I keep things as simple as possible in my life. To me, Pete Rose has more MLB hits than anybody, so that makes him the undisputed MLB hits leader. Ichiro has more overall pro hits than Pete, though, so he's higher on professional baseball's overall hits list. I don't really get the debate. Do people really want to name Ichiro MLB's all-time hits leader when he's not, on account of "what might've been?" That's a lot of unnecessary assumption making. Is Ichiro more likable as a person? Oh, hell yeah, and as such, the dude's been my favorite player now for over a decade! Is he a better overall player than Pete was back in the day? Probably not, as Pete was the total package when it came to offense AND defense, and got hits the old-school way of belting them into open spots on the field, rather than bunting those balls and beating the catcher's throw to first. Pete's probably on my all-time Top 5 list when it comes to great baseball players, and I've long hoped he'd get into the Hall of Fame someday. However, I definitely much rather watch Ichiro play, as he's way more exciting a player with all that heart, speed and determination. Nevertheless, none of that changes the fact that nobody has hit more balls in Major League Baseball than Pete Rose, so what exactly is up for debate here? Ichiro's still probably going to crack MLB's Top 50 hitters list by career's end, considering he's now No. 52 on there and 20-something hits away from joining the 3,000 Hits Club. He's definitely racked up a Hall of Fame induction -- and deservedly so! -- but what he hasn't racked up is more MLB hits than Pete Rose. There really isn't anything to debate here, is there?! Yet, people
do...
*shrugs.*
How about less dividing and more uniting, folks? Just some food for thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment