The 'Near 3000 Hits' Guys

[willshad]

It is often said about a player that he 'needs 3000 hits to be elected to the hall of fame'. Indeed, as it stands now, every member of that group has been elected failry easily. But when one looks at guys like Paul Molitor and Dave Winfield, it is obvious that they probably would not have made it without the 3000 hits on their resume. If they had retired a few years earlier, or caught a bad break in 1 or 2 seasons, history would have been different. My question is, who are the guys who were the 'Molitors and Winfields who caught a bad break?'. Who are the guys who, had they managed to play another solid year or 2, and reach the magical 3000 hit number, would have been hall of famers.? Before dismissing these guys off hand, remember that at age 38 Molitor was almost a perfect match for Al Oliver, and Winfield looked an awful lot like Baines, Dawson, and Parker at age 40. You can vote for as many guys as you want.

[Brad Harris]

It is often said about a player that he 'needs 3000 hits to be elected to the hall of fame'. Indeed, as it stands now, every member of that group has been elected failry easily. But when one looks at guys like Paul Molitor and Dave Winfield, it is obvious that they probbaly would not hae made it without the 3000 hits on their resume. If they had retired a few years earlier, or caught a bad break in 1 or 2 seasons, history would have been different. My question is, who are the guys who were the 'Molitors and Winfields who caught a bad break?'. Who are the guys who, had they managed to play another solid year or 2, and reach the magical 3000 hit number, would have been hall of famers.? Before dismissing these guys off hand, remember that at age 38 Molitor was almost a perfect match for Bill madlock, and Winfield looked an awful lot like Baines, Dawson, and Parker at age 40. You can vote for as many guys as you want.

1. Winfield and Molitor are Hall-caliber players with or without 3,000 hits.

2. You can say if practically anyone "had retired a few years earlier, or caught a bad break in 1 or 2 seasons, history would have been different." That statement can apply to 9 out of every 10 Hall-of-Famers.

[willshad]

Well my point is, that if guys like Winfield, Molitor, and Biggio didnt have 3000 hits, they wouldnt be looked at clear cut hall of famers..there would be some doubt. They might not have been voted in. Many guys on my list were 'hall of fame caliber players with or without 3000 hits' as well, but they fall JUST below the border. At their peak, they were as good at Winfield or Molitor, or Brock. With 3000 hits, suddenly Dave Parker looks a LOT better...realy the same as Winfield. Dawson with 3000 hits suddenly becomes a no brainer. Baines with 3000 hits looks better than Tony Perez. I know that LOTS of guys would have been hall of famers if things had gone differently for them...but Im talking about players who would have been elected, even if they had managed to hang around for one or 2 more mediocre or bad seasons, just to accumulate more hits (ala Biggio).
Oh, and I didnt mean to put Bill Madlock on it, I meant Al Oliver.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

willshad,

You should have added Al Oliver to your poll.

[willshad]

willshad,

You should have added Al Oliver to your poll.

yeah I meant him, but put Madlock instead...for some reason I get those guys confused. Is there any way to edit a poll?

[Ubiquitous]

Any player that had made it to 3,000 hits would have been enshrined.

[willshad]

Any player that had made it to 3,000 hits would have been enshrined.

Well look at it this way: at age 40 Harold Baines had arguably his best season, hitting .312. He finished the year at 2783 hits. At the time I considered him a lock to get to 3000. Youre telling me, that with one more solid season, Baines becomes an automatic HOFer? As it stands now he gets no support at all.

[Ubiquitous]

Youre telling me, that with one more solid season, Baines becomes an automatic HOFer? .

Yes ..........................

[DaClyde]

If they had retired a few years earlier, or caught a bad break in 1 or 2 seasons, history would have been different. My question is, who are the guys who were the 'Molitors and Winfields who caught a bad break?'

I think what you're missing here is that both Molitor and Winfield caught bad breaks and STILL made it to 3,000 hits. Winfield missed the entire 1990 season due to a back injury and Molitor, pre-1988, was constantly on the injured list (which is why he wasn't consistently mentioned in the company of Gwynn, Boggs and Mattingly at the time). He missed good chunks of 1980, '81, '84, '86, '87 & '94. If it hadn't been for his hitting streak in '87 far fewer people would've taken notice. He was sort of the Bernard King of MLB. King was probably on par with guys like Karl Malone and Michael Jordan, but spent more time on the DL than on the court.

Give Molitor back his missing seasons and you're talking about a 4,000 hit career.

[Brad Harris]

I don't believe the BBWAA has proven that it can collectively determine that any 3,000 hit player might not belong in the Hall of Fame. I voted for everyone, though 3,000 hits might only really tip the scales on their worthiness (as opposed to electability) on a fraction of those listed.

[DoubleX]

The thing that is missing here is that with most of these guys, if they reached 3000 hits, they would have had different careers and would have been perceived very differently. Look at Bill Madlock - he's almost 1000 hits short of 3000. If he came anywhere close to 3000 hits, his career would have looked a whole lot different than it actually. So it really over-simplifies things, IMO, to just say, "well what if this guy got 3000" because there's much more to it than that - the guy would have been a different player than he was for his career.

I also wonder about the historic allure of the 3000 hit club. If it was such a big deal as it is now, it would likely have several more members. For instance, Sam Rice, Sam Crawford, Frank Robinson, Willie Keeler, Jack Beckley, Rogers Hornsby, Al Simmons, Zack Wheat, Frankie Frisch, Mel Ott, Babe Ruth, Jesse Burkett, and George Sisler, all finished within 200 hits of 3000, and I imagine if 3000 hits was always treated with its modern reverence, several of these players may have tried to stick around to get there. Some of these guys may have also got there with the post-1960 expanded schedule, modern conditioning, as well as better financial incentives to hang around the game for as long as possible.

[willshad]

I think what you're missing here is that both Molitor and Winfield caught bad breaks and STILL made it to 3,000 hits. Winfield missed the entire 1990 season due to a back injury and Molitor, pre-1988, was constantly on the injured list (which is why he wasn't consistently mentioned in the company of Gwynn, Boggs and Mattingly at the time). He missed good chunks of 1980, '81, '84, '86, '87 & '94. If it hadn't been for his hitting streak in '87 far fewer people would've taken notice. He was sort of the Bernard King of MLB. King was probably on par with guys like Karl Malone and Michael Jordan, but spent more time on the DL than on the court.

Give Molitor back his missing seasons and you're talking about a 4,000 hit career.

I know this. I was referring more to the fact that he was able to hang on those last couple of years and put himself over the hall of fame line. Same thing with Winfield and Biggio. I realize he hit .341 at age 39, and .305 at the age of 40, so he wasnt exactly 'hanging on', but if he had retired after his age 38 season I dont think he would have been inducted.

[DaClyde]

Even shy of 3000, I think Molitor would've been elected by the writers. For the fans, it might have been something of an "oh yeah, Paul Molitor..." kind of reaction, but he would've made it.

The same goes for the 400 & 500 HR club. 400 used to be nearly a lock for a hitter until Dave Kingman reached it by swinging for the fences with every pitch. Even then, unless you were a totally one-dimensional player, you were still almost guaranteed induction. Then more guy starting hitting a lot of HR and the plateau was moved to 500. But then McGwire, Sosa and Palmeiro all made 500 (and even 600 in Sosa's case) and the performance enhancer question was raised, possibly blackballing all three.

Even with that, you've got poor Fred McGriff sitting at 493HR, showing that slow and steady could get you there, and he likely will spend the rest of his life having to buy a ticket to the HoF and he was no Dave Kingman.

Milestones are impressive to look at, and people like nice big round numbers, but is 493 really any less impressive than 500?

And if you look at the career hits list, 2812 seems to be more of the magic number. The only folks NOT in the HoF with 2812 or more hits are just waiting for their eligibility to arrive, with the exception of one Mr. Baines.

[KCGHOST]

I went with Dawson and Raines. Dawson is very close in my mind already and Raines is the real deal. For the rest of these guys (other than Baines) you are talking about making a quantum improvement in there career. For instance, adding 400+ hits to Garvey is not just making up for some bad luck or timing you are totally altering his career.

[willshad]

The thing that is missing here is that with most of these guys, if they reached 3000 hits, they would have had different careers and would have been perceived very differently. Look at Bill Madlock - he's almost 1000 hits short of 3000. If he came anywhere close to 3000 hits, his career would have looked a whole lot different than it actually. So it really over-simplifies things, IMO, to just say, "well what if this guy got 3000" because there's much more to it than that - the guy would have been a different player than he was for his career.

I also wonder about the historic allure of the 3000 hit club. If it was such a big deal as it is now, it would likely have several more members. For instance, Sam Rice, Sam Crawford, Frank Robinson, Willie Keeler, Jack Beckley, Rogers Hornsby, Al Simmons, Zack Wheat, Frankie Frisch, Mel Ott, Babe Ruth, Jesse Burkett, and George Sisler, all finished within 200 hits of 3000, and I imagine if 3000 hits was always treated with its modern reverence, several of these players may have tried to stick around to get there. Some of these guys may have also got there with the post-1960 expanded schedule, modern conditioning, as well as better financial incentives to hang around the game for as long as possible.



