Hallowed Benchmark Numbers

[Appling]

There are some special benchmark numbers in baseball that have come to have special meaning. For a career, such numbers might be 300 wins for a pitcher or 3000 hits for a position player; for a single season, the benchmark numbers might be a .400 batting average or 50 homeruns.

How sharply does our awe disappear when a player is just slightly short of these magical plateau numbers? For example, is 2% under the benchmark most significant for batting average (.392 average instead of .400); or for homeruns in a season (49 instead of 50);or for career hits for position player (2940 instead of 3000) or career wins for a pitcher (294 instead of 300)?

So I ask you: For which of these metrics is a 2% shortfall from a "holy standard" perceived to be most significant?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

There are some special benchmark numbers in baseball that have come to have special meaning. For a career, such numbers might be 300 wins for a pitcher or 3000 hits for a position player; for a single season, the benchmark numbers might be a .400 batting average or 50 homeruns.

How sharply does our awe disappear when a player is just slightly short of these magical plateau numbers? For example, is 2% under the benchmark most significant for batting average (.392 average instead of .400); or for homeruns in a season (49 instead of 50);or for career hits for position player (2940 instead of 3000) or career wins for a pitcher (294 instead of 300)?

So I ask you: For which of these metrics is a 2% shortfall from a "holy standard" perceived to be most significant?

I'd say the hits; since to me 3000 is already over-rated.

[KCGHOST]

I'll go with the hits. It at least signifies a long, substantive career.

[RuthMayBond]

There are some special benchmark numbers in baseball that have come to have special meaning. For a career, such numbers might be 300 wins for a pitcher or 3000 hits for a position player; for a single season, the benchmark numbers might be a .400 batting average or 50 homeruns.

How sharply does our awe disappear when a player is just slightly short of these magical plateau numbers? For example, is 2% under the benchmark most significant for batting average (.392 average instead of .400); or for homeruns in a season (49 instead of 50);or for career hits for position player (2940 instead of 3000) or career wins for a pitcher (294 instead of 300)?

So I ask you: For which of these metrics is a 2% shortfall from a "holy standard" perceived to be most significant?I think you guys are misreading the question. If it's saying which SHORTFALL is the MOST significant, then it means you HAVE to meet that standard or forget it. That would be 49 HR, because it's a one-season amount, and several not-that-good people have done it.

[KCGHOST]

I guess I did misread it.

In that case none of the shortfalls are important. All the hitters with 2940 hits or more are in the HoF. All the pitcher with 294 wins or more are in the HoF. Single season achievements that fall short of an arbitrary counting milestone are of no improtance to me.

[digglahhh]

I'd agree with KC, the exclusiveness of the respective clubs are compromised the most with the 49 HR inclusion. The hit or win club doesn't become less exclusive by reducing the standard, as exclusive as a homerun club of which Brady Anderson is a member of, well that's another issue...

But it's not particularly important in the first place, these benchmarks are really all arbitrary cut-offs to reach thumbnail accounts of "greatness."

[Jake83]

Hitting 392 and not 400 just ask Geroge Brett, Rod Carew and Tony Gwynn

[KCGHOST]

Hitting 392 and not 400 just ask Geroge Brett, Rod Carew and Tony Gwynn


With you miss by 8 points or 80 points it is the same: you missed. Just ask Harry Heilmann and Lefty O'Doul.

[Jake83]

With you miss by 8 points or 80 points it is the same: you missed. Just ask Harry Heilmann and Lefty O'Doul.


The difference between 2940 3000 is the Hall of Fame

The difference bewteen 392 and 400 is being considered a legend

[Appling]

The difference between 2940 3000 is the Hall of Fame

The difference bewteen 392 and 400 is being considered a legend
I agree!
Carew, Brett and Gwynn all "came close" but since 1930 only Ted Williams has actually hit .400. I'd wager that Rodney, George and Tony would trade 20 points off their career averages if they had been able to reach the magic level of a .400 season.

As stated earlier, 2940 career hits or 294 career wins is "close enough" to enter the Hall of Fame; but you either hit .400 or you did not. Even .398 or .399 doesn't make the list!

[RuthMayBond]

The difference between 2940 3000 is the Hall of FameWhere do you get this?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

With you miss by 8 points or 80 points it is the same: you missed. Just ask Harry Heilmann and Lefty O'Doul.

