Is 3000 hits a big deal or overrated?

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

"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
You have said that you always list an asking price, but on the 33 Goudey Ruth thread, you were asking for an offer....Say it ain't so.....
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

You have always said that you always list an asking price, but yet on the Ruth thread you asked for an offer....Say it ain't so....You're unbelievable....

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

You have always said that you always list an asking price, but yet on the Ruth thread you asked for an offer....Say it ain't so....You're unbelievable....

Thats how you respond. On my b/s/t threads when i list card is for sale i always list an asking price unlike you. I also post scans unlike you. I also dont go on b/s/t threads and argue that SMR is what a card should sell for unlike you and argue with LEON about why i am asking too much for a 1951 Bowman Mays PSA 6 card that took like a day and a half to sell.

the ruth wasnt my thread and i asked the poster who Wanted to buy the card, what price range would he pay...i asked that first. Take a look. He didnt answer yet. So I asked him again. It was not a 'FS': For Sale listing by me as the card is in my personal collection but if someone wants to buy it, i could sell it potentially. If it was a For Sale listing by me i would have a price for sure. So that was your big perry mason moment?

In addition, i did show a past sale of a PSA 4 of the same card. I know you like to compare a PSA 8 OC with a past sale of PSA 8 and im unbelievable!

I guess you agreed with everything else i posted. Oh and yeah your response didnt come off as arrogant either, you are such a straight shooter.. You also claim you dont try to stir the pot, this thread is about 3000 hits versus total bases by the way. .

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Thats how you respond. On my b/s/t threads when i list card is for sale i always list an asking price unlike you. I also post scans unlike you. I also dont go on b/s/t threads and argue that SMR is what a card should sell for unlike you and argue with LEON about why i am asking too much for a 1951 Bowman Mantle PSA 6 card that took like a day and a half to sell.

the ruth wasnt my thread and i asked the poster who Wanted to buy the card, what price range would he pay...i asked that first. Take a look. He didnt answer yet. So I asked him again. It was not a 'FS': For Sale listing by me as the card is in my personal collection but if someone wants to buy it, i could sell it potentially. If it was a For Sale listing by me i would have a price for sure. So that was your big perry mason moment?

In addition, i did show a past sale of a PSA 4 of the same card. I know you like to compare a PSA 8 OC with a past sale of PSA 8 and im unbelievable!

I guess you agreed with everything else i posted. Oh and yeah your response didnt come off as arrogant either, you are such a straight shooter.. You also claim you dont try to stir the pot, this thread is about 3000 hits versus total bases by the way. .

Actually your card was a 51 Mays....

[1952boyntoncollector]

Thanks CMIZE i changed it to Mays.... Please post SMR next to all of your listings (for the ones not OC as I do not think there is SMR for them unless want to reduce the grade by 2) or if you need help i can assist you. If you think thats lame, then you are describing what you did on the Mays b/s/t thread. Thanks

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Thanks CMIZE i changed it to Mays.... Please post SMR next to all of your listings (for the ones not OC) or if you need help i can assist you. Thanks

You are more than welcome 1952Boy

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

You are more than welcome 1952Boy

Ok so you are giving me permission to post SMR on your b/s/t threads Ill keep this thread when the time arrives. However you also like to argue with the pricing on b/s/t threads and talk down others that support the pricing. Let me know if i can do that too.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Ok so you are giving me permission to post SMR on your b/s/t threads?

You asked me to post SMR's. Are you really this goofy??

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

You asked me to post SMR's. Are you really this goofy??

So you admit it was goofy when you went by SMR on the 1951 Mays and it obvious you troll my posts and are biased.

Anyway you can post the last word if your post is the last post on the thread. Im sure I will see your nonsense when trolling me on other threads so we can go back and forth on there if Leon allows you too.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

So you admit it was goofy when you went by SMR on the 1951 Mays and it obvious you troll my posts and are biased.

Anyway you can post the last word if your post is the last post on the thread. Im sure I will see your nonsense when trolling me on other threads so we can go back and forth on there if Leon allows you too.

1952Boy, I apologized for that and it was over a month ago. No trolling or other BS on BST's, remember? Kirk out....

