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/le...B_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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[chaddurbin]

Originally Posted by bnorth

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

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]

Originally Posted by bnorth

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

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

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

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]

Originally Posted by bnorth

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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

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]

Originally Posted by bnorth

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

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]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by RTK

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]

Originally Posted by 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? 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]

Originally Posted by packs

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]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

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]

Originally Posted by rats60

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by packs

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]

Originally Posted by packs

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]

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 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.

[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)

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by 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.

+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]

Originally Posted by bnorth

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

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

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

+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]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

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]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

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]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

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/showthr...66#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/showthr...=224494&page=3