Is 3000 hits a big deal or overrated?

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by 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

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!