Is 3000 hits a big deal or overrated?

[1952boyntoncollector]

I do appreciate that Ichiro didnt take like 20 years to do it like others which would be more easy but still

Isnt total bases the true measuring stick

Id rather honor a guy for example with 2500 hits but 5000 total bases compared to a guy with 3000 hits with 4000 total bases because of a bunch of 2 out slap singles....this assumes the RBI total is also greater for the guy with 5000 total bases.

I thought a walk is as good as a hit as well at least in little league. so maybe we should be honoring someone with 7000 total bases or whatever amount that there would be only 30 players that were able to get to whatever that number would be...

Incidentally i just checked the total base leaders..and number 1 was a little a shy of 7000..(hank aaron 6856) Number 30 would be Andre Dawson. Babe Ruth would be number 7..he was shy of 3000 hits..does it matter??

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/TB_career.shtml


Ichiro is 106th all time ranked in total bases...Chili Davis is 100th 42 bases ahead...i think should be a big celebration if Ichiro is top 100! Have a total bases countdown and wear shirts... plus ichiro is like 128 away from 4000 total bases..lets start the countdown

[bravos4evr]

Well.... 3000 hits is just a number that, because humans like even numbers, we decided carries some special meaning. It really doesn't. BUT, it's still a big moment in a player's career and has happened rare enough for it to be a decent career gauge.

HOWEVER, that being said, it isn't a very good yardstick for productivity as all hits are not created equal. 3000 Ichiro hits have not had the same value as 3000 Clemente hits. Power matters.

Now, as to your idea about using Total Bases, it's ok I guess, but there are better numbers to use to get an overall picture of a hitter's merit. Weighted Runs Created + measures each hit individually includes park and league adjustment and puts it all into a neat single number with 100 being avg. Take that number and then look at hits and you get a better picture of production that took place in the hits rather than gauging all hits equally. (example: Ichiro's wRC+ for his career is 105, 5% above avg, Clemente's was 129 or 29% above avg)

Another problem with hits and total bases is that total plate appearances matter too. Rose got 4256 hits to Cobb's 4189, but he did it over 15876 PA's to Cobb's 13072. It becomes obvious here that the so called" HIT KING" is nothing of the sort.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Well.... 3000 hits is just a number that, because humans like even numbers, we decided carries some special meaning. It really doesn't. BUT, it's still a big moment in a player's career and has happened rare enough for it to be a decent career gauge.

HOWEVER, that being said, it isn't a very good yardstick for productivity as all hits are not created equal. 3000 Ichiro hits have not had the same value as 3000 Clemente hits. Power matters.

Now, as to your idea about using Total Bases, it's ok I guess, but there are better numbers to use to get an overall picture of a hitter's merit. Weighted Runs Created + measures each hit individually includes park and league adjustment and puts it all into a neat single number with 100 being avg. Take that number and then look at hits and you get a better picture of production that took place in the hits rather than gauging all hits equally. (example: Ichiro's wRC+ for his career is 105, 5% above avg, Clemente's was 129 or 29% above avg)

Another problem with hits and total bases is that total plate appearances matter too. Rose got 4256 hits to Cobb's 4189, but he did it over 15876 PA's to Cobb's 13072. It becomes obvious here that the so called" HIT KING" is nothing of the sort.

right plate appearence matters when they count hits too...plus 162 games a year versus before.....NBA has cool states because it goes by averages ...20.2 points per game etc..they dont go by total points in a season....

but not cool to be a 1.3 hit per game hitter...... i not into round numbers...i dont mind have a lot of 9s instead of 0s...

[MattyC]

Have you ever played baseball? College level? High School level?

Yes, getting 3000 hits in the Major Leagues is a big deal. It is an enormous accomplishment, no matter how long it takes.

Heck, getting one at bat at that level is an honor of which any man could be proud.

Look at how good you have to be, just to get drafted. Look at how few of all those who have played, have achieved certain milestones.

[bnorth]

Have you ever played baseball? College level? High School level?

Yes, getting 3000 hits in the Major Leagues is a big deal. It is an enormous accomplishment, no matter how long it takes.

Heck, getting one at bat at that level is an honor of which any man could be proud.

Look at how good you have to be, just to get drafted. Look at how few of all those who have played, have achieved certain milestones.

LOL, I find it interesting people still respond to these type of posts by Jake.:confused:

[chaddurbin]

LOL, I find it interesting people still respond to these type of posts by Jake.:confused:

Same... And it is not about total bases since those favors the sluggers. The name of the game is getting on base and avoiding outs. It's this line of reasoning that will get Tim Raines in the hall soon. Having said that 3000 hits is still a huge accomplishment.

[D. Bergin]

LOL, I find it interesting people still respond to these type of posts by Jake.:confused:

LOL +1, I saw the title and I knew immediately who started it.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Same... And it is not about total bases since those favors the sluggers. The name of the game is getting on base and avoiding outs. It's this line of reasoning that will get Tim Raines in the hall soon. Having said that 3000 hits is still a huge accomplishment.

its an accomplishment i agree, but i am just making the case that total bases doesnt get any respect at all in comparison. And it IS about total bases, walks also factored, and several sluggers get a large amount of walks. Also you dont have to be a super slugger to get doubles.... Why isnt there a countdownm to 4000 total bases for Ichiro? thats a huge accomplishment as well

[1952boyntoncollector]

LOL, I find it interesting people still respond to these type of posts by Jake.:confused:

LOL when i saw your post which contributes zero and just attacks someone thats making a case for something and not bad intentioned at all i know it had to be another bnorth post...congrats you did not disappoint

[1952boyntoncollector]

Have you ever played baseball? College level? High School level?

Yes, getting 3000 hits in the Major Leagues is a big deal. It is an enormous accomplishment, no matter how long it takes.

Heck, getting one at bat at that level is an honor of which any man could be proud.

Look at how good you have to be, just to get drafted. Look at how few of all those who have played, have achieved certain milestones.

Whats your point? I made the case about total bases versus hits....why all of the sudden are you arguing that im saying 3000 hits is worthless and asking about if i played in the show

so if wade boggs told you than 3000 hits isnt a big deal, you would change your mind..or adam greenberg since he got 1 ab..whatever he says about baseball is right compared to you because you didnt play in the show? why go there....look at my post......it just compares total bases to hits....man, whats the deal.

and what bravosforever stated....what clemente did for his 3000 hits blows away ichiro...yet we grouping them in the same category as an equal accomplishment...

[bnorth]

LOL when i saw your post which contributes zero and just attacks someone thats making a case for something and not bad intentioned at all i know it had to be another bnorth post...congrats you did not disappoint

I never attacked you at all. Are you confused again? Like the time you openly accused me of sending you harassing emails when I have never done so.

I actually blame myself for being stupid enough to take you off my ignore list. That is now fixed.:)

[1952boyntoncollector]

I never attacked you at all. Are you confused again? Like the time you openly accused me of sending you harassing emails when I have never done so.

I actually blame myself for being stupid enough to take you of my blocked list. That is now fixed.:)

right saying " LOL, I find it interesting people still respond to these type of posts by Jake"

thats a very postive thing to say. All you had to do is ignore the thread or contribute...no reason to basically attempt to insult me. The purpose of my thread was not negative at anyone at all, just talking baseball. Is that a bad thing? People that cut and hide 'blocking' have a reason too because they cant defend their position... Its too bad i wont get any more great posts from you on my threads :)

[bravos4evr]

Have you ever played baseball? College level? High School level?

Yes, getting 3000 hits in the Major Leagues is a big deal. It is an enormous accomplishment, no matter how long it takes.

Heck, getting one at bat at that level is an honor of which any man could be proud.

Look at how good you have to be, just to get drafted. Look at how few of all those who have played, have achieved certain milestones.

appeal to authority logical fallacy (but yes I did, and was good at it til my arm fell off)

and it's an ok deal, but it's not some mark of greatness without the context of how it was done. Mostly it's a sign of longevity. A player's productivity can not be described by the blunt instrument of how many hits they got.

[bravos4evr]

Same... And it is not about total bases since those favors the sluggers. The name of the game is getting on base and avoiding outs. It's this line of reasoning that will get Tim Raines in the hall soon. Having said that 3000 hits is still a huge accomplishment.

bolding mine:


this is patently not true. The name of the game is scoring runs and preventing runs. The best way to score runs is to get on base and hit for power. Doing one without the other, while still valuable, is not as valuable as doing both. That's why you must weigh hits as not all hits are created equal. Ted Williams is better than Tony Gwynn or Boggs because he both got on base AND hit for power. Guys who only hit singles are never going to provide as much as guys who hit home runs. (all other things being equal of course)

[KCRfan1]

I always thought the name of the game is " don't make an out ".

But out with the old, in with the new! I still look at the basic stats, such as hits, runs, double, triples, hr's, rbi's , avg, and obp. That pretty much has allowed me to tell how good a player is.

Now there's WAR, PMS, PAWS, and H2O.

I need to get caught up and with the times!!!

And I haven't seen anyone placing Clemente and Ichiro in the " same group ", other than they both have 3000 hits. People doing that are ignorant, without knowledge about the game of baseball.

[1952boyntoncollector]

bolding mine:


this is patently not true. The name of the game is scoring runs and preventing runs. The best way to score runs is to get on base and hit for power. Doing one without the other, while still valuable, is not as valuable as doing both. That's why you must weigh hits as not all hits are created equal. Ted Williams is better than Tony Gwynn or Boggs because he both got on base AND hit for power. Guys who only hit singles are never going to provide as much as guys who hit home runs. (all other things being equal of course)

I thought the name of the game is scoring runs....it usually takes 3 singles to score a run...that hard to do with no outs, let alone when noone is on base and there are 1 or 2 outs..

i would take a 1 for 4 with a homer than a 2 for 4 with 2 singles every day of the week.......again total bases does take in account all of those walks as well...... let the ichiro countdown to 4000 begin!

[RTK]

Have you ever played baseball? College level? High School level?

Yes, getting 3000 hits in the Major Leagues is a big deal. It is an enormous accomplishment, no matter how long it takes.

Heck, getting one at bat at that level is an honor of which any man could be proud.

Look at how good you have to be, just to get drafted. Look at how few of all those who have played, have achieved certain milestones.



