Is 3000 hits a big deal or overrated?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by dgo71

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.

[FourStrikes]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by FourStrikes

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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..