Is 3000 hits a big deal or overrated?

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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)

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.