Is 3000 hits a big deal or overrated?

[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.