Agree on all points. 200 hits a year for 15 years. Playing 15 years is an accomplishment, then averaging 200 hits per 500 some to 600 at bats. It's about endurance and perserverance as much as athletic ability.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Agree on all points. 200 hits a year for 15 years. Playing 15 years is an accomplishment, then averaging 200 hits per 500 some to 600 at bats. It's about endurance and perserverance as much as athletic ability.

I agree as well its an accomplishment..just not as good as some other and its celebrated too much in comparison. 4500 total bases takes in account endurance and preserverance as much as atheltic ability on a grander scale.....i already gave ichiro credit for doing it in less than 20 years like many other 3000 hit guys which makes their accomplishments pale in comparison even more to the top 30 total base guys

[packs]

Why would anyone celebrate total bases? You brought up Chili Davis I guess to insinuate he has something over Ichiro just because he has more total bases. Isn't it obvious to you who the better player was? It seems pretty obvious to me who's better. A player can have four or five peak seasons and rack up total bases, then stink for another 10 seasons. What good is that?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Why would anyone celebrate total bases? You brought up Chili Davis I guess to insinuate he has something over Ichiro just because he has more total bases. Isn't it obvious to you who the better player was? It seems pretty obvious to me who's better. A player can have four or five peak seasons and rack up total bases, then stink for another 10 seasons. What good is that? I would say there isn't one terrible player with 3,000 hits wouldn't you?

Chili Davis was number 100 not top 30.......so you need to take a look at the top 30 total base guys versus the top 30 hit guys...your argument is apples to oranges..however ichiro has been only a replacement level player for at least the last 3-4 years..

by the way mickey vernon is currently number 100 in hits....yes i think chili davis was a better hitter than he was...chili was in 5 all star teams and was also rookie of the year..he also hit 28 home runs and hit .292 in 1986 and did not not make the all star team..he had other non all star seaons where he hit 30 homers. in 1997 ..he also in 1993 had 27 homers and over 100 rbis and didnt make the all star team....

chili davis far exceeded having 4 or 5 peak seasons.....you need to look at the stats... we arent talking about defense..we are just talking about hitting..

the man had 2380 hits and 350 home runs...and only number 100 all time in total bases....


Number 30 of all time in total bases is Andre Dawson by the way, is he a terrible player? I guess because he only have 2774 hits he is not elite like a 3000 hit guy in ichiro...my argument is he did have over 4500 total bases, anything over 4500 total bases should be more celebrated than 3000 hits that are primarily singles

[packs]

So you think Chili Davis and Mickey Vernon and Andre Dawson were all better hitters than Ichiro?

[1952boyntoncollector]

So you think Chili Davis and Mickey Vernon and Andre Dawson were all better hitters than Ichiro?

No, i think chili davis was better than Vernon..

i think Andrew Dawson is very close correct for the 10 prime years...nobody wants ichiro or dawsnon when he is 40 years old or 39....for the prime years its very close... Dawson did obtain 10 allstar/top 25 mvp finishes and won many gold gloves (defense doesnt matter but just saying he wasnt always a bad knees guy)......he also lost a lot of at bats because he was in the NL where the pitcher makes more outs than a DH does in the AL...

The fact that it is so close is my point..you hear nothing about total bases but there is a countdown for hits..

[rats60]

Whats your point? I made the case about total bases versus hits....why all of the sudden are you arguing that im saying 3000 hits is worthless and asking about if i played in the show

so if wade boggs told you than 3000 hits isnt a big deal, you would change your mind..or adam greenberg since he got 1 ab..whatever he says about baseball is right compared to you because you didnt play in the show? why go there....look at my post......it just compares total bases to hits....man, whats the deal.

and what bravosforever stated....what clemente did for his 3000 hits blows away ichiro...yet we grouping them in the same category as an equal accomplishment...

Yes, 3000 hits a big deal. You are comparing apples to oranges. Ichiro is a top of the order guy. His job is to get on base. I will take his 3000 hits over 2500 with 5000 tb, for his position in the lineup. I don't care if many of those 3000 are infield hits. It is the guys behind him whose job it is to drive him in. You also ignore that his speed is going to make up for some of those total bases by taking extra bases on other's hits.

I would take Ichiro over Thome for the top of the order. The only way I take Thome is if I have others just as good as getting on base and he is an upgrade over my middle of the lineup guys. Ichiro is also a good fielder. Thome is not.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Yes, 3000 hits a big deal. You are comparing apples to oranges. Ichiro is a top of the order guy. His job is to get on base. I will take his 3000 hits over 2500 with 5000 tb, for his position in the lineup. I don't care if many of those 3000 are infield hits. It is the guys behind him whose job it is to drive him in. You also ignore that his speed is going to make up for some of those total bases by taking extra bases on other's hits.

I would take Ichiro over Thome for the top of the order. The only way I take Thome is if I have others just as good as getting on base and he is an upgrade over my middle of the lineup guys. Ichiro is also a good fielder. Thome is not.

Fielding is not part of the equation in my original post ..neither is batting order unless you want to factor in RBIs as well.... ...i can come up with new rules too but trying to keep it limited to just hits versus total bases..... Also being top of the order gave ichiro more ABs then guys after him...over 15 years that can easily be 150 or more plate appearances.

plus thome is 39th not 30th.....apples to oranges.....zach wheat is number 39 in hits..and is from a whole other era....

i not saying 3000 isnt a small feat...i just think its over celebrated versus total bases which there is ZERO celebration

reggie jackson was 86th in hits but 27 in total bases....total bases is a more of a true measure of the great hitter he was..

[packs]

No one celebrates total bases because of the group of mediocre players were able to total a lot of bases. It's as simple as that. Harold Baines has more total bases than Mickey Mantle. Who was better?

[KCRfan1]

PACKS - That kind of sums it up. ...

[1952boyntoncollector]

No one celebrates total bases because of the group of mediocre players were able to total a lot of bases. It's as simple as that. Harold Baines has more total bases than Mickey Mantle. Who was better?

So ichiro is better than Babe Ruth because he had more hits....anyone can play this game...

Baines isnt top 30 in total bases....he 41st.. David Ortiz is 40th incidentally..'

anyone one accomplishment doesnt mean you are a 'better' player... but you guys keeping coming up with unfair examples

Bill Buckner is number 64 all time in hits..is he the 64th greatest player of all time...id rather have Baines than him

Who in the top 30 of total bases is mediocre?

[packs]

We aren't playing a game. You are the one who is using the list to decide how good players are, not me. So I would never say something like Ichiro is better than Ruth because of where he is on a list.

[1952boyntoncollector]

We aren't playing a game. You are the one who is using the list to decide how good players are, not me. So I would never say something like Ichiro is better than Ruth because of where he is on a list.

I am not at all.....however getting 3000 hits is celebrated because Ichiro is on a list....people are celebrating it saying how hard it is......he is 30th....so i am comparing top 30 on base guys who got zero celebration.....

then you go and compare Baines with Mantle etc....thats a game..i can do the same thing.....i can also take a top 30 on base guy and show how hes better than a 100th best total hit guy. The oppposite was argued (comparing chili davis to ichiro) ..whats the point of that as well...

Andre Dawson is a lot different than Chili Davis and Andre Dawson is number 30 in total bases and Ichiro is 30th in total hits, yet you guys brought up Chili Davis? Thats a game..

where are all these mediocre top 30 total base guys ?

[packs]

You brought up Chili Davis in your first post.

Andre Dawson is not an all time great, he is a very borderline HOFer and he is number 30. Rafael Palmeiro, noted cheater and non-HOFer, is number 11. Dave Winfield, who everyone can agree was a great player, is not an all time great either. He is number 14.

The list is not indicative of how great a player was.

[1952boyntoncollector]

[QUOTE=packs;1569674]You brought up Chili Davis in your first post.
Andre Dawson is not an all time great, he is a very borderline HOFer and he is number 30. Rafael Palmeiro, noted cheater and non-HOFer, is number 11. Dave Winfield, who everyone can agree was a great player, is not an all time great either. He is number 14.



I brought up Chili Davis as coming in 100th......and the counterargument was to compare him to hit leader Ichiro (30th ) and not Vernon (100th)...to argue that is a game......why not compare 100th with 100th.....to argue otherwise is a game....

Dawson is in the HOF .is he mediocre..

i dont think any of those names are mediocre players...

Winfield is also top 30 in hits as well as Palmeiro ...so any attack on them for total bases applies to them in total hits as well.....there was a huge countdown for 3000 hits for Palmeiro and Winfield.... and zero countdown for total bases...

so the best you could come up with as mediocre on base guys in the top 30....are 2 guys with 3000 hits and a Hall of Famer....man those guys suck (or mediocre)

[packs]

What would you have them count down to? 4,787th base? What a thrilling proposal.

[1952boyntoncollector]

What would you have them count down to? 4,787th base? What a thrilling proposal.

you can find round numbers in total bases...i think its possible for that...

4000 is ok or 4500.....ichiro isnt far from 4000, hes at 3875, 39 more and he passes chili davis for 100th of all time...



plus if need 2...you can get a double for that...or if 4 away a home run...more exciting than a slap single off the pitcher's leg


Lou Boudreau who is a HOFer actually finished with exactly 2500 total bases....

[bravos4evr]

So you think Chili Davis and Mickey Vernon and Andre Dawson were all better hitters than Ichiro?

Andre Dawson career wRC+ : 117

wOBA: .350

Chili Davis career wRC+ : 118

wOBA: .354

Mickey Vernon career wRC+: 115

wOBA: .362

Ichiro career wRC+ : 105

wOBA: .330


so yes, all the hitters you mentioned were better at hitting than ICHIRO

[bravos4evr]

I would take Ichiro over Thome for the top of the order. The only way I take Thome is if I have others just as good as getting on base and he is an upgrade over my middle of the lineup guys. Ichiro is also a good fielder. Thome is not.


Well, for starters, we aren't talking about defense but hitting.

as far as who would be a better lead off man?

ichiro career OBP : .357

Thome career OBP : .402

Thome is so much better a hitter than Ichiro it's not even close, his wRC+ of 145 and wOBA of .405 is elite level, Ichiro is just a tad above avg for two reasons, he wasn't as good at getting on base nor was he as good hitting for power.

Another thing to consider about the 3000 hit club is that it doesn't consider walks either.