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

You asked me to post SMR's. Are you really this goofy??

YES he is. I have him on ignore so please quit quoting his posts so I don't have to see them.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by bnorth

YES he is. I have him on ignore so please quit quoting his posts so I don't have to see them.

hmm, its my thread that I started and bnorth is complaining of seeing my posts?. Its like an anti porn person ending up being the biggest in the porn industry. I think bnorth secretly loves my posts.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks

[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 dgo71

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.

if he changed his approach that was his fault. good hitters hit good bad hitters hit bad. and true the game changed (and we tend to understand that dead ball era baseball was a totally different game) but stats are stats, player's should get credit for what they did and not given special privileges because confirmation bias makes us want to make them better than they were. Ichiro hit 5 % above avg for his career. This is a fact. power matters.

[bravos4evr]

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.

this is so funny, it's the flat earther's arguing that "anyone who thinks the earth is round obviously are stupid" lmao!!!!!

sorry, 3000 hits doesn't mean jack. It just doesn't. you can stomp your feet and whine until you turn blue and it doesn't change a thing. Your viewpoint is simply antiquated and wrong and based on a fundamental misunderstanding of baseball. (which, isn't really your fault, bad information was preached as gospel by lot's of so called "experts" for a long time, but we evolve, we learn we understand more and more now than ever before, and 3000 hits ,in and of itself, simply isn't an indicator of production. hitting 5% above avg isn't all that great.)

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

this is so funny, it's the flat earther's arguing that "anyone who thinks the earth is round obviously are stupid" lmao!!!!!

sorry, 3000 hits doesn't mean jack. It just doesn't. you can stomp your feet and whine until you turn blue and it doesn't change a thing. Your viewpoint is simply antiquated and wrong and based on a fundamental misunderstanding of baseball. (which, isn't really your fault, bad information was preached as gospel by lot's of so called "experts" for a long time, but we evolve, we learn we understand more and more now than ever before, and 3000 hits ,in and of itself, simply isn't an indicator of production. hitting 5% above avg isn't all that great.)

Really?? Unbelievable..Your avatar is very accurate in this case because it's going to be like arguing with a wooden indian....Are you related to 1952Boy??

[Econteachert205]

I guess I viewed the question as a comparison, as in is 3000 hits a bigger deal than say 500 hrs or 300 wins. I'm going to refer my list below to the "marginal 3000 hit hofers", like say a biggio. Here is why I think it is a big deal. Most if not all with 3000 hits have:

1. Longevity and health
2. Plate discipline with two strikes
3. A very good eye or terrific hand eye coordination
4. Good on base and high runs scored numbers
5. Great hit and run possibilities
6. Extending innings to roll over lineups

Players like Craig biggio increased the success rates of power hitters like Bagwell. I will concede that some of this is more national league specific, but I am more impressed with a 3000 hit guy than a 500 hr guy, all other things being equal.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

I guess I viewed the question as a comparison, as in is 3000 hits a bigger deal than say 500 hrs or 300 wins. I'm going to refer my list below to the "marginal 3000 hit hofers", like say a biggio. Here is why I think it is a big deal. Most if not all with 3000 hits have:

1. Longevity and health
2. Plate discipline with two strikes
3. A very good eye or terrific hand eye coordination
4. Good on base and high runs scored numbers
5. Great hit and run possibilities
6. Extending innings to roll over lineups

Players like Craig biggio increased the success rates of power hitters like Bagwell. I will concede that some of this is more national league specific, but I am more impressed with a 3000 hit guy than a 500 hr guy, all other things being equal.

+1....Dennis, I could not have said it better my friend. Give me a guy that averages 200 hits for 15 years (this stat still blows my mind). Your other points are spot on as well......Uh Oh, 1952Boy just logged on. I have my crucifix, do you?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

if he changed his approach that was his fault. good hitters hit good bad hitters hit bad. and true the game changed (and we tend to understand that dead ball era baseball was a totally different game) but stats are stats, player's should get credit for what they did and not given special privileges because confirmation bias makes us want to make them better than they were. Ichiro hit 5 % above avg for his career. This is a fact. power matters.