Well I dont think i agree with you. All the guys you mentioned were easy hall of famers even without 3000 hits. It is only recently that we have had players who were truly borderline candidates, who finished within 200 or 300 hits why of 3000. For some, the hall of fame hadnt even been invented yet. The only guy I can see who might have hung around to get 3000 would be Wheat. He not only finished only 126 hits shy, but he also batted .324 his final year. he also had a career which, by modern standards, would be considered borderline for a hall of famer. Thus, he would have had incentive to hang on a couple more years. Why would Ruth or Ott or Hornsby keep playing to get 3000 when they already know they will be elected first ballot?

[willshad]

Even shy of 3000, I think Molitor would've been elected by the writers. For the fans, it might have been something of an "oh yeah, Paul Molitor..." kind of reaction, but he would've made it.

The same goes for the 400 & 500 HR club. 400 used to be nearly a lock for a hitter until Dave Kingman reached it by swinging for the fences with every pitch. Even then, unless you were a totally one-dimensional player, you were still almost guaranteed induction. Then more guy starting hitting a lot of HR and the plateau was moved to 500. But then McGwire, Sosa and Palmeiro all made 500 (and even 600 in Sosa's case) and the performance enhancer question was raised, possibly blackballing all three.

Even with that, you've got poor Fred McGriff sitting at 493HR, showing that slow and steady could get you there, and he likely will spend the rest of his life having to buy a ticket to the HoF and he was no Dave Kingman.

Milestones are impressive to look at, and people like nice big round numbers, but is 493 really any less impressive than 500?

And if you look at the career hits list, 2812 seems to be more of the magic number. The only folks NOT in the HoF with 2812 or more hits are just waiting for their eligibility to arrive, with the exception of one Mr. Baines.


I wouldnt call it a magic number, if Baines has it, and gets no support at all. And its not like he was a one dimensional hits guy...he had fine power as well. Even if he was an outfielder his whole career I doubt it would chage the amoutn of HOF suppoer he receives.

[willshad]

I went with Dawson and Raines. Dawson is very close in my mind already and Raines is the real deal. For the rest of these guys (other than Baines) you are talking about making a quantum improvement in there career. For instance, adding 400+ hits to Garvey is not just making up for some bad luck or timing you are totally altering his career.

Not really. garvey didnt become a full time player until age 25. If you give him full time play the few seasons before that, even at the hitting level he was at, I think he finished very close to 3000 hits. It wouldnt drastically alter his career, or change his peak. It would just give him a more natural and common ascent, rather than just becoming an MVP in his first full season.

[Ubiquitous]

The same goes for the 400 & 500 HR club. 400 used to be nearly a lock for a hitter until Dave Kingman reached it by swinging for the fences with every pitch. Even then, unless you were a totally one-dimensional player, you were still almost guaranteed induction. Then more guy starting hitting a lot of HR and the plateau was moved to 500. But then McGwire, Sosa and Palmeiro all made 500 (and even 600 in Sosa's case) and the performance enhancer question was raised, possibly blackballing all three.

Even with that, you've got poor Fred McGriff sitting at 493HR, showing that slow and steady could get you there, and he likely will spend the rest of his life having to buy a ticket to the HoF and he was no Dave Kingman.

Milestones are impressive to look at, and people like nice big round numbers, but is 493 really any less impressive than 500?


If Kingman was a nicer person to get along with the bar would have still been at 400. When he retired (blackballed really) in 1986 he was 19th on the list and every single player with 400+ homers was in (except for Yaz and Stargell who were not eligible yet). It was the prickliness of Kingman that forced the writers to move the standard up to 500. If not for Kingman then probably Evans goes in as well and it isn't until Canseco retires or crosses over 400 that 500 would become the new standard which would mean Andre would either just sneak in or just miss out.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

If Kingman was a nicer person to get along with the bar would have still been at 400. When he retired (blackballed really) in 1986 he was 19th on the list and every single player with 400+ homers was in (except for Yaz and Stargell who were not eligible yet). It was the prickliness of Kingman that forced the writers to move the standard up to 500. If not for Kingman then probably Evans goes in as well and it isn't until Canseco retires or crosses over 400 that 500 would become the new standard which would mean Andre would either just sneak in or just miss out.

Even if Kingman had a Stan Musial personality I'm not sure he would get in. I don't think the HOF voters would have elected a career .236 hitter.

[Ubiquitous]

Granted it is low but they did send in Harmon Killebrew at .256.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Granted it is low but they did send in Harmon Killebrew at .256.

That true but that's still a 20 point difference in BA and Killebrew hit 131 more HRs than Kingman did.

[The Splendid Splinter]

Granted it is low but they did send in Harmon Killebrew at .256.

Also Killebrew AVG was basically league average in his career and played through the pitcher friendly 60s... and his OBP was in another level or two or three better than Kingman...

[DoubleX]

Well I dont think i agree with you. All the guys you mentioned were easy hall of famers even without 3000 hits. It is only recently that we have had players who were truly borderline candidates, who finished within 200 or 300 hits why of 3000. For some, the hall of fame hadnt even been invented yet. The only guy I can see who might have hung around to get 3000 would be Wheat. He not only finished only 126 hits shy, but he also batted .324 his final year. he also had a career which, by modern standards, would be considered borderline for a hall of famer. Thus, he would have had incentive to hang on a couple more years. Why would Ruth or Ott or Hornsby keep playing to get 3000 when they already know they will be elected first ballot?

People hang around because it's become milestone with a lot of emphasis. Guys like Biggio, Brett, Boggs, Yount, Winfield, Gwynn, Henderson, Carew, and Brock, may not have stuck around as shells of their former selves if not for the allure of reaching 3000 hits. You think Sam Rice, 13 hits shy of 3000, wouldn't have come back for one season in order to get those 13 hits if 3000 was as big a deal then as it is now? Or Sam Crawford 39 hits shy? Of course they would have and a team would have paid them because of the attraction of the race. I think I've even read quotes from Sam Crawford saying he regrets not hanging around to get there, but he didn't because it wasn't a big deal then.

And I still think this poll is missing the point because with some of the players you mentioned, if they reached 3000 hits, they would have had very different careers. Again, I go back to Bill Madlock - it's not the lack of 3000 hits keeping him out. If he reached 3000 hits, he'd be much more qualified for a number of other reasons pertaining to longevity and consistency.

[Cougar]

All of these guys would have made it with three thousand hits. I think the preponderance of them ought to be in anyway, actually.

DoubleXX makes an excellent point, though -- just tossing 125-900 more hits into a player's accomplishments, even if it's done pretty haphazardly, is going to make them look better across the board.

So it's a bit of a trick question -- it might be phrased, "If these players had had better careers, would they have made the Hall of Fame?"

Well, given that they're various shades of borderline now, sure.

[willshad]

People hang around because it's become milestone with a lot of emphasis. Guys like Biggio, Brett, Boggs, Yount, Winfield, Gwynn, Henderson, Carew, and Brock, may not have stuck around as shells of their former selves if not for the allure of reaching 3000 hits. You think Sam Rice, 13 hits shy of 3000, wouldn't have come back for one season in order to get those 13 hits if 3000 was as big a deal then as it is now? Or Sam Crawford 39 hits shy? Of course they would have and a team would have paid them because of the attraction of the race. I think I've even read quotes from Sam Crawford saying he regrets not hanging around to get there, but he didn't because it wasn't a big deal then.

And I still think this poll is missing the point because with some of the players you mentioned, if they reached 3000 hits, they would have had very different careers. Again, I go back to Bill Madlock - it's not the lack of 3000 hits keeping him out. If he reached 3000 hits, he'd be much more qualified for a number of other reasons pertaining to longevity and consistency.


I said before that Madlock was a mistake...I meant to put Al Oliver. The rest of the players could have conceivably reached 3000 hits by simply hanging on as a replacement level player a year or 2, or starting their full time career a year or 2 early as a developing player. They would have then had the same peak value, and almost exactly the same career value, but they would have just have those extra couple hundred hits to go over the milestone. I just think, rightly or wrongly, that our view of them as players would be alot different if they had managed to do that.

[jjpm74]

To this point in history, every player who has gotten to 3000 hits deserved to be enshrined in the HOF. I don't think any of them would have missed induction had they not made it to 3000 hits, however.

If Johnny Damon hangs around long enough to get to 3000 hits, he'd be the first guy to get there who I don't think deserves enshrinement in Cooperstown. Of the players you listed, I believe that Tim Raines, Andre Dawson and to a degree Rusty Staub should be in the HOF and that all of the players listed would have made it in if they got to 3000 hits but at least some, would not have deserved to. Of the active leaders in hits (minimum 2000), Barry Bonds (assuming someone picks him up), Ken Griffey, Ivan Rodriguez, Gary Sheffield, Frank Thomas, Jeff Kent, Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, Chipper Jones, Mike Piazza, Vladimir Guerrerro will make it whether or not any of them get to 3000 hits. Omar Vizquel, Luis Gonzalez, Kenny Lofton, Garret Anderson, Johnny Damon, Moises Alou, Ray Durham, Edgar Renteria, Shawn Green pretty much need 3000 hits or 500 home runs to make it. Derek Jeter is in a poistion where he needs another year or two to get to a position where he is a HOFer, but does not need to get to 3000 hits necessarily.