Thome hits + walks = 4076 , Isolated Power? .278

Ichiro hits + walks = 3620, ISO? .091


Ichiro was 5% above league avg for his career and this demonstrates how 3000 hits doesn't make one an elite hitter, he wasn't an elite hitter for his career, just slightly above avg because power is important. NOW, that being said, he was a quality player because of his total game of slightly above avg hitting, elite defense and elite baserunning, but his bat alone was not elite.

[packs]

So Ichiro leads the league in hits 5 years in a row, collects 200 hits 10 seasons in a row, sets the major league record for single season hits, leads the league in hitting twice, hits 350 or higher 4 times, but he's not better than Chili Davis and he's only a slight above average hitter.

Okay.

[1952boyntoncollector]

So Ichiro leads the league in hits 5 years in a row, collects 200 hits 10 seasons in a row, sets the major league record for single season hits, leads the league in hitting twice, hits 350 or higher 4 times, but he's not better than Chili Davis and he's only a slight above average hitter.

Okay.

I not say that so i know your comment is direct to Bravos...I said you have have to compare Ichiro to Andre Dawson. I think Bravos point was just the impact on hitting and actually winning games.

But shallow batting average is just that.. Walks are as good as hits. People that fall in love with .325 also fall in love with 3000 hits. Ill take a guy hitting .270 with 30 homers and 350 total bases over a .350 hitter with zero power and 30 steals with 250 total bases any day of the weak no matter how many 200 hit seasons he gets or batting titles....

Martin Prado is close to winning a batting title in the NL, hes not even a top 30 hitter if that in the NL.....batting titles dont mean that much in terms of someone being an 'elite' player unless there are other stats to back it up..

[packs]

Well I would say Ichiro IS an elite player and in his prime comparable to Tony Gwynn and Wade Boggs. He was not Chili Davis, nor was he a league average player in the box or slightly better than league average.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Well I would say Ichiro IS an elite player and in his prime comparable to Tony Gwynn and Wade Boggs. He was not Chili Davis, nor was he a league average player in the box or slightly better than league average.

Chili was only 100th all time in total bases and Andre Dawson is 30th.

Mickey Vernon was 100th in total hits, i think Andrew Dawson was a lot better than Mickey Vernon..

You can be elite at what you do but still not translate into run production....the best pinch hitter in the world for example can only do so much and would never make the Hall of Fame.. Ichiro was great for getting hits.. but hes not even top 100 in total bases partly because he was in Japan but thats how it is..

Plus Ichiro is going to pass Chili Davis in all likelihood this year so no point for me to compare, by the way Joe Dimaggio is 97th on the all time total bases list. (only 2200 or so hits because in military for 3 years) I think Joe D. was a pretty good player if you want to compare them.. so basically someone 97th of all time in total bases compares well to number 30 of all time hits...


Also interesting that Ichiro is exactly #100 in runs right now and guess who he just passed? You guessed it Andre Dawson. So they scored basically the same amount of runs and Dawson blows him away with power. You can't argue about how many seasons they each play in this argument, because tallying 3000 hits is all about counting up stats....tons of guys didnt get to 3000 hits due to lack of seasons but it is what is.

total bases translates just as well or not better than total hits...i dont know why its not celebrated at least 1/100th as much as hits.

[bnorth]

Well I would say Ichiro IS an elite player and in his prime comparable to Tony Gwynn and Wade Boggs. He was not Chili Davis, nor was he a league average player in the box or slightly better than league average.

I also think Ichiro was an elite player. Don't think he was at the level of Boggs or even Gwynn. Well maybe closer to Gwynn who had his best 4 year stretch from age 34-37 in the steroid era. I will add I am biased because Wade is my all-time favorite player. Even with that taken into account Ichiro was not on his level.:)

Also 3000 hits is a very big deal.

[dgo71]

I don't know why whenever someone does something great they have to be immediately compared to other greats and the whole "well yeah, but was he better than so-and-so" argument has to come up. There are so many factors aside from talent than make any such debate an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Over the course of a 20-year MLB career players are going to be asked to do different things. A leadoff hitter's job isn't the same as #3 hitter, or a #7 hitter. Additionally, the strategies involved have evolved over the years and managers ask their players to be more specialized in certain aspects of the game.

The game itself has changed dramatically over the years. Comparing Ichiro's performance to Babe Ruth's is like comparing the performance of a Ferrari to a Model-T. It wasn't that long ago that if a pitcher hit 95 on the radar gun it made headlines. Now every journeyman reliever in MLB throws 95. The pitching Ruth faced was soft-pitch compared to today's game. I maintain, while the Golden Age players were great for their day, and certainly among the best players in their peer group, that Ty Cobb would wet his pants if he had to face Aroldis Chapman.

Expansion is another factor. The greats of yesteryear played when there were what, 8 teams in each league? There's twice that now. When Joe D. had his 56-game hitting streak, he faced a total of 54 different pitchers. By comparison, Jackie Bradley Jr. faced 65 pitchers in his 29-game streak this year. Specialization of pitching had made it much more tasking on hitters of today.

The who was better debate can never be answered by stats alone because they are dependant on so many other factors. Can't we just agree that Ichiro is a fantastic ballplayer? That he accomplished something only 30 players have done in the history of the game? That's like .002% of the players who have ever played, so yes, I would consider it a big deal, and IMHO it's kind of silly to even question that. Just my two cents.

[1952boyntoncollector]

I don't know why whenever someone does something great they have to be immediately compared to other greats and the whole "well yeah, but was he better than so-and-so" argument has to come up. There are so many factors aside from talent than make any such debate an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Over the course of a 20-year MLB career players are going to be asked to do different things. A leadoff hitter's job isn't the same as #3 hitter, or a #7 hitter. Additionally, the strategies involved have evolved over the years and managers ask their players to be more specialized in certain aspects of the game.

The game itself has changed dramatically over the years. Comparing Ichiro's performance to Babe Ruth's is like comparing the performance of a Ferrari to a Model-T. It wasn't that long ago that if a pitcher hit 95 on the radar gun it made headlines. Now every journeyman reliever in MLB throws 95. The pitching Ruth faced was soft-pitch compared to today's game. I maintain, while the Golden Age players were great for their day, and certainly among the best players in their peer group, that Ty Cobb would wet his pants if he had to face Aroldis Chapman.

Expansion is another factor. The greats of yesteryear played when there were what, 8 teams in each league? There's twice that now. When Joe D. had his 56-game hitting streak, he faced a total of 54 different pitchers. By comparison, Jackie Bradley Jr. faced 65 pitchers in his 29-game streak this year. Specialization of pitching had made it much more tasking on hitters of today.

The who was better debate can never be answered by stats alone because they are dependant on so many other factors. Can't we just agree that Ichiro is a fantastic ballplayer? That he accomplished something only 30 players have done in the history of the game? That's like .002% of the players who have ever played, so yes, I would consider it a big deal, and IMHO it's kind of silly to even question that. Just my two cents.

Going by he accomplished what only 30 others have accomplished isnt in itself a big deal. By the way, i am comparing total bases to hits in terms of why are hits a much greater deal than total bases..

There are lots of categories someone can be top 30 in but not great You can be top thirty in steals (currently Herman Long and number 16 is otis nixon) which doesnt mean its a big deal for example...... i think we are looking at the company you are in for those top 30

not trying to be silly, i just saying its silly to not honor someone with 4000 total bases as right now we do ZERO but for hits its a HUUUGE deal for 3000...when i have proven that top 30 in total bases have the same or better caliber players as top 30 hit guys... and no chili davis was not in the top 30 of total bases

[bravos4evr]

So Ichiro leads the league in hits 5 years in a row, collects 200 hits 10 seasons in a row, sets the major league record for single season hits, leads the league in hitting twice, hits 350 or higher 4 times, but he's not better than Chili Davis and he's only a slight above average hitter.

Okay.

sorry, but those are the FACTS. 105 wRC+ for his career and 100 is average. power matters. He was an elite PLAYER because of his defense and baserunning combined with his hitting from 2001-2010, and if he had quit after 2010 his bat would have been closer to 20% above avg, but for his career, his hitting has only been 5% above avg.

I know many of you still cling to batting average , but the truth is that it is a pretty worthless statistic. It doesn't tell us much at all about hitter production because it ignores walks and it ignores the types of hits a player gets.

Time to evolve with the game folks or get left behind. We have better, newer, more accurate statistics these days, and teams use these numbers as well. It's the scientific expansion of baseball.

[bravos4evr]

I don't know why whenever someone does something great they have to be immediately compared to other greats and the whole "well yeah, but was he better than so-and-so" argument has to come up. There are so many factors aside from talent than make any such debate an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Over the course of a 20-year MLB career players are going to be asked to do different things. A leadoff hitter's job isn't the same as #3 hitter, or a #7 hitter. Additionally, the strategies involved have evolved over the years and managers ask their players to be more specialized in certain aspects of the game.

The game itself has changed dramatically over the years. Comparing Ichiro's performance to Babe Ruth's is like comparing the performance of a Ferrari to a Model-T. It wasn't that long ago that if a pitcher hit 95 on the radar gun it made headlines. Now every journeyman reliever in MLB throws 95. The pitching Ruth faced was soft-pitch compared to today's game. I maintain, while the Golden Age players were great for their day, and certainly among the best players in their peer group, that Ty Cobb would wet his pants if he had to face Aroldis Chapman.

Expansion is another factor. The greats of yesteryear played when there were what, 8 teams in each league? There's twice that now. When Joe D. had his 56-game hitting streak, he faced a total of 54 different pitchers. By comparison, Jackie Bradley Jr. faced 65 pitchers in his 29-game streak this year. Specialization of pitching had made it much more tasking on hitters of today.

The who was better debate can never be answered by stats alone because they are dependant on so many other factors. Can't we just agree that Ichiro is a fantastic ballplayer? That he accomplished something only 30 players have done in the history of the game? That's like .002% of the players who have ever played, so yes, I would consider it a big deal, and IMHO it's kind of silly to even question that. Just my two cents.

this is a pretty inaccurate portrayal of what is going on here.(and an intellectually dishonest argument to boot)

Players get put in the lineup based on their skills, managers dn't just hapdazardly put a guy somewhere and force him to alter his game that wuld be stupid. Ichiro hit leadoff, but he hit what he hit. He is 5% above avg hitter for his career, and he would have done that hitting anywhere in the lineup. (not to mention that we compare players based on their production relative to their peers and to history as an entire, Babe Ruth didn't face the splitter sure, but he also only faced 21-30 starting pitchers in the league instead of 150 in a season we have now)

[CMIZ5290]

Have you ever played baseball? College level? High School level?