Or ask Ruth how hitting .393 feels and not winning the batting title. Ask him how getting two legs of the triple crown seven times feels :dance

I did misread the question I guess. Now I'm confused,.. and a little drunk but that's beside the point; or is it.

[Joltin' Joe]

Or ask Ruth how hitting .393 feels and not winning the batting title. Ask him how getting two legs of the triple crown seven times feels :dance

I did misread the question I guess. Now I'm confused,.. and a little drunk but that's beside the point; or is it.

I'm under the affluence of incohol too....

I would say that the most significant would be the 294. Ask Early Wynn. The least significant would be the 49. I don't think 50 is a big deal anymore but 300 is more so today.

[RuthMayBond]

The difference between 2940 3000 is the Hall of FameIt sure doesn't explain Slaughter, Sandberg, McInnis, Mantle, Traynor . . .

[Sultan_1895-1948]

3000 should not be a Willy Wonka style golden ticket to Cooperstown the way it is. Why don't they just let any .300 hitter in too. Or anyone with 10,000 AB gets auto entry.

[digglahhh]

There is nothing intrinsic to 3,000 hits that merits a plaque in Cooperstown, but it is a high enough benchmark that it strongly correlates with greatness. Again, its an arbitrary cutoff to thumbnail "greatness." It does a pretty good job in that respect, of course the number is a function of longevity, and sometimes of poor plate discipline and there are certainly many other ways to get in besides 3000. However, 3,000 hits is a benchmark that does a very good job of keeping non HOF caliber players out of the club.

[RuthMayBond]

3000 should not be a Willy Wonka style golden ticket to Cooperstown the way it is. Why don't they just let any .300 hitter in too. Or anyone with 10,000 AB gets auto entry.But who has got 3000 hits & does NOT belong in the Hall?

[BP88]

It's pretty hard to ask questions to some of the dead people mentioned here so I really don't know why some of you keep telling the rest to ask these players no longer alive.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

But who has got 3000 hits & does NOT belong in the Hall?

Probably nobody RMB. If someone gets to 3000 hits it's generally because they played long enough (regardless of being mediocre) to get a ton of AB. The ton of AB lead to 3000, often with a sub .300 career batting average. Of course if you play long enough you'll rack up other numbers besides 3000. But it's that 3000 that stands out as a benchmark, and can make very good/consistent players seem like great ones.

[leecemark]

--Nobody mediocore gets enough AB to pile up 3,000 hits. Some guys may slip to that level by the time they arrive at the milestone, but they were pretty damn good for a pretty long time along the way. Brock is the worst hitter to make it and he was an All Star level player for over a decade.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

There are guys who never had 175 hits in a season who got to 3000. There's plenty of 3000 guys who hit under .300 for their careers, never won a batting title, etc, etc.

I agree that you have to be good to get enough AT BATS (not hits). The hits will come with enough AB. It's like, if you bring enough women back to your place, you're bound to score here and there. It's just a matter of getting enough opportunities.

Mark, how many of the 3000 hit guys didn't get at least 9,500 AB?

[BoSox Rule]

But who has got 3000 hits & does NOT belong in the Hall?
Lou Brock

Paul Molitor probably does, but he's no slam dunk.

[RuthMayBond]

There are guys who never had 175 hits in a season who got to 3000.But how many?

[Edgartohof]

There are guys who never had 175 hits in a season who got to 3000.

who? I can't think of any.

I could be mistaken, but I do not believe that there are any players who have 3000+ hits and never had 175 hits in a season - in fact, most of them at one point or another, had 200+ in a season.

I believe that the only players that are in the 3000 hit club never to have 200 in a season are: Cap Anson (because of the shortened seasons), and Rickey Henderson (who made up for that by taking walks)

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Yaz only had 4 seasons over 175 hits, with his career high being 191. (11,988 AB)

Eddie Murray : 5 seasons, with his career high being 184. (11,336 AB)

Ripken : 6 times. His 162 game average is only 172. (11,551 AB)

Kaline : 3 times (10,116 AB)

Palmeiro : 162 game average is 173, .288 career hitter (10,472 AB)

Winfield : 4 times (11,003 AB)

I'm just saying we should look more at the player than his final hit total. Simmons had over 200 hits five years in a row and had 192 in the sixth year. He only got 8759 AB and still almost got to 3000. That number shouldn't mean as much as it does.