The same can be applied to 500 home runs. To date, I believe that every player who has hit 500 home runs deserves to be in Cooperstown. However, if Carlos Delgado gets to 500 home runs, he'd be the first to get to that milestone who I don't think deserves a place in Cooperstown. I also believe that Gary Sheffield is a HOFer now, but getting to 500 home runs will win him a few more votes when his time comes. Before Dave Kingman, Darrell Evans, Jose Canseco and Juan Gonzalez came along, I would have argued that 400 home runs was the plateau for HOFers.

Attempting to apply round number benchmarks is a dangerous game as benchmarks change from generation to generation. One need only take a look at how the role of pitchers have evolved over the past 30 years to see just how much once common benchmarks become the exception to the rule. On the flip side, take a look at the past 40 years of home runs to see how once meaningful benchmarks, like 300 home runs, have become more commonplace.

[jalbright]

To this point in history, every player who has gotten to 3000 hits deserved to be enshrined in the HOF. I don't think any of them would have missed induction had they not made it to 3000 hits, however.

If Johnny Damon hangs around long enough to get to 3000 hits, he'd be the first guy to get there who I don't think deserves enshrinement in Cooperstown.

How about Sam Rice, with 2987, retiring when few people, if any, realized he was so close to 3000? I know Sam's in, but he catches his share of flak (and I'm not saying he's an overpowering candidate even with his hit total).

[jjpm74]

How about Sam Rice, with 2987, retiring when few people, if any, realized he was so close to 3000? I know Sam's in, but he catches his share of flak (and I'm not saying he's an overpowering candidate even with his hit total).

I can't say as i do not consider Sam Rice's induction in Cooperstown a mistake and support him in the BBFHOF election. Maybe someone who feels otherwise can weigh in.

[RuthMayBond]

Yes ..........................You're telling me that with two more crappy seasons Baines gets in? Doc Cramer almost gives you :bowdown::bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:

[Ubiquitous]

You're telling me that with two more crappy seasons Baines gets in? Doc Cramer almost gives you :bowdown::bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:

Yes and so would have Doc, though he would have needed about 5 more seasons to get there.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

Even with that, you've got poor Fred McGriff sitting at 493HR, showing that slow and steady could get you there, and he likely will spend the rest of his life having to buy a ticket to the HoF and he was no Dave Kingman.

Don't you mean that Dave Kingman was no Fred McGriff??? Except for raw power, McGriff was a far superior hitter to Dave Kingman.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The thing that is missing here is that with most of these guys, if they reached 3000 hits, they would have had different careers and would have been perceived very differently. Look at Bill Madlock - he's almost 1000 hits short of 3000. If he came anywhere close to 3000 hits, his career would have looked a whole lot different than it actually. So it really over-simplifies things, IMO, to just say, "well what if this guy got 3000" because there's much more to it than that - the guy would have been a different player than he was for his career.

DoubleX pretty much hits the nail on the head.

If Bill Buckner had 3,000 hits, he probably wouldn't have the leg injuries of a chronic nature he sustained early in his career. Ditto Harold Baines.

If Willie Davis had 3,000 hits, he would have had more plate discipline. If Bill Madlock made it to 3,000 hits, he wouldn't have become a fat slob in mid-career, ignoring diet and conditioning to where he was washed up at age 36. If Rusty Staub made it to 3,000 hits, he wouldn't have suffered numerous injuries in mid-career. Ditto Tim Raines. If Steve Garvey made it to 3,000 hits, he wouldn't have suffered a shoulder injury that forced him off of third base and delayed his becoming a regular.

If Dave Parker had 3,000 hits, he wouldn't have taken a three year "time out for drugs". If Vada Pinson had 3,000 hits, he would have really been born in 1938, instead of 1936 (or even 1934, as some claim).

These guys didn't make it to 3,000 hits because they didn't have the stuff. They didn't have the health, or the conditioning, or the plate discipline. Not having those things, yet making it to 2,700-ish hits is what makes you "good, but not great". It's having health, conditioning, plate discipline, etc. that allows a player to stay in the lineup and keep his VORP up high enough to continue to play regularly into his forties.

[RuthMayBond]

Yes and so would have Doc, though he would have needed about 5 more seasons to get there.Baines, two seasons. Cramer, five seasons (probably woulda raised his OPS+ ALL the way up to 95). Never did understand this new math

[DoubleX]

I said before that Madlock was a mistake...I meant to put Al Oliver. The rest of the players could have conceivably reached 3000 hits by simply hanging on as a replacement level player a year or 2, or starting their full time career a year or 2 early as a developing player. They would have then had the same peak value, and almost exactly the same career value, but they would have just have those extra couple hundred hits to go over the milestone. I just think, rightly or wrongly, that our view of them as players would be alot different if they had managed to do that.

But that's the thing - most of these guys couldn't even stick around as replacement level players. The fact they got as many hits as they did get is because they did hang around as replacement players for a few years already. So you're tacking on additional mediocre years at the end. The fact is that most of these guys had their careers run their course, and that course ended a good distance away from 3000 hits. So the question here should really be something like, "what if these guys were better for longer" which again would change the course of their careers and make them different players.

[DoubleX]

These guys didn't make it to 3,000 hits because they didn't have the stuff. They didn't have the health, or the conditioning, or the plate discipline. Not having those things, yet making it to 2,700-ish hits is what makes you "good, but not great". It's having health, conditioning, plate discipline, etc. that allows a player to stay in the lineup and keep his VORP up high enough to continue to play regularly into his forties.

I might argue that these guys didn't have the stuff, and that's why they didn't get to 3000. Getting to 3000 hits takes a lot of things going right for a long time, just as your post illustrates. You need to be very consistent for a very long time, you have to be durable, and you have to be lucky in some respects (such as avoiding freak injuries). It's really a combination of so many things that gives a player the "stuff" to make 3000, that's why it's such a difficult and rare achievement, and that's why for players falling short, they'd essentially be different if they made it.

[Fuzzy Bear]

But that's the thing - most of these guys couldn't even stick around as replacement level players. The fact they got as many hits as they did get is because they did hang around as replacement players for a few years already. So you're tacking on additional mediocre years at the end. The fact is that most of these guys had their careers run their course, and that course ended a good distance away from 3000 hits. So the question here should really be something like, "what if these guys were better for longer" which again would change the course of their careers and make them different players.

The focus needs to be on the following two questions, IMO:

1. What, exactly, kept these guys from attaining 3,000 hits?

2. Which of these guys needed 3,000 hits to make the HOF?

Most of these guys didn't get to 3,000 hits because they weren't good enough to get in the game early enough, or stay around long enough. They lacked plate discipline, health, or were simply the kind of player that did a number of things well, but nothing exceptionally well.

The guy who was good enough (Parker) and didn't need 3,000 to get into the HOF, screwed it up by blowing three prime years with drugs. Had Parker not gotten into drugs, he would have had the kind of career that would have gotten him into the HOF even if he didn't make it to 3,000.

[DaClyde]

Don't you mean that Dave Kingman was no Fred McGriff??? Except for raw power, McGriff was a far superior hitter to Dave Kingman.

I guess I didn't word it quite right, but yes, that's essentially what I meant.

And someone mentioned Henderson in a list of players who may have hung on just to get his 3000. Henderson was a lock without the 3000, and would likely still be playing today if he could've found a team to sign him. The man just loved the game and didn't want to give it up (see: Julio Franco, Minnie Minoso, Satchel Paige). Winfield got his 3000 in what was still a pretty good season for him. While he is my favorite player and all, I think he should've hung it up in Minnesota, rather than ending his career in Cleveland where he served basically no purpose. Boggs was on cruise, waiting for his 3000 and just barely made it. Injury really ended Carew's career...he wasn't able to recover his form and just eeked out his 3k. Biggio just barely got there, but may not have needed it (though might have gone unnoticed without it). Molitor was still firing on all cylinders when he hung it up, he just couldn't keep up with the cumulative effects of all those injuries.

Until just looking, I didn't realize Molitor was in the Top 10 all time in hits. Looking at that list, A-Rod is probably the next to make it to 3000 in 4-5 years or so. It's insane that he's already over 2300 and is only 32 years old.

As for Omar Vizquel...if Ozzie Smith gets in based almost entirely on defense and personality, I think Vizquel will probably eventually get the nod with or without 3000.

[Paul Wendt]

I know that LOTS of guys would have been hall of famers if things had gone differently for them...but Im talking about players who would have been elected, even if they had managed to hang around for one or 2 more mediocre or bad seasons, just to accumulate more hits (ala Biggio).
You speak of one or two mediocre seasons at the end (here, even bad ones), and one or two seasons as a developing player at the beginning.