This must be some sort of new math that makes no sense. Ichiro is a lifetime .314 hitter. That is a lot higher than 5% above average. One of the most difficult things to do is hit a baseball and Ichiro was one of this best. The only guys better the last 50 years, Vladimir Guerrero, Roberto Clemente, Kirby Puckett, Miguel Cabrera, Rod Carew, Wade Boggs and Tony Gwynn.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

stats are stats

I guess that's why statistics too continue to evolve over the years, along with their signifigance. Stats can be used to make any point you want them to, and thinking there's no difference between stats from 100, 50 or even 20 years ago is just simply incorrect.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

I guess I viewed the question as a comparison, as in is 3000 hits a bigger deal than say 500 hrs or 300 wins. I'm going to refer my list below to the "marginal 3000 hit hofers", like say a biggio. Here is why I think it is a big deal. Most if not all with 3000 hits have:

1. Longevity and health
2. Plate discipline with two strikes
3. A very good eye or terrific hand eye coordination
4. Good on base and high runs scored numbers
5. Great hit and run possibilities
6. Extending innings to roll over lineups

Players like Craig biggio increased the success rates of power hitters like Bagwell. I will concede that some of this is more national league specific, but I am more impressed with a 3000 hit guy than a 500 hr guy, all other things being equal.

Wouldnt all of the above apply to someone in the top 30 in total bases? Ichiro is not top 100 yet. Yet there is no countdown to #4000 in total bases. The point of the thread is that total bases is more important than 3000 hits, not that 3000 hits means nothing.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

+1....Dennis, I could not have said it better my friend. Give me a guy that averages 200 hits for 15 years (this stat still blows my mind). Your other points are spot on as well......Uh Oh, 1952Boy just logged on. I have my crucifix, do you?

Man i wasnt aware that i logged on at 5 pm.....Not only do you troll but you make time in your life to find out when I log on? Your getting stranger by the day.

[the 'stache]

It's really not that hard to get 200 hits a season if you bat leadoff, and stay healthy. And, to his credit, Ichiro did that just that--stay healthy--for more than a decade to start his career. He also had some real good seasons, average wise. But let's be clear about two things. One, between 2001 and 2010, the "200 hit season streak", he averaged a whopping 734 plate appearances a season. And Ichiro doesn't walk, well, at all. 620 walks in 10,335 plate appearances is pretty piss poor. His .314 lifetime batting average is outstanding. But, comparatively, his lifetime OBP, for a future Hall of Famer, is quite low at .357. It's driven almost entirely by his average. So, he got a ton of official at bats with which to get those 200 hits. In fact, he averaged 678 at bats a season between 2001-2010. With 678 at bats, you don't even have to hit .300 to get 200 hits. In fact, if you hit .295, you'll get 200 hits on the dot.

Ichiro hit only .303 in 2005. That was his fifth season in the Majors, and the fifth in a row he'd get 200 hits. Know how many players, since 1901, have hit .303 and gotten 200 hits? Three, including Ichiro. And the last time it happened was 76 years ago.

2005-Ichiro Suzuki, 206 hits, 679 at bats, .303 AVG
1930-Taylor Douthit, 201 hits, 664 at bats, .303 AVG
1940-Doc Cramer, 200 hits, 661 at bats, .303 AVG

99.999% of the time, the run would have ended right there, and this "200 hit season streak" talk would be a distant memory. The only reason the streak continued was because of the sheer number of times he came to the plate.


Secondly, all he does is hit singles. He had 262 hits in 2004, and 225 of those hits were singles. 24 doubles, 5 triples, 8 home runs. How does a guy that fast only have 29 doubles and triples among 262 hits?

Hand-eye coordination is one thing. And it's certainly hard to hit at the Major League level. Hitting the curve might be the hardest thing to do in professional sports. But it is infinitely easier to hit for high average when you're just dinking the ball into the outfield. When you're not hitting for power, you can shorten your swing. This allows slightly more time for the hitter to pick up the pitch. And of all the hitters with 3,000 career hits, Ichiro has, by a wide margin, the fewest extra base hits. 556 extra base hits, 2,444 singles. As has been mentioned earlier, his career OPS + is only 105. He's 5% above the average Major League hitter for his career because he provides virtually no power. In fact, he's lucky he got to 3,000 hits at all. Between 2011 and 2015, the last five seasons, his OPS + has been 85--15% below Major League average. He's been worth 3.8 bWAR (3.6 fWAR). That's about 0.7 fWAR a season; basically, a fringe replacement level player.

