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.....