[four tool]

I think the 294 wins is significant because not reaching 300 wins--hello Bert Blyleven-- excludes people from the hall, but lack of 3000 hits doesn't unless other factors are involved.

[RuthMayBond]

I think the 294 wins is significant because not reaching 300 wins--hello Bert Blyleven-- excludes people from the hall1)Blyleven may get in yet
2) You sure 300 wins would get him in?
3) No 300 wins didn't exclude Koufax, Dean, Joss, Gomez, Chesbro, Waddell, Walsh, Vance . . .

[RuthMayBond]

Or ask Ruth how hitting .393 feels and not winning the batting title.Whatever that has to do with anything. Hitting .400 in '23 still wouldn't have won him the title, as has happened to others

<Now I'm confused,.. and a little drunk but that's beside the point; or is it.>

That would explain some things :D

[RuthMayBond]

3000 should not be a Willy Wonka style golden ticket to Cooperstown the way it is. Why don't they just let any .300 hitter in too.Bob Fothergill, for starters

[RuthMayBond]

Hitting 392 and not 400 just ask Geroge Brett, Rod Carew and Tony GwynnNeither Brett nor Carew hit .392

[RuthMayBond]

I agree!
Carew, Brett and Gwynn all "came close" but since 1930 only Ted Williams has actually hit .400. I'd wager that George would trade 20 points off [his] career average[s] if [he] had been able to reach the magic level of a .400 season.So you think Brett would want a .285 career average? That would also put him UNDER 3000 hits

[RuthMayBond]

Mark, how many of the 3000 hit guys didn't get at least 9,500 AB?Boggs, Carew. Clemente, Gwynn, and PWaner?

[misterdirt]

But who has got 3000 hits & does NOT belong in the Hall?

Lou Brock

During the ten year period from 1965 to 1974 Lou Brock led the majors in hits, runs, doubles, triples, and stolen bases. That's a pretty good resume for the Hall of Fame.

[Edgartohof]

Yaz only had 4 seasons over 175 hits, with his career high being 191. (11,988 AB)

Eddie Murray : 5 seasons, with his career high being 184. (11,336 AB)

Ripken : 6 times. His 162 game average is only 172. (11,551 AB)

Kaline : 3 times (10,116 AB)

Palmeiro : 162 game average is 173, .288 career hitter (10,472 AB)

Winfield : 4 times (11,003 AB)

I'm just saying we should look more at the player than his final hit total. Simmons had over 200 hits five years in a row and had 192 in the sixth year. He only got 8759 AB and still almost got to 3000. That number shouldn't mean as much as it does.

Are you trying to say that none of these players deserve to be in the HOF?

And yes, you should look at more than just the 3,000 hits, but all of these players had something else.

Yaz - premier player of the '60's and '70's - carried his team for many years - almost won it all in '67 (at least he won the MVP)
Eddie Murray - wasn't the greatest player of his time, but was very good for very long time - also member of the 500 HR club - 2nd in MVP voting '82-83
Ripken - power hitting SS, who plays everyday and was good enough to win 2 MVP's
Al Kaline - another Yastrzemski, but with a world series ring
Palmeiro - The current day Eddie Murray. 9 consecutive years with 38+ HR's
Dave Winfield - probably the least out of all of the others, but still a very solid player, who should have won the MVP in '79

[four tool]

1)Blyleven may get in yet
2) You sure 300 wins would get him in?
3) No 300 wins didn't exclude Koufax, Dean, Joss, Gomez, Chesbro, Waddell, Walsh, Vance . . .

How long has Bert been waiting?
The last pitcher was what, 1999?
This year everyone is talking about a weak field, and do they talk up Bert? NOOOO..... they talk up Jim Rice who didn't reach 400 HR or .300 BA

[RuthMayBond]

How long has Bert been waiting?Not as long as George Davis had to :D

<NOOOO..... they talk up Jim Rice who didn't reach 400 HR or .300 BA>
You mean, WITH the help of Fenway

[four tool]

He didn't reach either milestone even with the help of Fenway but he's getting more ink and consideration than Bert or the releivers

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Are you trying to say that none of these players deserve to be in the HOF?



I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that because they stayed healthy long enough to get enough AB, and put up very "good" numbers for all those AB, that their final hit total is over-rated. Nobody else here seems to agree with me on that, so that's cool.