I like Ichiro a lot. Great guy, and a fantastic pure hitter. But all the hyperbole I've been reading, like "he's the greatest hitter of this generation", is making me absolutely nuts. That's patently false. Too many guys have hit for average AND power, and have had a better OBP in the process. Ichiro is a great base stealer, and a real good (but not as great as some believe) fielder. But his dearth of power hurts his all-time ranking. He's a Hall of Famer, and will get in quickly (first year of eligibility, likely, because of his popularity). But he's just not on the level of the all-time greats, and to suggest he is is disingenuous.

[the 'stache]

Who is more valuable? A player who hits .314 with a .700 OPS, or a hitter who hits .297 with a .950 OPS?

Power matters. There is more to hitting a baseball than batting average. Ichiro has no power to speak of, and his ability to get on base, beyond hitting singles, is sorely lacking. That's why he's only 5% above average. OPS + factors in OBP and SLG, and adjusts for ballpark factors.

Ichiro hit .314 (.3136).
Hank Greenberg, right below him on the all-time average leader board, hit .314 (.3135).

Ichiro had 3,878 total bases in 9,573 at bats. A .405 SLG.
Hank Greenberg had 3,142 total bases in 5,193 at bats. A .605 SLG.

Greenberg had the same average, lifetime, but brought incredible power to his game. And a home run always trumps a single.

That's not all. Ichiro walked 620 times in 10,339 plate appearances. He has a .357 OBP career.
Greenberg walked 852 times, or 232 times more in 4,241 fewer plate appearances (6,098 PAs total). His career OBP was .412.

Ichiro's career .762 OPS is only 5% above league average for his career.
Meanwhile, Greenberg's 1.017 OPS is 58% better than league average for his career.

Two .314 career hitters. Ichrio with a career 60.0 WAR (58.1 fWAR) in 2,455 games played. Greenberg with a career 57.5 WAR (61.1 fWAR) in 1,394 games played. Those WAR metrics take everything into consideration-hitting for power and average, OBP, speed, fielding.

Who would you rather have?

Originally Posted by rats60

This must be some sort of new math that makes no sense. Ichiro is a lifetime .314 hitter. That is a lot higher than 5% above average. One of the most difficult things to do is hit a baseball and Ichiro was one of this best. The only guys better the last 50 years, Vladimir Guerrero, Roberto Clemente, Kirby Puckett, Miguel Cabrera, Rod Carew, Wade Boggs and Tony Gwynn.

[1952boyntoncollector]

correct 'Stace, hits just because they are hits doesnt make you an all time great cause you can hit .295 and get 200 hits. Total bases accounts for power and walks which Ichiro does neither.

To have 3000 hits yet not have 4000 total bases really says something in terms of lack of power and getting walks. I appreciate your use of real numbers.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Who is more valuable? A player who hits .314 with a .700 OPS, or a hitter who hits .297 with a .950 OPS?

Power matters. There is more to hitting a baseball than batting average. Ichiro has no power to speak of, and his ability to get on base, beyond hitting singles, is sorely lacking. That's why he's only 5% above average. OPS + factors in OBP and SLG, and adjusts for ballpark factors.

Ichiro hit .314 (.3136).
Hank Greenberg, right below him on the all-time average leader board, hit .314 (.3135).

Ichiro had 3,878 total bases in 9,573 at bats. A .405 SLG.
Hank Greenberg had 3,142 total bases in 5,193 at bats. A .605 SLG.

Greenberg had the same average, lifetime, but brought incredible power to his game. And a home run always trumps a single.

That's not all. Ichiro walked 620 times in 10,339 plate appearances. He has a .357 OBP career.
Greenberg walked 852 times, or 232 times more in 4,241 fewer plate appearances (6,098 PAs total). His career OBP was .412.