Paul Molitor finished more than 300 hits to the good topped 3000 before his last two years.

Steve Garvey finished more than 400 hits short, which is two of his very best seasons. And he played 3, 34, 81, 96, and 114 games before he started out as MVP in his first full season. --with 262 hits in the bag, more than 10% of his career. Where would he put the other 401? For sure, nowhere in a normal career trajectory.

Elsewhere
The only guy I can see who might have hung around to get 3000 would be Wheat. He not only finished only 126 hits shy, but he also batted .324 his final year. he also had a career which, by modern standards, would be considered borderline for a hall of famer.
This may be grain confusion. Wheat has gluten, Rice doesn't.

[jjpm74]

As for Omar Vizquel...if Ozzie Smith gets in based almost entirely on defense and personality, I think Vizquel will probably eventually get the nod with or without 3000.

Ozzie Smith played in a different era, had 13 gold gloves, 15 All Star appearances, OPS+ of 83 and a .978 career FP in 19 seasons.

Omar Vizquel has 11 gold gloves, only 3 All Star appearances, OPS+ of 87 and a .984 FP.

Allan Trammell has 4 gold gloves, an OPS+ of 110 which beats both Smith and Vizquel by a landslide, 6 All Star appearances and a .977 FP in 20 seasons.

I personally believe all three are HOF short stops. The problem is Trammell's support has been virtually non-existent:



Year Votes PCT

2002 74 15.7%
2003 70 14.1%
2004 70 13.8%
2005 87 16.9%
2006 92 17.7%
2007 73 13.4%
2008 99 18.2%

Vizquel doesn't have Ozzie's all star appearances or Trammell's offensive ability. If Trammell can't get more than a glance, I don't think Vizquel has a prayer. On the flip side, Barry Larkin, another superstar short stop beats all of these guys in OPS+ with 116, had 3 gold gloves, and 12 all star appearances in 19 seasons. He will probably be elected to the HOF eventually and has the best chance out of himself, Vizquel and Trammell.

[RuthMayBond]

Elsewhere

This may be grain confusion. Wheat has gluten, Rice doesn't.They are the harvest thing to keep straight.
nolan Rye-an hung on awhile, and then there's Jerry grOat
But they were on the aMaize-ing Mets.
Are your jokes as corny?

[Paul Wendt]

I agree that Trammell has "no chance" for election. We may never again see someone climb from 15% to BBWAA election (certainly not after no significant gain thru year 7).
Raines and McGwire have some chance. Jim Rice started at 29% and dropped back to 29 in year 5.

[willshad]

I guess I didn't word it quite right, but yes, that's essentially what I meant.

And someone mentioned Henderson in a list of players who may have hung on just to get his 3000. Henderson was a lock without the 3000, and would likely still be playing today if he could've found a team to sign him. The man just loved the game and didn't want to give it up (see: Julio Franco, Minnie Minoso, Satchel Paige). Winfield got his 3000 in what was still a pretty good season for him. While he is my favorite player and all, I think he should've hung it up in Minnesota, rather than ending his career in Cleveland where he served basically no purpose. Boggs was on cruise, waiting for his 3000 and just barely made it. Injury really ended Carew's career...he wasn't able to recover his form and just eeked out his 3k. Biggio just barely got there, but may not have needed it (though might have gone unnoticed without it). Molitor was still firing on all cylinders when he hung it up, he just couldn't keep up with the cumulative effects of all those injuries.

Until just looking, I didn't realize Molitor was in the Top 10 all time in hits. Looking at that list, A-Rod is probably the next to make it to 3000 in 4-5 years or so. It's insane that he's already over 2300 and is only 32 years old.

As for Omar Vizquel...if Ozzie Smith gets in based almost entirely on defense and personality, I think Vizquel will probably eventually get the nod with or without 3000.


wow you think A-rod makes it before Jeter?

[jjpm74]

wow you think A-rod makes it before Jeter?

I was the one who implied A-rod gets in before Jeter and I stand by that. Jeter is a great player, but A-Rod is the type of player who comes along once a generation. Of the two, if both never played a game again, A-rod would get in on the first ballot. I can't say the same for Jeter as so many outside of NY consider him overrated.

[willshad]

One of my points of this post, is that there really is a very fine line sometimes between a guy who gets 2700 hits and a guy who gets 3000 hits, but apparently a lot of people on here disagree with me. It seems to be the prevailing notion, that if you get over that magic number, then there must be something about you (durability, multiple skills, longevity, fitness) that makes you inherently superior to a player who falls a couple hundred hits short. This theory is somewhat backed by the fact that all the members of the 3000 hit club are easy hall of famers.
But it is also intesting to note, that most of the all time great hitters have indeed fallen short of this milestone. Ruth, Mantle, Williams, Bonds, Hornsby, Gehrig, Foxx, Ott, Robinson. While some of this can be chalked up to the fact that 3000 hits wasnt realy seen as a 'goal' until somewhat recently, I also think that it shows that the members of the 3000 hit club are there for their batting style (mostly free swingers), and luck (staying healthy late in their careers). Indeed 'plate discipline' can even be argued to be a DETRIMENT to achiveing a high career hit total. I do not think you really have to be a 'great' player to get 3000 hits, just like how you dont have to be a 'very good' player to get 2500 hits, nor a 'good' player to get 2000. We have been getting a lot of guys recently, like Juan Pierre, Edgar Renteria, Adrian Beltre, and Johnny Damon...who seem to have a very good shot at 3000 hits, despite not being great players. While it is not likely they will all achieve it, it is likely that evetually one of these types of players will.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

wow you think A-rod makes it before Jeter?

I think Jeter makes it to the HoF first simply because he's 13 months older and will mostly like retire before A-Rod does. His five year HoF clock will begin before A-Rod's does. I can see A-Rod playing into his early 40s as well.

[willshad]

You speak of one or two mediocre seasons at the end (here, even bad ones), and one or two seasons as a developing player at the beginning.

Paul Molitor finished more than 300 hits to the good topped 3000 before his last two years.

Steve Garvey finished more than 400 hits short, which is two of his very best seasons. And he played 3, 34, 81, 96, and 114 games before he started out as MVP in his first full season. --with 262 hits in the bag, more than 10% of his career. Where would he put the other 401? For sure, nowhere in a normal career trajectory.

Elsewhere

This may be grain confusion. Wheat has gluten, Rice doesn't.


Yeah, I get those 2 guys confused a lot too lol.

[jjpm74]

But it is also intesting to note, that most of the all time great hitters have indeed fallen short of this milestone. Ruth, Mantle, Williams, Bonds, Hornsby, Gehrig, Foxx, Ott, Robinson.

All but one of these guys hit other milestones seen as equally HOF worthy. Ruth retired the all time leader in RBIs and HRs. Mantle had over 500 HRs as did Williams, Foxx, Ott and Bonds. Hornsby had 1500+ runs and RBIs. Gehrig retired 5 RBIs shy of 2000 and 7 HRs shy of 500. He also was the iron man until Cal Ripken surpassed him. Jackie Robinson spent part of is career in the NeL and didn't make his major league debut until he was almost 30.

[jjpm74]

I think Jeter makes it to the HoF first simply because he's 13 months older and will mostly like retire before A-Rod does. His five year HoF clock will begin before A-Rod's does. I can see A-Rod playing into his early 40s as well.

A-Rod is also signed to a contract into his 40s.

[willshad]

I was the one who implied A-rod gets in before Jeter and I stand by that. Jeter is a great player, but A-Rod is the type of player who comes along once a generation. Of the two, if both never played a game again, A-rod would get in on the first ballot. I can't say the same for Jeter as so many outside of NY consider him overrated.

But that has nothing to with which of them gets 3000 hits first. Of course A-rod is better at this point, and will be better when all is said and done. But Jeter is over 100 hits ahead , and draws much less walks than A-rod does. The only way A-rod gets there first is if jeter starts to get hurt a lot.

[willshad]

All but one of these guys hit other milestones seen as equally HOF worthy. Ruth retired the all time leader in RBIs and HRs. Mantle had over 500 HRs as did Williams, Foxx, Ott and Bonds. Hornsby had 1500+ runs and RBIs. Gehrig retired 5 RBIs shy of 2000 and 7 HRs shy of 500. He also was the iron man until Cal Ripken surpassed him. Jackie Robinson spent part of is career in the NeL and didn't make his major league debut until he was almost 30.