[digglahhh]

I tend to agree Sultan, at least somewhat.

Let's just keep it simple. In terms of HOF consideration, the greater a player you actually are, the less important it is to reach the 3,000 hit milestone. I think most of us can agree on that.

[leecemark]

--I think we can all agree there are guys who came short, even well short, of 3,000 hits who are better than some guys who did get 3,000, That said, everybody who has achieved that total is clearly a deserving Hall of Famer. With the possible exception of Paul Moltitor, none of them needed 3,000 hits to get elected. Brock is generally regarded as the worst hitter of the 3,000 hit club. Does anyone doubt he would have made it had he retired with 28-2900 hits? He still would have had the stolen base records and World Series heroics (not to mention a higher BA).

[Leg Zep]

Well put; I agree totally with the point that several lackluster players have smashed 49 long-balls with little significance. As much as I used to love to see a ball crushed over the fence, I'm waning on the HR hero aspect. I guess in my old age I'm beginning to enjoy seeing the real estate earned 90 feet at a time.

LZ

[Jake83]

3000 Hits is a Carrer total so even if your skills as a hitter goes late in your carrer you still continue to build on your total number of hits . If you have 2940 you could just play another year.

Look at the players over the last 50 years who have had one season close to 400 they never were able to reach that point again in their carrer.

[Chisox]

I really don't get the fuss about 49 HR. If 50 HR was a hallowed milestone, Maris would have been in the HOF A LONG time ago, and Fielder would be a lock, as well. Belle, L. Gonzalez, and G. Vaughn would also be on the serious list with a bunch of others with their only minuses the era they played in and steroid scandals.

[Appling]

I really don't get the fuss about 49 HR. If 50 HR was a hallowed milestone, Maris would have been in the HOF A LONG time ago, and Fielder would be a lock, as well. Belle, L. Gonzalez, and G. Vaughn would also be on the serious list with a bunch of others with their only minuses the era they played in and steroid scandals.
Prior to 1995, a 50-homerun season was a rare and special thing -- but even then a single 50-HR season was never a sure ticket to the Hall of Fame. I memorized those 50-HR seasons (just as I did .400 BA seasons). Think of the great power hitters who never had a single 50-HR season: Lou Gehrig, Ted Williams, Harmon Killebrew, Frank Robinson, Hank Aaron, Mike Schmidt -- just to name a few. Of course I agree that 50 HR is no longer unusual and therefore not very special.

Batting average is something else again. Probably not much difference in most minds between a career BA of .298 and a career average of .300; but there surely is a difference between a season average of .398 and a season average of .400. That IMO is pure black or white: either you hit .400 or you did not. Since that crazy year of 1930 only one player has hit .400+ (Ted Williams in 1941). The next player to hit .400 will be widely celebrated!

[four tool]

Add Ted's 400 is even more impressive because he did it without a sac fly rule. Every other 400 Ave had a sac fly rule to work with. If the sac fly were in place, Ted would hit at least .412
If the rule Ted hit 400 with was in place from say 1901, only the averages of 420 or better would have been higher than Ted's 1941 BA.

[Chisox]

Prior to 1995, a 50-homerun season was a rare and special thing -- but even then a single 50-HR season was never a sure ticket to the Hall of Fame. I memorized those 50-HR seasons (just as I did .400 BA seasons). Think of the great power hitters who never had a single 50-HR season: Lou Gehrig, Ted Williams, Harmon Killebrew, Frank Robinson, Hank Aaron, Mike Schmidt -- just to name a few. Of course I agree that 50 HR is no longer unusual and therefore not very special.

Batting average is something else again. Probably not much difference in most minds between a career BA of .298 and a career average of .300; but there surely is a difference between a season average of .398 and a season average of .400. That IMO is pure black or white: either you hit .400 or you did not. Since that crazy year of 1930 only one player has hit .400+ (Ted Williams in 1941). The next player to hit .400 will be widely celebrated!
Actually, if we're talking about batting average and the Hall of Fame, everyone who was in the top 50 in BA entering the year, minimum 5,000 AB and eligible, has been inducted--except for Babe Herman (wonder what would happen if the HOF new about that.) After that, it's kind of pick-and-choose down the list. So, I could say that a 2% drop-off from .317 (.311) would be the most significant.