Is 3000 hits a big deal or overrated?

[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 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)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.