I know, Im not saying these guys arent great hitters, and dont deserve the hall of fame. Im saying when it comes just to HITS, it is not necessarily a good thing to have great plate discipline . And since plate discipline is often linked to a player's greatness, it can thus be said that there doesnt mecessarlly have to be a correlation between how great a player is, and his ability to get 3000 hits.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

One of my points of this post, is that there really is a very fine line sometimes between a guy who gets 2700 hits and a guy who gets 3000 hits, but apparently a lot of people on here disagree with me. It seems to be the prevailing notion, that if you get over that magic number, then there must be something about you (durability, multiple skills, longevity, fitness) that makes you inherently superior to a player who falls a couple hundred hits short. This theory is somewhat backed by the fact that all the members of the 3000 hit club are easy hall of famers.
But it is also intesting to note, that most of the all time great hitters have indeed fallen short of this milestone. Ruth, Mantle, Williams, Bonds, Hornsby, Gehrig, Foxx, Ott, Robinson. While some of this can be chalked up to the fact that 3000 hits wasnt realy seen as a 'goal' until somewhat recently, I also think that it shows that the members of the 3000 hit club are there for their batting style (mostly free swingers), and luck (staying healthy late in their careers). Indeed 'plate discipline' can even be argued to be a DETRIMENT to achiveing a high career hit total. I do not think you really have to be a 'great' player to get 3000 hits, just like how you dont have to be a 'very good' player to get 2500 hits, nor a 'good' player to get 2000. We have been getting a lot of guys recently, like Juan Pierre, Edgar Renteria, Adrian Beltre, and Johnny Damon...who seem to have a very good shot at 3000 hits, despite not being great players. While it is not likely they will all achieve it, it is likely that evetually one of these types of players will.
Most of these players had extenuating cicumstances.

-Ruth missed hundred and hundreds of ABs in his pitching days.
-Mantle retired at age 36
-Bonds missed basically the entire 2005 season with his knee injury
-Gerhrig was forced to retire early because of his illness
-Foxx's drinking robbed him of several additional seasons
-Ott had 82 PAs after age 36

[jjpm74]

But that has nothing to with which of them gets 3000 hits first. Of course A-rod is better at this point, and will be better when all is said and done. But Jeter is over 100 hits ahead , and draws much less walks than A-rod does. The only way A-rod gets there first is if jeter starts to get hurt a lot.

My point was that neither one of these guys needs 3000 hits to get into the NBHOFM. A-Rod is already there and Jeter will be after another year or 2.

[willshad]

My point was that neither one of these guys needs 3000 hits to get into the NBHOFM. A-Rod is already there and Jeter will be after another year or 2.

oh ok, well I was writing about a quote from DaCylde who wrote:

Until just looking, I didn't realize Molitor was in the Top 10 all time in hits. Looking at that list, A-Rod is probably the next to make it to 3000 in 4-5 years or so. It's insane that he's already over 2300 and is only 32 years old.

He seemed to imply that A-rod will reach 3000 hits before jeter does.

[willshad]

Most of these players had extenuating cicumstances.

-Ruth missed hundred and hundreds of ABs in his pitching days.
-Mantle retired at age 36
-Bonds missed basically the entire 2005 season with his knee injury
-Gerhrig was forced to retire early because of his illness
-Foxx's drinking robbed him of several additional seasons
-Ott had 82 PAs after age 36

Well exactly...thats my point. This sounds a lot like the circumstances that plagued the guys on my list, in their pursuit of 3000 hits. Parker missed 4 seasons due to drug use. Garvey got a late start on a full time career. Baines declined very suddenly. Staub made some bad career choices. Dawson missed time due to strikes and injuries. If the all time great hitters can also have circumstances with hold them short of the mark, then maybe there isnt anything inherently 'better' about the 3000 hit guys than the players who fall just short. Maybe it really is just based on luck, and it is posible a player, or several players, who is merely 'good' will get the milestone

[jjpm74]

oh ok, well I was writing about a quote from DaCylde who wrote:

Until just looking, I didn't realize Molitor was in the Top 10 all time in hits. Looking at that list, A-Rod is probably the next to make it to 3000 in 4-5 years or so. It's insane that he's already over 2300 and is only 32 years old.

He seemed to imply that A-rod will reach 3000 hits before jeter does.

Jeter may get to 3000 hits before A-Rod. Thing is, A-Rod just may end up with more hits than Pete Rose. Projecting him with a modest 140 hits, 24 2B, 100 RBIs, 10 SBs, 110 runs, 80 walks and 30 home runs over the next 9 years, that'd put A-rod with 3592 hits, 752 2Bs, 806 HRs, 368 SBs, 2543 Runs, 1668 BBs and 2452 RBIs. That's assuming an average decline (if he stays healthy) and some very conservative numbers looking at A-Rod's performance to this point. That's not counting his 12 all star elections (and figure at least 7 more), 3 MVPs (assume at least 1 more), 9 Silver Sluggers (assume at least 4 more), and a current HOF monitor of 316.5 (Avg 100), current black ink at 68 (Avg 27) and Gray ink 201 (avg 144) and barring injury or some unforeseen controversy, we may be looking at someone who will trump Babe Ruth in terms of stardom in the sport.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Well exactly...thats my point. This sounds a lot like the circumstances that plagued the guys on my list, in their pursuit of 3000 hits. Parker missed 4 seasons due to drug use. Garvey got a late start on a full time career. Baines declined very suddenly. Staub made some bad career choices. Dawson missed time due to strikes and injuries. If the all time great hitters can also have circumstances with hold them short of the mark, then maybe there isnt anything inherently 'better' about the 3000 hit guys than the players who fall just short. Maybe it really is just based on luck, and it is posible a player, or several players, who is merely 'good' will get the milestone

Well I think there is a difference between lifestyle choices that hamper a player''s career and injuries. Bonds has been very durable throughout his career. He had that major knee injury in '05 and came back and played very well in '06-'07. Foxx's heavy drinking destroyed the latter part of his career. He literally lost 3-5 seasons because of his drinking. How many players of Foxx's caliber lost that many seasons to drinking? Gehrig's illness was the most flukish. He contracts a rare disease, causing him to retire early and dies at age 41?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Jeter may get to 3000 hits before A-Rod. Thing is, A-Rod just may end up with more hits than Pete Rose. Projecting him with a modest 140 hits, 24 2B, 100 RBIs, 10 SBs, 110 runs, 80 walks and 30 home runs over the next 9 years, that'd put A-rod with 3592 hits, 752 2Bs, 806 HRs, 368 SBs, 2543 Runs, 1668 BBs and 2452 RBIs. That's assuming an average decline (if he stays healthy) and some very conservative numbers looking at A-Rod's performance to this point. That's not counting his 12 all star elections (and figure at least 7 more), 3 MVPs (assume at least 1 more), 9 Silver Sluggers (assume at least 4 more), and a current HOF monitor of 316.5 (Avg 100), current black ink at 68 (Avg 27) and Gray ink 201 (avg 144) and barring injury or some unforeseen controversy, we may be looking at someone who will trump Babe Ruth in terms of stardom in the sport.

You just had to say that, didn't you? :hyper:

<*Gets bag of popcorn, sits down, and waits for Sultan1895-1948, SHOELESSJOE3, and Excelsior to rebutt this statement.*>

[jjpm74]

<*Gets bag of popcorn, sits down, and waits for Sultan1895-1948, SHOELESSJOE3, and Excelsior to rebutt this statement.*>

<<<Also grabs some popcorn...would love to see someone actually post some kind of proof to the contrary since stardom is an impossible thing to measure. >>>
:radio

[willshad]

Jeter may get to 3000 hits before A-Rod. Thing is, A-Rod just may end up with more hits than Pete Rose. Projecting him with a modest 140 hits, 24 2B, 100 RBIs, 10 SBs, 110 runs, 80 walks and 30 home runs over the next 9 years, that'd put A-rod with 3592 hits, 752 2Bs, 806 HRs, 368 SBs, 2543 Runs, 1668 BBs and 2452 RBIs. That's assuming an average decline (if he stays healthy) and some very conservative numbers looking at A-Rod's performance to this point. That's not counting his 12 all star elections (and figure at least 7 more), 3 MVPs (assume at least 1 more), 9 Silver Sluggers (assume at least 4 more), and a current HOF monitor of 316.5 (Avg 100), current black ink at 68 (Avg 27) and Gray ink 201 (avg 144) and barring injury or some unforeseen controversy, we may be looking at someone who will trump Babe Ruth in terms of stardom in the sport.

what exactly do you mean by 'trump' babe Ruth? That would put A-rod at about the same level as Hank Aaron..and that is assmuing he doesnt suffer an early decline or serious injury. He would still be far short of Babe. I personally think he ends up with career numbers closer to Griffey. Implying he may end up with more hits than Pete Rose is beyond ridiculous at this point.

[jjpm74]

what exactly do you mean by 'trump' babe Ruth? That would put A-rod at about the same level as Hank Aaron..and that is assmuing he doesnt suffer an early decline or serious injury. He would still be far short of Babe. I personally think he ends up with career numbers closer to Griffey. Implying he may end up with more hits than Pete Rose is beyond ridiculous at this point.

How about some proof to back up your assertions? I've at least attempted to post numbers assuming A-rod's lows in his career. Where's your argument to refute me?

