A couple of points to refute Mr. Hyde (regarding baseball, not TV dinners):
1. I will agree that a direct comparison of today's OPS (and components) is not fair. But I do not grant the idea that OPS is more valuable today than it used to be. It's just somewhat devalued, in the sense today's average or replacement value is higher. In other words, I think OPS was as important from 1960 to 1985, but the standard for what was a good OPS was somewhat lower in that period than it would be today. So comparisons to today's stats are at least flawed, if not outright useless. That said, I've also seen stats that suggest that park factors worked heavily in his favor, and if you remove them statistically, he never had even on season over .800 OPS. Not one!
2. Given that, the stats in comparison to the rest of the Big Red Machine are more telling. Pete Rose spent over 80% of his career as a corner outfielder or a corner infielder. In spite of that, he had the 6th best OPS on his own team in that era. His OPS was lower than that of the team's 2B and C (though admittedly, two all-time greats--but isn't that what Rose allegedly is?), as well as two other corner outfielders who are not Hall of Famers (Griffey amd Foster).
3. Runs scored are a counting stat, and by my premise less useful than an average. Runs are also a more valuable team stat than individual stat, becase they're highly dependent on the talent around you rather than merely your own performance--and that's even truer if you're not a home run hitter. Rose looks like a much player because he was surrounded with high-caliber talent on the Reds and, to a lesser extent, the Phillies.
4. Sadly, no, I have not read the James Win Shares stuff, nor do I have an extensive stats libray. But I do have high-speed internet, so I have lots of stats at my fingertips.
5. Regardless of all this, thanks for the cheerleading, and keep up the good work yourself!