Yes, getting 3000 hits in the Major Leagues is a big deal. It is an enormous accomplishment, no matter how long it takes.

Heck, getting one at bat at that level is an honor of which any man could be proud.

Look at how good you have to be, just to get drafted. Look at how few of all those who have played, have achieved certain milestones.

+1....A player averages 200 hits per year for 15 years and that's not a huge accomplishment?? Please.....People that argue this simply don't know baseball, period....Of course you do have to factor in the OP.

[CMIZ5290]

LOL, I find it interesting people still respond to these type of posts by Jake.:confused:

Great point Ben, what's the freaking use? It's like arguing with a wooden indian....

[1952boyntoncollector]

+1....A player averages 200 hits per year for 15 years and that's not a huge accomplishment?? Please.....People that argue this simply don't know baseball, period....Of course you do have to factor in the OP.

None isnt saying its a great accomplishment, i am saying total bases matters more and gets zero interest

[1952boyntoncollector]

Great point Ben, what's the freaking use? It's like arguing with a wooden indian....

Hmm here goes CMIZE again the biased one that loves to troll my threads including b/st/ and loves SMR... how come i dont troll your threads but you feel the need to do so on mine? Plus you are quoting Bnorth who says he is blocking everything as he does not want to defend his position (of making posts with no substance and just to criticize), he would rather run away and hide..

there is another poster on this forum braves4ever..that is also making valid points but yet your beef is just with me.....


Comparing someone 100th Chili Davis in ( total bases )n something to someone that is 30th, Ichiro in( hits), to make the point how great the person that came in 30th is may work against a wooden indian i guess...... someone also said the top 30 total base guys would have a bunch of mediocre players in it because they only needed 5 good years.. compared to 3000 hit guys but when i called them out of who all those medicore guys would be all he could provide were 2 guys who also had 3000 hits and HOFerAndre Dawson...

[CMIZ5290]

Hmm here goes CMIZE again the biased one that loves to troll my threads including b/st/ and loves SMR... how come i dont troll your threads but you feel the need to do so on mine? Plus you are quoting Bnorth who says he is blocking everything as he does not want to defend his position (of making posts with no substance and just to criticize), he would rather run away and hide..

there is another poster on this forum braves4ever..that is also making valid points but yet your beef is just with me.....


Comparing someone 100th Chili Davis in ( total bases )n something to someone that is 30th, Ichiro in( hits), to make the point how great the person that came in 30th is may work against a wooden indian i guess...... someone also said the top 30 total base guys would have a bunch of mediocre players in it because they only needed 5 good years.. compared to 3000 hit guys but when i called them out of who all those medicore guys would be all he could provide were 2 guys who also had 3000 hits and HOFerAndre Dawson...
I'm not trolling anything you idiot. The bottom line is you're an arrogant prick. I have not even responded to your BST threads in weeks, nor will I ever, but yet your recent one almost tries to antagonize people. (please read, PSA 4 T206 Speaker). You ask for nobody to "stir the pot" or make negative comments, but why don't you read your own verbiage in that thread. Bottom line, you want and crave confrontation.....

[1952boyntoncollector]

I'm not trolling anything you idiot. The bottom line is you're an arrogant prick. I have not even responded to your BST threads in weeks, nor will I ever, but yet your recent one almost tries to antagonize people. (please read, PSA 4 T206 Speaker). You ask for nobody to "stir the pot" or make negative comments, but why don't you read your own verbiage in that thread. Bottom line, you want and crave confrontation.....

"Im not trolling anything"

Your post here depicts all of my points. This is my thread that I started, why do you feel the need to be annoying and call me names. Brave4ever also posted things against 3000 hits and you fine with him. The fact i have to put the language on my b/s/t threads is because of YOU interfering with my b/s/t and you troll all my posts. How come i dont feel the need to go on your threads that you start and criticize you and you call you names. What have i done that is arrogant. Noone else on any thread does anything to be criticized? What was so wrong about the T206 Speaker b/s/t thread..whats your problem with it exactly?

I also noticed you trolled a Ruth #53 thread that now says 'delete' after my comments, so you took the time to troll that thread which is a B/S/T thread by the way

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?p=1570266#post1570266


You are calling me an arrogant prick even though you are the one that trolls my threads (which i dont do to you) and have been warned already from Leon on your behavior on b/s/t.

Whats so bad about a thread talking about 3000 hits and total bases. Its about baseball. I guess that warrants name calling towards me....


I just posted something on the thread talking about dealer wives, quick go and troll that thread and say something negative about me, you dont want to miss it, there may be another thread or two as well, you may want to jump on there and call me names too, assuming you keep them up and dont delete them.

Also your posts have no substance about the issues at hand, its always that im an idiot or jerk. You can always just 'block' me, i dont have to block you because i dont wake up in the morning with the need to troll your posts...the only posts i see from you are when you are trolling mine..

You are always quick to stir the pot....for example the current mantle b/s/t listing, CMIZE thought 80k was more than fair for the Mantle and took the time to criticize me for it...i said nothing negative on the card...

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=224494&page=3

[CMIZ5290]

"Im not trolling anything"

Your post here depicts all of my points. This is my thread that I started, why do you feel the need to be annoying and call me names. Brave4ever also posted things against 3000 hits and you fine with him. The fact i have to put the language on my b/s/t threads is because of YOU interfering with my b/s/t and you troll all my posts. How come i dont feel the need to go on your threads that you start and criticize you and you call you names. What have i done that is arrogant. Noone else on any thread does anything to be criticized? What was so wrong about the T206 Speaker b/s/t thread..whats your problem with it exactly?

I also noticed you trolled a Ruth #53 thread that now says 'delete' after my comments, so you took the time to troll that thread which is a B/S/T thread by the way
You have said that you always list an asking price, but on the 33 Goudey Ruth thread, you were asking for an offer....Say it ain't so.....
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?p=1570266#post1570266


You are calling me an arrogant prick even though you are the one that trolls my threads (which i dont do to you) and have been warned already from Leon on your behavior on b/s/t.

Whats so bad about a thread talking about 3000 hits and total bases. Its about baseball. I guess that warrants name calling towards me....


I just posted something on the thread talking about dealer wives, quick go and troll that thread and say something negative about me, you dont want to miss it, there may be another thread or two as well, you may want to jump on there and call me names too, assuming you keep them up and dont delete them.

Also your posts have no substance about the issues at hand, its always that im an idiot or jerk. You can always just 'block' me, i dont have to block you because i dont wake up in the morning with the need to troll your posts...the only posts i see from you are when you are trolling mine..

You are always quick to stir the pot....for example the current mantle b/s/t listing, CMIZE thought 80k was more than fair for the Mantle and took the time to criticize me for it...i said nothing negative on the card...

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=224494&page=3

You have always said that you always list an asking price, but yet on the Ruth thread you asked for an offer....Say it ain't so....You're unbelievable....

[1952boyntoncollector]

You have always said that you always list an asking price, but yet on the Ruth thread you asked for an offer....Say it ain't so....You're unbelievable....

Thats how you respond. On my b/s/t threads when i list card is for sale i always list an asking price unlike you. I also post scans unlike you. I also dont go on b/s/t threads and argue that SMR is what a card should sell for unlike you and argue with LEON about why i am asking too much for a 1951 Bowman Mays PSA 6 card that took like a day and a half to sell.

the ruth wasnt my thread and i asked the poster who Wanted to buy the card, what price range would he pay...i asked that first. Take a look. He didnt answer yet. So I asked him again. It was not a 'FS': For Sale listing by me as the card is in my personal collection but if someone wants to buy it, i could sell it potentially. If it was a For Sale listing by me i would have a price for sure. So that was your big perry mason moment?

In addition, i did show a past sale of a PSA 4 of the same card. I know you like to compare a PSA 8 OC with a past sale of PSA 8 and im unbelievable!

I guess you agreed with everything else i posted. Oh and yeah your response didnt come off as arrogant either, you are such a straight shooter.. You also claim you dont try to stir the pot, this thread is about 3000 hits versus total bases by the way. .

[CMIZ5290]

Thats how you respond. On my b/s/t threads when i list card is for sale i always list an asking price unlike you. I also post scans unlike you. I also dont go on b/s/t threads and argue that SMR is what a card should sell for unlike you and argue with LEON about why i am asking too much for a 1951 Bowman Mantle PSA 6 card that took like a day and a half to sell.

the ruth wasnt my thread and i asked the poster who Wanted to buy the card, what price range would he pay...i asked that first. Take a look. He didnt answer yet. So I asked him again. It was not a 'FS': For Sale listing by me as the card is in my personal collection but if someone wants to buy it, i could sell it potentially. If it was a For Sale listing by me i would have a price for sure. So that was your big perry mason moment?

In addition, i did show a past sale of a PSA 4 of the same card. I know you like to compare a PSA 8 OC with a past sale of PSA 8 and im unbelievable!

I guess you agreed with everything else i posted. Oh and yeah your response didnt come off as arrogant either, you are such a straight shooter.. You also claim you dont try to stir the pot, this thread is about 3000 hits versus total bases by the way. .
Actually your card was a 51 Mays....

[1952boyntoncollector]

Thanks CMIZE i changed it to Mays.... Please post SMR next to all of your listings (for the ones not OC as I do not think there is SMR for them unless want to reduce the grade by 2) or if you need help i can assist you. If you think thats lame, then you are describing what you did on the Mays b/s/t thread. Thanks

[CMIZ5290]

Thanks CMIZE i changed it to Mays.... Please post SMR next to all of your listings (for the ones not OC) or if you need help i can assist you. Thanks

You are more than welcome 1952Boy

[1952boyntoncollector]

You are more than welcome 1952Boy

Ok so you are giving me permission to post SMR on your b/s/t threads Ill keep this thread when the time arrives. However you also like to argue with the pricing on b/s/t threads and talk down others that support the pricing. Let me know if i can do that too.

[CMIZ5290]

Ok so you are giving me permission to post SMR on your b/s/t threads?

You asked me to post SMR's. Are you really this goofy??

[1952boyntoncollector]

You asked me to post SMR's. Are you really this goofy??