What I mean by trump Babe Ruth is that A-Rod may surpass his fame just as Jordan surpassed Chamberlain's fame.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

How about some proof to back up your assertions? I've at least attempted to post numbers assuming A-rod's lows in his career. Where's your argument to refute me?

What I mean by trump Babe Ruth is that A-Rod may surpass his fame just as Jordan surpassed Chamberlain's fame.

<*waits for Sultan to post 3,458 Babe Ruth newspaper articles to show how famous Ruth was.*>

[willshad]

It is too early to talk about A-rod getting 3000 hits, much less 4000. I also see no compelling reason to think he will end up with more hits than Jeter...especially since he draws quite a few more walks. Neither guy may end up with 3000 hits...remember when everyone thought Roberto Alomar was a sure bet for close to 4000 hits? He was on about the same pace as A-rod, hit-wise, and guess what, he didnt even come close to 3000. A sudden decline to mediocrity often occurs in a player's mid 30s, despite the player being in good shape, and despite no real injuries. Lets not jump the gun.

[willshad]

How about some proof to back up your assertions? I've at least attempted to post numbers assuming A-rod's lows in his career. Where's your argument to refute me?

What I mean by trump Babe Ruth is that A-Rod may surpass his fame just as Jordan surpassed Chamberlain's fame.

There cannot be any 'proof' either way..it is all just guesswork. One cannot predict how a player will perform for the rest of his career, and any attempt to 'project' someon's lifetime stats is utterly wothless. You assume A-rod will play 10 or so more years at the level of his worst season to date. But what if he suddenly falls off the table entirely (as happens MANY times to players in their mid or even early 30s), or gets hurt? What if suddenly next year he loses bat speed and he becomes a .250 hitter with 20 home runs, then is out of the league 2 years later? People seem to think that just because A-rod is on a pace that nobody before has matched, that he will CONTINUE to be productive until he is 40 years old. But the reality is, his production so far is really no basis to use to predict his performance in the future.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

It is too early to talk about A-rod getting 3000 hits, much less 4000. I also see no compelling reason to think he will end up with more hits than Jeter...especially since he draws quite a few more walks. Neither guy may end up with 3000 hits...remember when everyone thought Roberto Alomar was a sure bet for close to 4000 hits? He was on about the same pace as A-rod, hit-wise, and guess what, he didnt even come close to 3000. A sudden decline to mediocrity often occurs in a player's mid 30s, despite the player being in good shape, and despite no real injuries. Lets not jump the gun.

What does Roberto Alomar have to do with A-Rod? Granted A-rod reaching 4,000 is quite a stretch. But A-Rod reaching 3,000 hits is highly likely. A-Rod currently has 2,332 hits (7/07/08). He will most likely finish the '08 season with over 2,400 hits. This is his age 32 season. So A-Rod will need less than 600 hits to reach 3,000. Here are the hit totals for all the eventual 3,000 hit members through their age 32 seasons. A-Rod may end the '08 season as the #3 guy. If that is not impressive I don't know what is? :shrug:

2713 Ty Cobb
2434 Hank Aaron
2407 Robin Yount
2332 Alex Rodriguez
2238 Roberto Clemente
2232 Tris Speaker
2228 Al Kaline
2223 Stan Musial
2152 Pete Rose
2087 Cal Ripken
2085 Rod Carew
2036 Paul Waner
2033 Willie Mays
2021 Eddie Murray
1987 Geroge Brett
1981 Eddie Collins
1952 Carl Yastrsemski
1909 Nap Lajoie+
1888 Rickey Henderson
1864 Tony Gwynn
1808 Lou Brock
1792 Rafael Palmiero
1784 Wade Boggs
1761 Dave Wnfield
1751 Paul Molitor
1746 Paul Waner
1680 Craig Biggio
1449 Cap Anson

[Honus Wagner Rules]

There cannot be any 'proof' either way..it is all just guesswork. One cannot predict how a player will perform for the rest of his career, and any attempt to 'project' someon's lifetime stats is utterly wothless. You assume A-rod will play 10 or so more years at the level of his worst season to date. But what if he suddenly falls off the table entirely (as happens MANY times to players in their mid or even early 30s), or gets hurt? What if suddenly next year he loses bat speed and he becomes a .250 hitter with 20 home runs, then is out of the league 2 years later? People seem to think that just because A-rod is on a pace that nobody before has matched, that he will CONTINUE to be productive until he is 40 years old. But the reality is, his production so far is really no basis to use to predict his performance in the future.

It's not worthless. We can't make 100% accurate predictions of course. We can look at similar ballplayers and compare how they aged. We can look at hitters of A-Rod's type (Hank Aaron and Willie Mays come to mind) and make some solid educated predictions. Given that A-Rod is a fitness fanatic, unless he suffers a significant injury he will play until age 40. Can predictions be wrong? Of course! But just because some predictions are off doesn't mean the process is worthless.

[willshad]

It's not worthless. We can't make 100% accurate predictions of course. We can look at similar ballplayers and compare how they aged. We can look at hitters of A-Rod's type (Hank Aaron and Willie Mays come to mind) and make some solid educated predictions. Given that A-Rod is a fitness fanatic, unless he suffers a significant injury he will play until age 40. Can predictions be wrong? Of course! But just because some predictions are off doesn't mean the process is worthless.

I just cant help but think of all the players who have looked like all time greats, or like hall of famers, at age 30 or at age 33 and things just did not turn out that way. I can name dozens and dozens of players who were 'on pace' to make the hall of fame at those ages, none of whom made it ;most of whom never even came close. What they had accomplished up unti that age didnt matter during the rest of their careers. A-rod is really no different, just doing it on a higher level. Just because he has simliar stats at his age to guys like Aaron and Mays has no bearing on how he will age. Why is it any more likely he will age like Hank Aaron than he will age like Roberto Alomar? Why is it more likely he will get as many hits as Willie mays, than that he will barely get 3000, like Kaline and Yount? Because he hits more home runs than they do? There is no predicting when a player will start to decline. You ask what Roberto Alomar has to do with A-rod in one post, then in the next one compare him to all these other players. Well what do THEY have to do with him? He is totally separate. My point is, that just because he has accomplished a lot up until this point, that is no reason to believe he is immune from suffering an early and drastic decline, as many many others have done. What are the odds of it? Given all of the players that it HAS happened to, Id say pretty good. The odds are MUCH better that he will not reach 3000 hits, than that he will reach 4000.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I just cant help but think of all the players who have looked like all time greats, or like hall of famers, at age 30 or at age 33 and things just did not turn out that way. I can name dozens and dozens of players who were 'on pace' to make the hall of fame at those ages, none of whom made it ;most of whom never even came close. What they had accomplished up unti that age didnt matter during the rest of their careers. A-rod is really no different, just doing it on a higher level. Just because he has simliar stats at his age to guys like Aaron and Mays has no bearing on how he will age. Why is it any more likely he will age like Hank Aaron than he will age like Roberto Alomar? Why is it more likely he will get as many hits as Willie mays, than that he will barely get 3000, like Kaline and Yount? Because he hits more home runs than they do? There is no predicting when a player will start to decline. You ask what Roberto Alomar has to do with A-rod in one post, then in the next one compare him to all these other players. Well what do THEY have to do with him? He is totally separate.
He is more likely to get as many hits Mays and Aaron than Alomar, Yount, and Kaline because as a hitter A-Rod resembles Mays and Aaron a whole heck of a lot more lot more than he resembles Alomar, Yount, and Kaline. Of course this no way to predict with 100% accuracy how A-Rod will decline. However, why do you assume he can't reach 3,000 hits or that he will decline early? Look at A-Rod's career profile. He was in the majors before his 19th birthday. At age 20 he was the best player in the AL. He's won three MVP awards. He is still only 32 years old. He is a fitness fanatic. He wants to hit break Bonds HR record. All these positives point to a long career until at least age 40 barring any major injury. That doesn't mean it's predestined that he will, of course, but the available evidence suggests that he is highly likely to do it. Is it so hard to believe that A-Rod can still be playing at age 40? Look how many merely good players are now still playing at age 40+? Shoot, if Moises Alou can still play in his 40s why can't A-Rod?


My point is, that just because he has accomplished a lot up until this point, that is no reason to believe he is immune from suffering an early and drastic decline, as many many others have done. What are the odds of it? Given all of the players that it HAS happened to, Id say pretty good. The odds are MUCH better that he will not reach 3000 hits, than that he will reach 4000.
No one claims A-Rod is immune to this. And no one claims that A-Rod will hit as well at age 39 as he did at age 29 either. A-Rod is not "all such players". You need to compare him to players who have similar career profiles, guys like Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, and Frank Robinson. Look at the hit totals through age 32 I posted above of all the eventual 3,000 hit members. What does that tell you? A-Rod is likely to have the third most hits through age 32 in the entire history of major league baseball.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Don't you mean that Dave Kingman was no Fred McGriff??? Except for raw power, McGriff was a far superior hitter to Dave Kingman.

I think he means McGriff deserves a better fate than just being one of the few 400-HR guys on the outside. He'll be unfairly lumped with Kingman and Canseco, although Canseco was a good player overall for a few years.

Ah, the poll. 3,000 hits would have made Dave Parker, Tim Raines and Steve Garvey first-ballot as opposed to the also-rans they are. Raines still has a shot, he did poorly but others have come from further back. Dawson would also have made it immediately, but his overall counting numbers have ensured eventual election after only a few years. Staub and Baines were never regarded as the superstars the others were, although they were both popular. Staub's status as a journeyman and his having to play in poor hitting environments when he was in his youthful prime really hurt him, he was an excellent player who couldn't get a break when he needed it.
Madlock won four batting titles at a time when it seemed even three was a cinch for HOF status. But he was the type of player who never would have made it long enough for 3000 hits, so his career didn't come close to what you'd think a four-time batting champ

[Brad Harris]

Jeter may get to 3000 hits before A-Rod. Thing is, A-Rod just may end up with more hits than Pete Rose. Projecting him with a modest 140 hits, 24 2B, 100 RBIs, 10 SBs, 110 runs, 80 walks and 30 home runs over the next 9 years, that'd put A-rod with 3592 hits, 752 2Bs, 806 HRs, 368 SBs, 2543 Runs, 1668 BBs and 2452 RBIs. That's assuming an average decline (if he stays healthy) and some very conservative numbers looking at A-Rod's performance to this point. That's not counting his 12 all star elections (and figure at least 7 more), 3 MVPs (assume at least 1 more), 9 Silver Sluggers (assume at least 4 more), and a current HOF monitor of 316.5 (Avg 100), current black ink at 68 (Avg 27) and Gray ink 201 (avg 144) and barring injury or some unforeseen controversy, we may be looking at someone who will trump Babe Ruth in terms of stardom in the sport.
Unless his pending divorce affects him like it did Frank Thomas at a similar point in his career. :rant:

[leecemark]

--I think any of these players would be in the Hall had they achieved 3,000 hits. Of course, if ALL of them reached 3,000 hits that would be a different story. A large number of good, but not great players achieving the milestone would take alot of the luster off the achievment.
--The two guys most likely to have gotten there and not been elected are Buckner and Baines. Buckner was a slightly above average player at his best and below average in many seasons. He got alot of hits because hitting for average was his ONLY plus skill (and he wasn't great at that) and he was up there swinging away all the time and not limiting his opportunities by accepting many of those pesky bases on balls:cap:. Baines was a pretty good hitter, but never a great one. That would have been enough had he played the outfiled most of his career (then he'd be Rusty Staub), but spending most of his career at DH he would have given the writers cause to reconsider the automatic HoF ticket that goes with 3,000 hits.
--Again, even these two would probably have gotten the nod if the 3,000 club remained exclusive territory. However if there was a sudden rise in membership, as we are seeing with 500 HR, then its much more likley that somebody would be the first to do it and not get elected.

[DaClyde]

wow you think A-rod makes it before Jeter?

My mistake, I somehow breezed right by Jeter on the list! As for who makes the Hall first....A-Rod could retire or succumb to injuries NOW and would probably be a lock. One needn't have monstrous career totals to get elected, see Kirby Puckett and Ralph Kiner for that.

[mtortolero]

In Staub´s case I think was his bad choice of return to NL in 1981 with the Mets and spent his last five years as an utility without defensive position to only take 612 AB in FIVE SEASONS.
He was short only 288 hits from 3000 hits, something that doesn´t look hard to reach in he can double his AB in those five years if he continue in the AL as DH.

[jalbright]

One of my points of this post, is that there really is a very fine line sometimes between a guy who gets 2700 hits and a guy who gets 3000 hits, but apparently a lot of people on here disagree with me. It seems to be the prevailing notion, that if you get over that magic number, then there must be something about you (durability, multiple skills, longevity, fitness) that makes you inherently superior to a player who falls a couple hundred hits short. This theory is somewhat backed by the fact that all the members of the 3000 hit club are easy hall of famers.
But it is also intesting to note, that most of the all time great hitters have indeed fallen short of this milestone. Ruth, Mantle, Williams, Bonds, Hornsby, Gehrig, Foxx, Ott, Robinson. While some of this can be chalked up to the fact that 3000 hits wasnt realy seen as a 'goal' until somewhat recently, I also think that it shows that the members of the 3000 hit club are there for their batting style (mostly free swingers), and luck (staying healthy late in their careers). Indeed 'plate discipline' can even be argued to be a DETRIMENT to achiveing a high career hit total. I do not think you really have to be a 'great' player to get 3000 hits, just like how you dont have to be a 'very good' player to get 2500 hits, nor a 'good' player to get 2000.

Where to start with this?

I can think of several guys with 3000+ I'd definitely consider among the all-time great hitters: Cobb, Aaron, Speaker, Anson, Wagner, Mays, Brett and Rickey Henderson. I think that plus "the fact that all the members of the 3000 hit club are easy hall of famers." pretty well neutralizes the idea that it's not strong evidence of greatness. Should it be the only evidence of greatness? No, of course not. But if someone gets 3000 or more hits, it takes an awful lot of contrary evidence to show someone wasn't great. Maybe you can make such a case against Sam Rice (it's a decent argument both ways), but it's difficult to make it against others who have achieved that milestone.

You've got to be lucky, sure, including the luck of having great skills and good health, but you don't get to stick around and get 2000+ hits if you don't have some real skills, much less a higher number of hits.

This is the tail end of the bell curve, and while 300 hits may not seem like a lot, it's the gulf few have bridged. That's key evidence of why it's such a useful benchmark.

It wasn't until the 1930's or 40's that many people were well aware of career hit totals. If there's no awareness of the totals, it's hard to have a sense of their significance. Once they started to have an awareness of those totals, they had enough history to see the kinds of players reaching the mark.

[RuthMayBond]

Where to start with this?

I can think of several guys with 3000+ I'd definitely consider among the all-time great hitters: Cobb, Aaron, Speaker, Anson, Wagner, Mays, Brett and Rickey Henderson. I think that plus "the fact that all the members of the 3000 hit club are easy hall of famers." Willshad & jalbright, let me introduce to you, Mr. Brock

[jjpm74]

I just cant help but think of all the players who have looked like all time greats, or like hall of famers, at age 30 or at age 33 and things just did not turn out that way. I can name dozens and dozens of players who were 'on pace' to make the hall of fame at those ages, none of whom made it ;most of whom never even came close. What they had accomplished up unti that age didnt matter during the rest of their careers. A-rod is really no different, just doing it on a higher level.

How many of these players that you can name already were HOFers by age 32? A-rod could never play again and he'd still be a 1st ballot HOFer.

As for me projecting a possibility of 4000+ hits; and yes I'm aware of the fact that he could get injured and that a million other things can happen is that A-rod has 2332 hits and is 32 about to turn 33. By age 33, Pete Rose had 2337 hits. It is not out of the realm of possibility that A-rod could see 4000 hits then sign on for an extra 2 years to attempt to pass Pete Rose if he stays healthy and continues at his present pace. He needs to average 173 hits for each of the next 9 years and hit another 110 this year to get there. That is not easy, especially considering an average decline, but it is not impossible. That does not mean that he will make it. One thing that is for sure is that A-rod has 9 guaranteed years left on his contract so unless he has a career ending injury, he is signed with the Yankees through age 42.

[jalbright]

Willshad & jalbright, let me introduce to you, Mr. Brock

He conceded the point, and I'll let him speak for himself. My view is that if you want to rebut the case of a Brock or Sam Rice, go ahead, but understand that 2987 or 3000+ career hits is a definite piece of evidence that a player is great. It can be done (and those two are the prime examples that it is possible)--but, off the cuff, the rest are rather easy picks. Even S. Rice and Brock performed well for very long periods of time, and solid arguments can be made for their inclusion.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I know, Im not saying these guys arent great hitters, and dont deserve the hall of fame. Im saying when it comes just to HITS, it is not necessarily a good thing to have great plate discipline . And since plate discipline is often linked to a player's greatness, it can thus be said that there doesnt mecessarlly have to be a correlation between how great a player is, and his ability to get 3000 hits.

On the contrary. I would argue that plate discipline (unless you take it to the extremes Mickey Tettleton took it to) is an EXTREMELY good thing in boosting your hit totals.

The reason is simple: As a player ages, his BA skill declines. Reflexes, hand-eye coordination, motor skills erode to where a player is not as good at performing the task of putting the bat on the ball for a hit.

Eventually, a player will get to the point where he cannot hit the ball enough to stay in the game. The pitcher will be able to throw nothing but fastballs and get that player out enough to where that pitcher has every incentive to throw nothing but fastballs down the middle.

That point of receckoning is delayed greatly by plate discipline. BA will go down, and the player will not be functioning as well as he did in his best years, but he will be able to be selective enough to get on base and keep his OBP to where he gets time in the lineup. Rickey Henderson wasn't a particularly good BA guy, but he made it to 3,000 hits because of his selectivity at the plate; he was 44 before he could no longer hit well enough to avoid pitchers throwing him nothing but strikes.

