy was an artist. He was a master. He was going to put the fat part of the bat on the ball, and you could not stop him. I heard some of the comments from defensive players talk about trying to position themselves against him and it was basically "If you play him this way, he will hit it that way, and if you play him that way, he will hit it this way".

I never met Tony Gwynn but from all accounts he was good people. I was a bit angry when I heard he passed away. I think he was one of the good guys and it hurts to lose him so young. His stats really are amazing. I was reading some of them off to my kids. They never saw him play but still had some jaw dropping. That kid could ball. He was also a one team guy and a great role model. What a loss for San Diego and Major League Baseball.

[XU 87]

I was strictly looking at power numbers. Gwynn's slugging and isolated power (ISOP) numbers are higher. Those stats measure power better than counting double, homers, etc. Those are counting stats, they're misleading.

Now if we are talking about who was an all around better player? Well Rose averaged a better WAR on a yearly basis, but only by a minuscule amount. So that argument could go either way.

How do they compute out WAR? It seems kind of a subjective stat to me.

[Juice]

How do they compute out WAR? It seems kind of a subjective stat to me.

It's not subjective if all the players are measured the same way. It's not like Gwynn and Rose are computed with two different formulas. The variables may be different but not how you compute. In fact, the point of WAR is to objectively compare players that play in different ballparks, different leagues, different eras. It also takes into account what position you play (e.g. CF is more important than a LF) and how well you play it.

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/war/

[GoMuskies]

Pete's WAR is also a little better because it's essentially a "counting stat". So the fact that he was more durable and played more games per season pushed him ahead of Gwynn. On a per game basis, I'm sure Gwynn had a superior WAR.

That's not a knock against Rose, either. I recognize that the ability to play 160 games vs. only being able to play 140 is pretty important and is a skill in its own right.

[Juice]

Pete's WAR is also a little better because it's essentially a "counting stat". So the fact that he was more durable and played more games per season pushed him ahead of Gwynn. On a per game basis, I'm sure Gwynn had a superior WAR.

That's not a knock against Rose, either. I recognize that the ability to play 160 games vs. only being able to play 140 is pretty important and is a skill in its own right.

Yeah the difference in WAR on a yearly basis is so small that it shouldn't really be used to make an argument. Gwynn on average had a 3.25 WAR per year, and Rose on average had a 3.3375 WAR per year.

[XU 87]

Here is an article discussing WAR's limitations.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8900693/call-moderation-use-wins-replacement-stat

And this author apparently doesn't think WAR is a real accurate measure:

http://itsaboutthemoney.net/archives/2011/09/06/is-war-the-new-rbi/

[bobbiemcgee]

Yeah the difference in WAR on a yearly basis is so small that it shouldn't really be used to make an argument. Gwynn on average had a 3.25 WAR per year, and Rose on average had a 3.3375 WAR per year.

I think Bush had them both beat.

[Juice]

Here is an article discussing WAR's limitations.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8900693/call-moderation-use-wins-replacement-stat

And this author apparently doesn't think WAR is a real accurate measure:

http://itsaboutthemoney.net/archives/2011/09/06/is-war-the-new-rbi/

No person who uses WAR thinks it's the only stat to look at but it's a very useful tool when trying to compare players. It's also huge improvement over most of the crap people still cite as important, i.e. RBIs, Errors, Batting Average, etc.