So you admit it was goofy when you went by SMR on the 1951 Mays and it obvious you troll my posts and are biased.

Anyway you can post the last word if your post is the last post on the thread. Im sure I will see your nonsense when trolling me on other threads so we can go back and forth on there if Leon allows you too.

[CMIZ5290]

So you admit it was goofy when you went by SMR on the 1951 Mays and it obvious you troll my posts and are biased.

Anyway you can post the last word if your post is the last post on the thread. Im sure I will see your nonsense when trolling me on other threads so we can go back and forth on there if Leon allows you too.

1952Boy, I apologized for that and it was over a month ago. No trolling or other BS on BST's, remember? Kirk out....

[bnorth]

You asked me to post SMR's. Are you really this goofy??

YES he is. I have him on ignore so please quit quoting his posts so I don't have to see them.:)

[1952boyntoncollector]

YES he is. I have him on ignore so please quit quoting his posts so I don't have to see them.:)

hmm, its my thread that I started and bnorth is complaining of seeing my posts?. Its like an anti porn person ending up being the biggest in the porn industry. I think bnorth secretly loves my posts.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks

[dgo71]

Players get put in the lineup based on their skills, managers dn't just hapdazardly put a guy somewhere and force him to alter his game that wuld be stupid. Ichiro hit leadoff, but he hit what he hit. He is 5% above avg hitter for his career, and he would have done that hitting anywhere in the lineup. (not to mention that we compare players based on their production relative to their peers and to history as an entire, Babe Ruth didn't face the splitter sure, but he also only faced 21-30 starting pitchers in the league instead of 150 in a season we have now)

Happens all the time. In 2011 when ichiro slumped he got moved to the three hole and completely changed his approach at the plate. And the point about Ruth was exactly the point I was making. Facing 30 starters versus 150 is a distinct advantage. You cannot compare history in its entirety when the game has changed so much over the last 100 years. That's like saying Orlando Hudson was a better power hitter than Home Run Baker.

[bravos4evr]

Happens all the time. In 2011 when ichiro slumped he got moved to the three hole and completely changed his approach at the plate. And the point about Ruth was exactly the point I was making. Facing 30 starters versus 150 is a distinct advantage. You cannot compare history in its entirety when the game has changed so much over the last 100 years. That's like saying Orlando Hudson was a better power hitter than Home Run Baker.

if he changed his approach that was his fault. good hitters hit good bad hitters hit bad. and true the game changed (and we tend to understand that dead ball era baseball was a totally different game) but stats are stats, player's should get credit for what they did and not given special privileges because confirmation bias makes us want to make them better than they were. Ichiro hit 5 % above avg for his career. This is a fact. power matters.

[bravos4evr]

+1....A player averages 200 hits per year for 15 years and that's not a huge accomplishment?? Please.....People that argue this simply don't know baseball, period....Of course you do have to factor in the OP.

this is so funny, it's the flat earther's arguing that "anyone who thinks the earth is round obviously are stupid" lmao!!!!!

sorry, 3000 hits doesn't mean jack. It just doesn't. you can stomp your feet and whine until you turn blue and it doesn't change a thing. Your viewpoint is simply antiquated and wrong and based on a fundamental misunderstanding of baseball. (which, isn't really your fault, bad information was preached as gospel by lot's of so called "experts" for a long time, but we evolve, we learn we understand more and more now than ever before, and 3000 hits ,in and of itself, simply isn't an indicator of production. hitting 5% above avg isn't all that great.)

[CMIZ5290]

this is so funny, it's the flat earther's arguing that "anyone who thinks the earth is round obviously are stupid" lmao!!!!!

sorry, 3000 hits doesn't mean jack. It just doesn't. you can stomp your feet and whine until you turn blue and it doesn't change a thing. Your viewpoint is simply antiquated and wrong and based on a fundamental misunderstanding of baseball. (which, isn't really your fault, bad information was preached as gospel by lot's of so called "experts" for a long time, but we evolve, we learn we understand more and more now than ever before, and 3000 hits ,in and of itself, simply isn't an indicator of production. hitting 5% above avg isn't all that great.)
Really?? Unbelievable..Your avatar is very accurate in this case because it's going to be like arguing with a wooden indian....Are you related to 1952Boy??

[Econteachert205]

I guess I viewed the question as a comparison, as in is 3000 hits a bigger deal than say 500 hrs or 300 wins. I'm going to refer my list below to the "marginal 3000 hit hofers", like say a biggio. Here is why I think it is a big deal. Most if not all with 3000 hits have:

1. Longevity and health
2. Plate discipline with two strikes
3. A very good eye or terrific hand eye coordination
4. Good on base and high runs scored numbers
5. Great hit and run possibilities
6. Extending innings to roll over lineups

Players like Craig biggio increased the success rates of power hitters like Bagwell. I will concede that some of this is more national league specific, but I am more impressed with a 3000 hit guy than a 500 hr guy, all other things being equal.

[CMIZ5290]

I guess I viewed the question as a comparison, as in is 3000 hits a bigger deal than say 500 hrs or 300 wins. I'm going to refer my list below to the "marginal 3000 hit hofers", like say a biggio. Here is why I think it is a big deal. Most if not all with 3000 hits have:

1. Longevity and health
2. Plate discipline with two strikes
3. A very good eye or terrific hand eye coordination
4. Good on base and high runs scored numbers
5. Great hit and run possibilities
6. Extending innings to roll over lineups

Players like Craig biggio increased the success rates of power hitters like Bagwell. I will concede that some of this is more national league specific, but I am more impressed with a 3000 hit guy than a 500 hr guy, all other things being equal.
+1....Dennis, I could not have said it better my friend. Give me a guy that averages 200 hits for 15 years (this stat still blows my mind). Your other points are spot on as well......Uh Oh, 1952Boy just logged on. I have my crucifix, do you?

[rats60]

if he changed his approach that was his fault. good hitters hit good bad hitters hit bad. and true the game changed (and we tend to understand that dead ball era baseball was a totally different game) but stats are stats, player's should get credit for what they did and not given special privileges because confirmation bias makes us want to make them better than they were. Ichiro hit 5 % above avg for his career. This is a fact. power matters.

This must be some sort of new math that makes no sense. Ichiro is a lifetime .314 hitter. That is a lot higher than 5% above average. One of the most difficult things to do is hit a baseball and Ichiro was one of this best. The only guys better the last 50 years, Vladimir Guerrero, Roberto Clemente, Kirby Puckett, Miguel Cabrera, Rod Carew, Wade Boggs and Tony Gwynn.

[dgo71]

stats are stats

I guess that's why statistics too continue to evolve over the years, along with their signifigance. Stats can be used to make any point you want them to, and thinking there's no difference between stats from 100, 50 or even 20 years ago is just simply incorrect.

[1952boyntoncollector]

I guess I viewed the question as a comparison, as in is 3000 hits a bigger deal than say 500 hrs or 300 wins. I'm going to refer my list below to the "marginal 3000 hit hofers", like say a biggio. Here is why I think it is a big deal. Most if not all with 3000 hits have:

1. Longevity and health
2. Plate discipline with two strikes
3. A very good eye or terrific hand eye coordination
4. Good on base and high runs scored numbers
5. Great hit and run possibilities
6. Extending innings to roll over lineups

Players like Craig biggio increased the success rates of power hitters like Bagwell. I will concede that some of this is more national league specific, but I am more impressed with a 3000 hit guy than a 500 hr guy, all other things being equal.

Wouldnt all of the above apply to someone in the top 30 in total bases? Ichiro is not top 100 yet. Yet there is no countdown to #4000 in total bases. The point of the thread is that total bases is more important than 3000 hits, not that 3000 hits means nothing.

[1952boyntoncollector]

+1....Dennis, I could not have said it better my friend. Give me a guy that averages 200 hits for 15 years (this stat still blows my mind). Your other points are spot on as well......Uh Oh, 1952Boy just logged on. I have my crucifix, do you?

Man i wasnt aware that i logged on at 5 pm.....Not only do you troll but you make time in your life to find out when I log on? Your getting stranger by the day.

[the 'stache]

It's really not that hard to get 200 hits a season if you bat leadoff, and stay healthy. And, to his credit, Ichiro did that just that--stay healthy--for more than a decade to start his career. He also had some real good seasons, average wise. But let's be clear about two things. One, between 2001 and 2010, the "200 hit season streak", he averaged a whopping 734 plate appearances a season. And Ichiro doesn't walk, well, at all. 620 walks in 10,335 plate appearances is pretty piss poor. His .314 lifetime batting average is outstanding. But, comparatively, his lifetime OBP, for a future Hall of Famer, is quite low at .357. It's driven almost entirely by his average. So, he got a ton of official at bats with which to get those 200 hits. In fact, he averaged 678 at bats a season between 2001-2010. With 678 at bats, you don't even have to hit .300 to get 200 hits. In fact, if you hit .295, you'll get 200 hits on the dot.

Ichiro hit only .303 in 2005. That was his fifth season in the Majors, and the fifth in a row he'd get 200 hits. Know how many players, since 1901, have hit .303 and gotten 200 hits? Three, including Ichiro. And the last time it happened was 76 years ago.

2005-Ichiro Suzuki, 206 hits, 679 at bats, .303 AVG
1930-Taylor Douthit, 201 hits, 664 at bats, .303 AVG
1940-Doc Cramer, 200 hits, 661 at bats, .303 AVG

99.999% of the time, the run would have ended right there, and this "200 hit season streak" talk would be a distant memory. The only reason the streak continued was because of the sheer number of times he came to the plate.


Secondly, all he does is hit singles. He had 262 hits in 2004, and 225 of those hits were singles. 24 doubles, 5 triples, 8 home runs. How does a guy that fast only have 29 doubles and triples among 262 hits?

Hand-eye coordination is one thing. And it's certainly hard to hit at the Major League level. Hitting the curve might be the hardest thing to do in professional sports. But it is infinitely easier to hit for high average when you're just dinking the ball into the outfield. When you're not hitting for power, you can shorten your swing. This allows slightly more time for the hitter to pick up the pitch. And of all the hitters with 3,000 career hits, Ichiro has, by a wide margin, the fewest extra base hits. 556 extra base hits, 2,444 singles. As has been mentioned earlier, his career OPS + is only 105. He's 5% above the average Major League hitter for his career because he provides virtually no power. In fact, he's lucky he got to 3,000 hits at all. Between 2011 and 2015, the last five seasons, his OPS + has been 85--15% below Major League average. He's been worth 3.8 bWAR (3.6 fWAR). That's about 0.7 fWAR a season; basically, a fringe replacement level player.

I like Ichiro a lot. Great guy, and a fantastic pure hitter. But all the hyperbole I've been reading, like "he's the greatest hitter of this generation", is making me absolutely nuts. That's patently false. Too many guys have hit for average AND power, and have had a better OBP in the process. Ichiro is a great base stealer, and a real good (but not as great as some believe) fielder. But his dearth of power hurts his all-time ranking. He's a Hall of Famer, and will get in quickly (first year of eligibility, likely, because of his popularity). But he's just not on the level of the all-time greats, and to suggest he is is disingenuous.

[the 'stache]

Who is more valuable? A player who hits .314 with a .700 OPS, or a hitter who hits .297 with a .950 OPS?

Power matters. There is more to hitting a baseball than batting average. Ichiro has no power to speak of, and his ability to get on base, beyond hitting singles, is sorely lacking. That's why he's only 5% above average. OPS + factors in OBP and SLG, and adjusts for ballpark factors.

Ichiro hit .314 (.3136).
Hank Greenberg, right below him on the all-time average leader board, hit .314 (.3135).

Ichiro had 3,878 total bases in 9,573 at bats. A .405 SLG.
Hank Greenberg had 3,142 total bases in 5,193 at bats. A .605 SLG.

Greenberg had the same average, lifetime, but brought incredible power to his game. And a home run always trumps a single.

That's not all. Ichiro walked 620 times in 10,339 plate appearances. He has a .357 OBP career.
Greenberg walked 852 times, or 232 times more in 4,241 fewer plate appearances (6,098 PAs total). His career OBP was .412.

Ichiro's career .762 OPS is only 5% above league average for his career.
Meanwhile, Greenberg's 1.017 OPS is 58% better than league average for his career.

Two .314 career hitters. Ichrio with a career 60.0 WAR (58.1 fWAR) in 2,455 games played. Greenberg with a career 57.5 WAR (61.1 fWAR) in 1,394 games played. Those WAR metrics take everything into consideration-hitting for power and average, OBP, speed, fielding.

Who would you rather have?

This must be some sort of new math that makes no sense. Ichiro is a lifetime .314 hitter. That is a lot higher than 5% above average. One of the most difficult things to do is hit a baseball and Ichiro was one of this best. The only guys better the last 50 years, Vladimir Guerrero, Roberto Clemente, Kirby Puckett, Miguel Cabrera, Rod Carew, Wade Boggs and Tony Gwynn.

[1952boyntoncollector]

correct 'Stace, hits just because they are hits doesnt make you an all time great cause you can hit .295 and get 200 hits. Total bases accounts for power and walks which Ichiro does neither.

To have 3000 hits yet not have 4000 total bases really says something in terms of lack of power and getting walks. I appreciate your use of real numbers.

[rats60]

Who is more valuable? A player who hits .314 with a .700 OPS, or a hitter who hits .297 with a .950 OPS?

Power matters. There is more to hitting a baseball than batting average. Ichiro has no power to speak of, and his ability to get on base, beyond hitting singles, is sorely lacking. That's why he's only 5% above average. OPS + factors in OBP and SLG, and adjusts for ballpark factors.

Ichiro hit .314 (.3136).
Hank Greenberg, right below him on the all-time average leader board, hit .314 (.3135).

Ichiro had 3,878 total bases in 9,573 at bats. A .405 SLG.
Hank Greenberg had 3,142 total bases in 5,193 at bats. A .605 SLG.

Greenberg had the same average, lifetime, but brought incredible power to his game. And a home run always trumps a single.

That's not all. Ichiro walked 620 times in 10,339 plate appearances. He has a .357 OBP career.
Greenberg walked 852 times, or 232 times more in 4,241 fewer plate appearances (6,098 PAs total). His career OBP was .412.

Ichiro's career .762 OPS is only 5% above league average for his career.
Meanwhile, Greenberg's 1.017 OPS is 58% better than league average for his career.

Two .314 career hitters. Ichrio with a career 60.0 WAR (58.1 fWAR) in 2,455 games played. Greenberg with a career 57.5 WAR (61.1 fWAR) in 1,394 games played. Those WAR metrics take everything into consideration-hitting for power and average, OBP, speed, fielding.

Who would you rather have?

Power matters, but ops is extremely overrated. If I had two guys with equal BA, I would take the guy with the higher SLG. I would rather a guy who hits for a high average than a guy who walks a lot.

Walks are the most overrated stat in baseball. The goal of the game is to score runs. A walk only scores a run when the bases are loaded, which is rare. A hit scores the runner from 3rd almost every time, from 2nd most of the time and from 1st a lot of the time on extra base hits.

This even totally ignores the strategy of walking a guy with 1b open and 1 out to set up the double play or pitching around a hitter with 2 outs to get out a weaker hitter. I would rather my star hit a pitch out of the strike zone than allowing himself to be pitched around. Give me a guy with 3000 hits over a guy with a bunch meaningless walks.

WAR is pretty much worthless. It over values walks. The values for fielding are random. Certain positions are over valued and others are under valued. Baseball reference even completely changed how they calculated it a few years ago. Fangraphics has their own system which varies from BR.

[packs]

Couple of interesting stats for a guy who apparently is only better than 5 percent of all major leaguers and is just some slappy dinky hitter:

Ichiro has led the league in intentional walks 3 times
Ichiro has more intentional walks in his 16 seasons than A-rod does in his 22.
Ichiro's offensive WAR is nearly 10 points higher than Jose Bautista's, even with Joey Bats having a 132 RC+.

[Econteachert205]

I don't mind the idea of using total bases as a preferred metric. If we are talking lead off hitters one could make the argument that on base percentage is more important than either. My main issue with total bases is that the steroid era skewed the validity of comparative analysis because of the home run party. I'm more impressed with say Carl Yastrzemski total base numbers from the late 1960's than any total base numbers from the 90's.

[1952boyntoncollector]

I don't mind the idea of using total bases as a preferred metric. If we are talking lead off hitters one could make the argument that on base percentage is more important than either. My main issue with total bases is that the steroid era skewed the validity of comparative analysis because of the home run party. I'm more impressed with say Carl Yastrzemski total base numbers from the late 1960's than any total base numbers from the 90's.

Steroid era applies to everything though on many stats on many arguments. There are a lot of big total base guys that werent in the home run party though.

There was another poster that talked about walks not meaning much compared to hits because you can drive in runs with hits. I agree with that. However it was already assumed the total base guys drive in more runs that then the ichiro type 3000 hit guys so the walks was just an icing on the cake and not a main part of the argument


Basically, i just not a big fan of 'participation awards' If you play long enough you are going to get a certain amount of slap hits even into your 40s. I would contend a replacement level player from AAA who played 23 years in the big leagues would get close to 3000 hits but nowhere near 4500 total bases... Yes ichiro did it in far less, However we are going by totals not by how many years when doing a 3000 hit countdown. There is no hits per game countdown.....

[packs]

Well factor into your perspective that only about 1 percent of all major leaguers have careers spanning 20 or more seasons.

[dgo71]

Basically, i just not a big fan of 'participation awards' If you play long enough you are going to get a certain amount of slap hits even into your 40s. I would contend a replacement level player from AAA who played 23 years in the big leagues would get close to 3000 hits but nowhere near 4500 total bases... Yes ichiro did it in far less, However we are going by totals not by how many years when doing a 3000 hit countdown. There is no hits per game countdown.....

I think that is greatly minimizing the talent it takes to get to 3000 hits. Lots of guys had long careers and yet there are still only 2/100ths of a percent of the games' players to ever reach the milestone. Harold Baines played forever and was solely a hitter for a lot of that time and didn't get there. Vizquel, Fisk, Buckner, Darrell Evans, Ted Simmons, Ruben Sierra...quite a long list of 20+ year MLBers that didn't get to 3000 hits, and I would consider all of those names to be better than a AAA replacement player. I would venture to say it's not an easy task regardless of how those hits are produced. I do agree to some extent that if the discussion is about what has more overall value, the power is important along with some of the other stats that have come up in the thread, but to the point of the original question about 3000 hits and whether or not it's impressive at it's most basic level, it most definitely is.

[Econteachert205]

The participation award argument does cross over to 300 wins as well with guys like niekro and sutton, but again, I do think you underestimate just how amazing it is to be able to keep your body and mind in major league condition at 40 plus. I'm 34 and can't move the way I did at 24. To be 40 and be productive on a major league roster is a pretty freakish thing.

[1952boyntoncollector]

I think that is greatly minimizing the talent it takes to get to 3000 hits. Lots of guys had long careers and yet there are still only 2/100ths of a percent of the games' players to ever reach the milestone. Harold Baines played forever and was solely a hitter for a lot of that time and didn't get there. Vizquel, Fisk, Buckner, Darrell Evans, Ted Simmons, Ruben Sierra...quite a long list of 20+ year MLBers that didn't get to 3000 hits, and I would consider all of those names to be better than a AAA replacement player. I would venture to say it's not an easy task regardless of how those hits are produced. I do agree to some extent that if the discussion is about what has more overall value, the power is important along with some of the other stats that have come up in the thread, but to the point of the original question about 3000 hits and whether or not it's impressive at it's most basic level, it most definitely is.


It wasnt whether 3000 hits is impressive, its whether compared to total bases whether its that impressive. None of those guys you mentioned are in the top 30 in total bases. Yet there is no mention of any total bases milestones but people go crazy and buy relic cards of 3000 hits. Lots of guys are better than replacement level players that wasnt my point

Yes participating in the major leagues 20 years means you are a pro baseball player that obviously offered a lot , but it says nothing of whether you were elite. Cumulative stats can make someone look elite though when you add 20 years versus a guy that only played 5 years in total though at an elite level.

....it doesnt matter if only 1 percent ever played 20 years, that has nothing to do about whether you are elite. I can find lots of players that did things that 99 percent of the players didn't and that would also mean nothing in terms of measuring an elite player.

[1952boyntoncollector]

The participation award argument does cross over to 300 wins as well with guys like niekro and sutton, but again, I do think you underestimate just how amazing it is to be able to keep your body and mind in major league condition at 40 plus. I'm 34 and can't move the way I did at 24. To be 40 and be productive on a major league roster is a pretty freakish thing.