Ichiro's career .762 OPS is only 5% above league average for his career.
Meanwhile, Greenberg's 1.017 OPS is 58% better than league average for his career.

Two .314 career hitters. Ichrio with a career 60.0 WAR (58.1 fWAR) in 2,455 games played. Greenberg with a career 57.5 WAR (61.1 fWAR) in 1,394 games played. Those WAR metrics take everything into consideration-hitting for power and average, OBP, speed, fielding.

Who would you rather have?

Power matters, but ops is extremely overrated. If I had two guys with equal BA, I would take the guy with the higher SLG. I would rather a guy who hits for a high average than a guy who walks a lot.

Walks are the most overrated stat in baseball. The goal of the game is to score runs. A walk only scores a run when the bases are loaded, which is rare. A hit scores the runner from 3rd almost every time, from 2nd most of the time and from 1st a lot of the time on extra base hits.

This even totally ignores the strategy of walking a guy with 1b open and 1 out to set up the double play or pitching around a hitter with 2 outs to get out a weaker hitter. I would rather my star hit a pitch out of the strike zone than allowing himself to be pitched around. Give me a guy with 3000 hits over a guy with a bunch meaningless walks.

WAR is pretty much worthless. It over values walks. The values for fielding are random. Certain positions are over valued and others are under valued. Baseball reference even completely changed how they calculated it a few years ago. Fangraphics has their own system which varies from BR.

[packs]

Couple of interesting stats for a guy who apparently is only better than 5 percent of all major leaguers and is just some slappy dinky hitter:

Ichiro has led the league in intentional walks 3 times
Ichiro has more intentional walks in his 16 seasons than A-rod does in his 22.
Ichiro's offensive WAR is nearly 10 points higher than Jose Bautista's, even with Joey Bats having a 132 RC+.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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..

[packs]

How does a guy who gets 3,000 hits in 16 seasons qualify as a participation award player? Before you said anyone could play 23 seasons and get 3,000 hits. Ichiro did it in 16.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by packs

How does a guy who gets 3,000 hits in 16 seasons qualify as a participation award player? Before you said anyone could play 23 seasons and get 3,000 hits. Ichiro did it in 16.

I already addressed that Ichiro got his 3000 in many less years than the others (only 1 of 2 with 16 years)...... I actually addressed that many many times.

they celebrate 3000 hits, not the amount of years it took him to get it. We arent just talking about ichiro we are talking about 3000 hit club in general.

So coming up with 1 out of 2 of the lone examples of guys that did it in 16 years or less that are in the 3000 club proves my point, you are citing an exception not the rule. You already appear to agree that 23 seasons amounts to a participation award as you were quick to talk about Ichiro. 25 guys took 20 years or more on the top 30. Most of the remainder are 19 years of service. Cap Anson 27 years which is 111 hits a year. (yes many many less games a season) Still if you play 23 seasons you need 130 hits a year. Replacement guys can do that, but they arent going to have the power needed to get in the top 30 of total bases.

[packs]

How come Julio Franco doesn't have 3,000 hits?

[1952boyntoncollector]

How come Ichiro doesnt have 4000 total bases or even 3900 total bases even with 3000 hits? Walks are also added to the total bases which makes the feat amazing.

I would assume Julio Franco doesnt have 3000 hits because he only played in 120 games in a year 13 times. Plus one year he played ONE game, in another year 15 games and there are 9 years in which he played under 100 games many for far less. Give him 20 years of steady games and he gets it easy

Its too bad Franco didnt get to participate more to win the participation award

[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

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

How come Ichiro doesnt have 4000 total bases or even 3900 total bases even with 3000 hits? Walks are also added to the total bases which makes the feat amazing.

Walks aren't added to total bases........

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

Walks aren't added to total bases........

Ah now you see what that would of been an amazing feat... there are other metrics that factor it in..

To sum up, there are different ways to look at total bases versus hits...each side has its argument..neither side is 'wrong' No more from me on this thread....

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

No more from me on this thread

Much appreciated, Jake. Thank you.

[FourStrikes]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Much appreciated, Jake. Thank you.

mic drop.

[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!