I agree to be 40 years old and be able to play pro baseball is amazing, but i think you would agree right now Ichiro is a replacement level player. Its funny that that once you get to 40 and beyond..no matter what you did before, the first year you do terrible, everyone says its over (ie. Arod)

We arent grading on a curve here...impressive at 40 for ichiro still for him means replacement level.

[FourStrikes]

It wasnt whether 3000 hits is impressive, its whether compared to total bases whether its that impressive. None of those guys you mentioned are in the top 30 in total bases. Yet there is no mention of any total bases milestones but people go crazy and buy relic cards of 3000 hits.

Yes participating in the major leagues 20 years syou are a pro baseball player that obviously offered a lot , but it says nothing of whether you were elite. Cumulative stats can make someone look elite though when you add 20 years versus a guy that only played 5 years in total though at an elite level.

....it doesnt matter if only 1 percent ever played 20 years, that has nothing to do about whether you are elite. I can find lots of players that did things that 99 percent of the players didn't and that would also mean nothing in terms of measuring an elite player.

NOT trying to be a sh!t-stirrer here but:

top 60 career TB leaders....are #41 BAINES (longevity / 2800+ hits- OK, maybe) and #57 Luis Gonzalez (an OK player but, um...NO), really HOFers based solely on your argument of "HOF-worthy" underappreciated TB's????

granted, the BBWAA and veterans committee are not always correct or rational w/ their decisions, good AND bad, but do TB's REALLY qualify as an accurate HOF-worthy measuring stick???

shee-yit, Helton (#62), Damon (#72), Finley (#7) and Staub (#76) are HOF-worthy based on your argument ???, while the majority listed above them - Top 80 - seemingly had warranted careers which INCLUDED their respective TB counts - are at least more believable.

sorry, I disagree, respectfully or otherwise, based on your "3000 hits vs TB's argument" as being a valid measuring stick, but...

p.s. - feel free to block me should you choose - I've got THICK skin, and I have NO desire to get into an elongated back/forth debate - just thought I'd offer my imput, and RESPECTFULLY disagree with your personal viewpoint - we can all do that civilly: ain't America great!

best wishes, happy collecting and...*PEACE* !!!

[Econteachert205]

Ichiro is batting 318 with more walks than strikeouts and still plays a very good outfield with a cannon arm. He is a high end platoon player to me not replacement level. If he were released now teams would be falling all over themselves to sweep him up for the stretch run.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Ichiro is batting 318 with more walks than strikeouts and still plays a very good outfield with a cannon arm. He is a high end platoon player to me not replacement level. If he were released now teams would be falling all over themselves to sweep him up for the stretch run.

Talk is sort of cheap. Last season he was worse than replacement level and hit .229. His batting avg has gone down a ton the past month. Replacement level is a compliment for a 40 year old.

So some team will pay for him for a month or 2 at a very low salary as a bench player and pinch hitter. Thats a replacement level player That still doesnt say much. He wasnt offered any other jobs this year for a reason Next year nobody is going to be fighting to sign him. There was zero bidding war for him this year. If he was a high end platoon player he would have more opportunities than the Marlins. Heck why wouldnt Seattle want him for more money to finish his career.

[1952boyntoncollector]

NOT trying to be a sh!t-stirrer here but:

top 60 career TB leaders....are #41 BAINES (longevity / 2800+ hits- OK, maybe) and #57 Luis Gonzalez (an OK player but, um...NO), really HOFers based solely on your argument of "HOF-worthy" underappreciated TB's????

granted, the BBWAA and veterans committee are not always correct or rational w/ their decisions, good AND bad, but do TB's REALLY qualify as an accurate HOF-worthy measuring stick???

shee-yit, Helton (#62), Damon (#72), Finley (#7) and Staub (#76) are HOF-worthy based on your argument ???, while the majority listed above them - Top 80 - seemingly had warranted careers which INCLUDED their respective TB counts - are at least more believable.

sorry, I disagree, respectfully or otherwise, based on your "3000 hits vs TB's argument" as being a valid measuring stick, but...

p.s. - feel free to block me should you choose - I've got THICK skin, and I have NO desire to get into an elongated back/forth debate - just thought I'd offer my imput, and RESPECTFULLY disagree with your personal viewpoint - we can all do that civilly: ain't America great!

best wishes, happy collecting and...*PEACE* !!!

Looks like you cited some participation award type players and used a lot of capital letters. It appears like you are agreeing with me that hits or other stats that are participation awards are indeed overrated. I love how you talk about respectfully disagreeing in the same sentence as offering yourself to be blocked. The discussion involves 3000 hits which puts it in a top 30 category of all time hits. I would likewise compare the top 30 in all time total bases and not guys 70-80. I can look at guys in the top 20 in total bases and compare them to #80-#100 to make a bad argument as well.

Not sure what you are arguing. I just compared total bases accomplishments versus hits even in the context of a participation award. Number 7 in all time total bases is babe ruth not Finley by the way but i am assuming that was a typo.

[Cmount76]

I was watching the Mets game yesterday afternoon and as the D’backs set a new record for a three game series of stolen bases against of the Mets, Gary Cohen and Keith Hernandez got into a debate about saber-metrics, the importance of steals, etc. Gary was making the point that steals have become a virtual nonexistent in the game, as the new metrics are proving that unless you are stealing at a 75% success rate, the art of the steal is ineffective. Keith went into a bit of a tirade. If you watch SNY, this is usually entertaining. He argued about the Cardinal days of the 70’s with guys like Lou Brock. He then tried to explain to Gary that there is more than sheer numbers. I am paraphrasing, as I couldn’t find the actual video of his exact wording, but he said something to the effect of…

“All of these statistics don’t tell the larger picture. How the lead of a potential base stealer can get into the head of an opposing pitcher. How the base stealer can cause a pitcher to rush his delivery. How a base stealer can change shifts in defensive alignments.” He said much more, and with more clarity, but I think his point is valid and can be applied here as well.

An argument/discussion, based purely on numbers doesn’t tell the whole picture. Anyone with 20 minutes can go to Baseball-Reference and create an argument that debunks a counter argument.

Are 3,000 hit an impressive achievement, regardless of longevity? Absolutely. Are 4,500 total bases (or whatever arbitrary number) impressive? Without a doubt. Does one mean “more” to overall greatness or Hall of Fame worthiness? In my opinion, probably not. Like Keith, I am more in line with looking at totality.

(Shameless plug for Keith) – He is not a Hall of Famer, although many, including myself, would argue he should be. His hit total puts him at #192 on the all-time list. His total base totals put him at #229. His batting average puts him at #268. Sheer numbers – not that impressive. But if you look at the totality of his career – Arguably the greatest defensive 1B of all time. 11 CONSECUTIVE gold gloves. The trade catalyst (along with Carter) for bringing a championship to Queens. A team leader, on and off the field. The Captain. These things aren’t quantifiable by numbers solely (well, the Gold Gloves are), but they mean something to overall greatness.

I’m a math teacher. I love numbers as much as the next stat nerd, but let’s not lose sight of the forest for the trees. Want to argue Ichiro? Great. Debate it. But debate his totality to his teams. What did he bring to the table? Did he elevate his team? Did he bring unity to the clubhouse? Did he teach, through daily actions, what it takes to be great? All of the numbers are great, but let’s keep them in the context of what unites all of us – the game of baseball – not the baseball-reference website.

[Econteachert205]

Agree with Michael. There are some guys in the hall who you would trade for guys not in because they meant more to their teams and were winners with skills statistics do not measure.

[1952boyntoncollector]

I was watching the Mets game yesterday afternoon and as the D’backs set a new record for a three game series of stolen bases against of the Mets, Gary Cohen and Keith Hernandez got into a debate about saber-metrics, the importance of steals, etc. Gary was making the point that steals have become a virtual nonexistent in the game, as the new metrics are proving that unless you are stealing at a 75% success rate, the art of the steal is ineffective. Keith went into a bit of a tirade. If you watch SNY, this is usually entertaining. He argued about the Cardinal days of the 70’s with guys like Lou Brock. He then tried to explain to Gary that there is more than sheer numbers. I am paraphrasing, as I couldn’t find the actual video of his exact wording, but he said something to the effect of…

“All of these statistics don’t tell the larger picture. How the lead of a potential base stealer can get into the head of an opposing pitcher. How the base stealer can cause a pitcher to rush his delivery. How a base stealer can change shifts in defensive alignments.” He said much more, and with more clarity, but I think his point is valid and can be applied here as well.

An argument/discussion, based purely on numbers doesn’t tell the whole picture. Anyone with 20 minutes can go to Baseball-Reference and create an argument that debunks a counter argument.

Are 3,000 hit an impressive achievement, regardless of longevity? Absolutely. Are 4,500 total bases (or whatever arbitrary number) impressive? Without a doubt. Does one mean “more” to overall greatness or Hall of Fame worthiness? In my opinion, probably not. Like Keith, I am more in line with looking at totality.

(Shameless plug for Keith) – He is not a Hall of Famer, although many, including myself, would argue he should be. His hit total puts him at #192 on the all-time list. His total base totals put him at #229. His batting average puts him at #268. Sheer numbers – not that impressive. But if you look at the totality of his career – Arguably the greatest defensive 1B of all time. 11 CONSECUTIVE gold gloves. The trade catalyst (along with Carter) for bringing a championship to Queens. A team leader, on and off the field. The Captain. These things aren’t quantifiable by numbers solely (well, the Gold Gloves are), but they mean something to overall greatness.

I’m a math teacher. I love numbers as much as the next stat nerd, but let’s not lose sight of the forest for the trees. Want to argue Ichiro? Great. Debate it. But debate his totality to his teams. What did he bring to the table? Did he elevate his team? Did he bring unity to the clubhouse? Did he teach, through daily actions, what it takes to be great? All of the numbers are great, but let’s keep them in the context of what unites all of us – the game of baseball – not the baseball-reference website.


I agree with that. Thats why i call some award participation awards. In the NBA, they do talk about total points scored. However, the stats are really more focused on points/rebounds/assists etc per game.

You tell me somebody got a million rebounds in a career, to me its more impressive if he had 13.5 rebounds a game and played 8 years. I think in the NBA changing the amount of games in a season, if they did it, isnt as big a deal as baseball. Less games in baseball it will be harder to get the magical 3000 hits. In basketball, you can still score 30.4 points a game and be called one of the greatest all time scorers and nobody will care that you scored less points in a season or got below the magical whatever number in total points..

Baseball is just different..

[packs]

How does a guy who gets 3,000 hits in 16 seasons qualify as a participation award player? Before you said anyone could play 23 seasons and get 3,000 hits. Ichiro did it in 16.

[1952boyntoncollector]

How does a guy who gets 3,000 hits in 16 seasons qualify as a participation award player? Before you said anyone could play 23 seasons and get 3,000 hits. Ichiro did it in 16.

I already addressed that Ichiro got his 3000 in many less years than the others (only 1 of 2 with 16 years)...... I actually addressed that many many times.

they celebrate 3000 hits, not the amount of years it took him to get it. We arent just talking about ichiro we are talking about 3000 hit club in general.

So coming up with 1 out of 2 of the lone examples of guys that did it in 16 years or less that are in the 3000 club proves my point, you are citing an exception not the rule. You already appear to agree that 23 seasons amounts to a participation award as you were quick to talk about Ichiro. 25 guys took 20 years or more on the top 30. Most of the remainder are 19 years of service. Cap Anson 27 years which is 111 hits a year. (yes many many less games a season) Still if you play 23 seasons you need 130 hits a year. Replacement guys can do that, but they arent going to have the power needed to get in the top 30 of total bases.

[packs]

How come Julio Franco doesn't have 3,000 hits?

[1952boyntoncollector]

How come Ichiro doesnt have 4000 total bases or even 3900 total bases even with 3000 hits? Walks are also added to the total bases which makes the feat amazing.

I would assume Julio Franco doesnt have 3000 hits because he only played in 120 games in a year 13 times. Plus one year he played ONE game, in another year 15 games and there are 9 years in which he played under 100 games many for far less. Give him 20 years of steady games and he gets it easy

Its too bad Franco didnt get to participate more to win the participation award

[Eric72]

3,000 hits. 500 home runs. 300 wins. 3,000 strikeouts.

Rightly or wrongly, these milestone career totals have been celebrated for decades. I personally consider achieving any one of them to be a, "big deal," as the OP framed it.

I understand that advanced statistics are available and perhaps more useful when comparing one particular player to another. However, I also try to keep things in context. In and of itself, racking up 3,000 hits in Major League Baseball is quite an accomplishment.

In short, yes, it IS a big deal. Kudos to all who have done it.

If 4,500 total bases somehow becomes a milestone, which I doubt, then let us applaud those players, too.

Best regards,

Eric

[sbfinley]

How come Ichiro doesnt have 4000 total bases or even 3900 total bases even with 3000 hits? Walks are also added to the total bases which makes the feat amazing.



Walks aren't added to total bases........

[1952boyntoncollector]

Walks aren't added to total bases........

Ah now you see what that would of been an amazing feat... there are other metrics that factor it in..

To sum up, there are different ways to look at total bases versus hits...each side has its argument..neither side is 'wrong' No more from me on this thread....

[Eric72]

No more from me on this thread

Much appreciated, Jake. Thank you.

[FourStrikes]

Much appreciated, Jake. Thank you.

mic drop.

:D

[bravos4evr]

3,000 hits. 500 home runs. 300 wins. 3,000 strikeouts.

Rightly or wrongly, these milestone career totals have been celebrated for decades. I personally consider achieving any one of them to be a, "big deal," as the OP framed it.

I understand that advanced statistics are available and perhaps more useful when comparing one particular player to another. However, I also try to keep things in context. In and of itself, racking up 3,000 hits in Major League Baseball is quite an accomplishment.

In short, yes, it IS a big deal. Kudos to all who have done it.

If 4,500 total bases somehow becomes a milestone, which I doubt, then let us applaud those players, too.

Best regards,

Eric



sure they are MILESTONES for the player, and celebration points for an individual's lengthy career. My entire argument has been that hitting a milestone doth not necessarily carry with it some level of prowess. There is no such a thing as a "3000 hit player" as not all hits are created equal. There are plenty of hitters better than many on the 3000 hit club who had long careers that were far more productive.

In a nutshell, I'm just saying that getting to a milestone doesn't make you a better player than some other who failed to reach it. We have to look deeper below the surface.


ETA: the OP asked if 3000 hits was overrated, and yes I tend to think that ,as an indicator of player performance, it IS!

[CMIZ5290]

Much appreciated, Jake. Thank you.

I'm surprised you didn't want more input Eric.....:rolleyes:

[Eric72]

sure they are MILESTONES for the player, and celebration points for an individual's lengthy career. My entire argument has been that hitting a milestone doth not necessarily carry with it some level of prowess. There is no such a thing as a "3000 hit player" as not all hits are created equal. There are plenty of hitters better than many on the 3000 hit club who had long careers that were far more productive.

In a nutshell, I'm just saying that getting to a milestone doesn't make you a better player than some other who failed to reach it. We have to look deeper below the surface.


ETA: the OP asked if 3000 hits was overrated, and yes I tend to think that ,as an indicator of player performance, it IS!

I was never arguing with you. And I agree with what I consider to be the salient point of your post. For example, Lou Gehrig did not amass 3,000 hits or 500 home runs. Does this make him any less of a player? Of course not. Was he better than Ichiro? I certainly think so.

All I was trying to say is that achieving 3,000 hits is pretty special. Perhaps we should all just enjoy the accomplishment instead of trying to "win" a discussion that somehow devolved into the polarized argument this thread has become.

[bravos4evr]

I was never arguing with you. And I agree with what I consider to be the salient point of your post. For example, Lou Gehrig did not amass 3,000 hits or 500 home runs. Does this make him any less of a player? Of course not. Was he better than Ichiro? I certainly think so.

All I was trying to say is that achieving 3,000 hits is pretty special. Perhaps we should all just enjoy the accomplishment instead of trying to "win" a discussion that somehow devolved into the polarized argument this thread has become.

I tend to think ,for many in this discussion anyway, that the "polarization" existed before. If I had known so many folks would turn this into some personal vendetta against the OP (and vice-versa) I probably would have stayed away, but by the time that became apparent to me, I was already neck deep in it! lol

[bnorth]

I tend to think ,for many in this discussion anyway, that the "polarization" existed before. If I had known so many folks would turn this into some personal vendetta against the OP (and vice-versa) I probably would have stayed away, but by the time that became apparent to me, I was already neck deep in it! lol

Nick the OP posts these type of threads to cause problems. Just pull up his profile and look at the threads he has started, you will then understand the problem.:)

[1952boyntoncollector]

Nick the OP posts these type of threads to cause problems. Just pull up his profile and look at the threads he has started, you will then understand the problem.:)

Bravos: You can look at bnorth's posts which are always critical of me and you will see many posts from other posters (except CMIZE) in those threads which he referencing which are just fine with my posts, however he ALWAYS has a problem and likes to stir the pot. Its not like he is neutral in the matter. You will now understand the problem. I not commenting about the subject matter of the thread but when people quote nonsense I will set the record straight.

Starting a thread to make a baseball argument isnt a bad thing by the way. I thought people like baseball here. Its not like what some other posters who tend to bring up politics etc. I not see bnorth jump on people bringing up presidential candidates but if its a baseball argument, then its the worst thing in the world i guess.

[CMIZ5290]

Bravos: You can look at bnorth's posts which are always critical of me and you will see many posts from other posters (except CMIZE) in those threads which he referencing which are just fine with my posts, however he ALWAYS has a problem and likes to stir the pot. Its not like he is neutral in the matter. You will now understand the problem. I not commenting about the subject matter of the thread but when people quote nonsense I will set the record straight.

Starting a thread to make a baseball argument isnt a bad thing by the way. I thought people like baseball here. Its not like what some other posters who tend to bring up politics etc. I not see bnorth jump on people bringing up presidential candidates but if its a baseball argument, then its the worst thing in the world i guess.
Can't you shut up for one minute? Please, please, go away. You are a fungus....

[Eric72]

I tend to think ,for many in this discussion anyway, that the "polarization" existed before. If I had known so many folks would turn this into some personal vendetta against the OP (and vice-versa) I probably would have stayed away, but by the time that became apparent to me, I was already neck deep in it! lol

No worries, brother. I appreciate you weighing in. You're right about the friction already existing. There are quite a few dynamics in place that could be improved upon. This, of course, is no fault of yours. Have a great weekend.

[Eric72]

...Starting a thread to make a baseball argument isnt a bad thing by the way. I thought people like baseball here...

Hi, Jake. I hope this finds you well.

You're right as it pertains to the points I quoted above. However, there are some members (myself included) who feel as though you go out of your way to troll the board.

I personally think that you're an OK guy with quite a bit to offer. Perhaps if you play to your strengths (knowledge of the high end sports card market) and tone down the other stuff, you will gain more widespread acceptance here.

Just my two cents. Do with them what you will, good sir.

Best regards,

Eric

[Eric72]

One last thing...while there is no rule about posting images of cards, I think that a hundred or so posts without one is too many. Enjoy the '56 Mantle, everyone.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Can't you shut up for one minute? Please, please, go away. You are a fungus....

Another useful quote by CMIZE, what did that have to offer except trollling

[1952boyntoncollector]

Hi, Jake. I hope this finds you well.

You're right as it pertains to the points I quoted above. However, there are some members (myself included) who feel as though you go out of your way to troll the board.

I personally think that you're an OK guy with quite a bit to offer. Perhaps if you play to your strengths (knowledge of the high end sports card market) and tone down the other stuff, you will gain more widespread acceptance here.

Just my two cents. Do with them what you will, good sir.

Best regards,

Eric

Thanks. I will keep it in mind. You will see i try to keep my arguments on topic though without a post which the sole reason is to just criticize the poster. There would appear others that should tone it down as well. I also think if you read all of the posts and keep a neutral mind you may not see me as an instigator. I know there were a few posters that actually thought CMIZE wasnt biased against me or i was making it up that he trolls my posts, but after they actually read the full threads they messaged me and saw where i was coming from.

Nice Mick by the way

[Topps206]

It absolutely is because it takes sustainability and durability. Ichiro got 3000 hits and most take longer than he did in terms of seasons. I think only Rose also got 3000 in his 16th season. Many players have that potential. Not many actually make it.