Steve Garvey was a durable, consistent player who racked up SIX 200-hit seasons, yet fell short of 3,000. One reason was a bit of a late start, but even if you installed him as a regular in 1971 at age 22, you'd still have a guy with only 2,800-something hits (assuming he played regularly from that point on). Garvey was better at putting the bat on the ball than just about anyone playing while he was active; he was referred to by Curt Gowdy as "the toughest out in baseball" and he earned that label. But after a "last hurrah" at age 37, Garvey was done. He was done because he couldn't put his bat on the ball frequently enough to keep his job, and he didn't have enough plate discipline to overcome this. It's the difference between a star and a superstar; the superstar has enough in the tank to go to age 41 while the star is toast at age 38.

[RuthMayBond]

He conceded the point, and I'll let him speak for himself. My view is that if you want to rebut the case of a Brock or Sam Rice, go ahead, but understand that 2987 or 3000+ career hits is a definite piece of evidence that a player is great. It can be done (and those two are the prime examples that it is possible)--but, off the cuff, the rest are rather easy picks. Even S. Rice and Brock performed well for very long periods of time, and solid arguments can be made for their inclusion.The point I"m rebutting is that they're "easy HOFers", not something else

[Bravesfan1984]

One of my points of this post, is that there really is a very fine line sometimes between a guy who gets 2700 hits and a guy who gets 3000 hits, but apparently a lot of people on here disagree with me. It seems to be the prevailing notion, that if you get over that magic number, then there must be something about you (durability, multiple skills, longevity, fitness) that makes you inherently superior to a player who falls a couple hundred hits short. This theory is somewhat backed by the fact that all the members of the 3000 hit club are easy hall of famers.
But it is also intesting to note, that most of the all time great hitters have indeed fallen short of this milestone. Ruth, Mantle, Williams, Bonds, Hornsby, Gehrig, Foxx, Ott, Robinson. While some of this can be chalked up to the fact that 3000 hits wasnt realy seen as a 'goal' until somewhat recently, I also think that it shows that the members of the 3000 hit club are there for their batting style (mostly free swingers), and luck (staying healthy late in their careers). Indeed 'plate discipline' can even be argued to be a DETRIMENT to achiveing a high career hit total. I do not think you really have to be a 'great' player to get 3000 hits, just like how you dont have to be a 'very good' player to get 2500 hits, nor a 'good' player to get 2000. We have been getting a lot of guys recently, like Juan Pierre, Edgar Renteria, Adrian Beltre, and Johnny Damon...who seem to have a very good shot at 3000 hits, despite not being great players. While it is not likely they will all achieve it, it is likely that evetually one of these types of players will.

Good point here. Even with 3000 hits Pierre, Renteria, Beltre and Damon most likely will not make it

[Ubiquitous]

They would all be inducted if they all made it to 3000.

Pierre is 30 years old and he just got to 1500 hits. In order for him to reach 3,000 he would need probably another 10 or so years and in order for him to stay on the field to get those 3,000 hits he would need to be productive. He doesn't walk and he doesn't hit homers or doubles. So that means his legs, his bat, and his glove. If Pierre is playing at age 41 and gets to 3,000 he will be a HoF'er.

Edgar Renteria will be a no doubt hall of famer if he gets to 3,000 hits. Cal Ripken is the only full time SS to get to 3,000 hits.

If Johnny Damon gets to 3,000 there is no way they are keeping him out.

If Adrian Beltre somehow gets to 3,000 hits he too will be a Hall of Famer.

[mtortolero]

I will include Indian Bob Jonhnson in the list. He finnished with 2051 hits in a 13 years carrer started at 27 years old. Adding five or six seasons seasons and those 949 hits missing to the mark looks not so hard to reach.

[RuthMayBond]

I will include Indian Bob Jonhnson in the list. He finnished with 2051 hits in a 13 years carrer started at 27 years old. Adding five or six seasons seasons and those 949 hits missing to the mark looks not so hard to reach.Adding an additional FIFTY PERCENT onto a guy's career CAN make things look a LITTLE different

[Bravesfan1984]

They would all be inducted if they all made it to 3000.

Pierre is 30 years old and he just got to 1500 hits. In order for him to reach 3,000 he would need probably another 10 or so years and in order for him to stay on the field to get those 3,000 hits he would need to be productive. He doesn't walk and he doesn't hit homers or doubles. So that means his legs, his bat, and his glove. If Pierre is playing at age 41 and gets to 3,000 he will be a HoF'er.

Edgar Renteria will be a no doubt hall of famer if he gets to 3,000 hits. Cal Ripken is the only full time SS to get to 3,000 hits.

If Johnny Damon gets to 3,000 there is no way they are keeping him out.

If Adrian Beltre somehow gets to 3,000 hits he too will be a Hall of Famer.


Why does getting 2,990 hits not make them great but 3000 does. If you adding all these people becuase they hit 3000 hits you are watering down the HOF.

[mtortolero]

Adding an additional FIFTY PERCENT onto a guy's career CAN make things look a LITTLE different

But for his bad luck start his carrer at 21 or 22 years old, and he was able to do it according to his biographs, was not in Johnson hands and in his case that make a HUGE difference in his accumulative stats.

[DaClyde]

Why does getting 2,990 hits not make them great but 3000 does. If you adding all these people becuase they hit 3000 hits you are watering down the HOF.

Too late...it's already very watered down.

It has been mentioned in a few posts that if so and so were to have 3000 hits, he'd make the Hall, but without it, he just wasn't a GREAT player. We'll if you adjust someone's stats to give them 3000 hits and trickle those hits down across their career...you suddenly just turned some average seasons into great seasons and likely added several points to their career BA. Guys like Rusty Staub and Harold Baines with 3000 hits are suddenly the same caliber player as a Yount or Winfield, offensively speaking.

[White Knight]

Well look at it this way: at age 40 Harold Baines had arguably his best season, hitting .312. He finished the year at 2783 hits. At the time I considered him a lock to get to 3000. Youre telling me, that with one more solid season, Baines becomes an automatic HOFer? As it stands now he gets no support at all.

Asolutely. 3,000 wins, 500HR's, and 300 wins are the automatic locks, unless you were banned from baseball or an alleged PED user.

[White Knight]

The same goes for the 400 & 500 HR club. 400 used to be nearly a lock for a hitter until Dave Kingman reached it by swinging for the fences with every pitch. Even then, unless you were a totally one-dimensional player, you were still almost guaranteed induction. Then more guy starting hitting a lot of HR and the plateau was moved to 500. But then McGwire, Sosa and Palmeiro all made 500 (and even 600 in Sosa's case) and the performance enhancer question was raised, possibly blackballing all three.

Sosa will go in.The 600 plateau might be a lock, PED's or not. Had Mac held out for 600 might he have made it? Maybe. And Sosa has the least proof of the three, no hard evidence at all (neither does Mac BTW, but unlike Sosa, he was accused).

As for Kingman, if he held out a couple of more seasons for 500, I'm pretty sure he'd make it.

[White Knight]

How about some proof to back up your assertions? I've at least attempted to post numbers assuming A-rod's lows in his career. Where's your argument to refute me?

What I mean by trump Babe Ruth is that A-Rod may surpass his fame just as Jordan surpassed Chamberlain's fame.

I doubt it. Even if he retires at 800 HR's and 3,300 hits, he barely cracks the top 5. He's certain not better than Ruth or Bonds. And unless he starts to juice, he's never going to hit more than 60 HR's, much less 70.

[BlueBlood]

I went ahead and selected all of them. 3,000 hits is just as idiotic as 300 wins being used as a threshold but it does guarantee induction.

[White Knight]

Good point here. Even with 3000 hits Pierre, Renteria, Beltre and Damon most likely will not make it

Anyone with 3,000 makes it, unless they did something against the rules. If Damon can make it to 3,000, that means he has several more 185+ hit seasons. That is a good enough career in itself.

[Bravesfan1984]

Too late...it's already very watered down.

It has been mentioned in a few posts that if so and so were to have 3000 hits, he'd make the Hall, but without it, he just wasn't a GREAT player. We'll if you adjust someone's stats to give them 3000 hits and trickle those hits down across their career...you suddenly just turned some average seasons into great seasons and likely added several points to their career BA. Guys like Rusty Staub and Harold Baines with 3000 hits are suddenly the same caliber player as a Yount or Winfield, offensively speaking.

That is my point 3ooo hits does not make a good player all a sudden great. What else doe these guys have besides 3000 hits do they have to be Hall of Famers. You can not just put someone in for one number that is silly. You have to examine there whole body of work. That is why we have HOFers who do not 3000 hits in the HOF there whole career was examined and it was shown they did not need 3000 hits they were already HOFers.

[DaClyde]

That is my point 3ooo hits does not make a good player all a sudden great. What else doe these guys have besides 3000 hits do they have to be Hall of Famers. You can not just put someone in for one number that is silly. You have to examine there whole body of work. That is why we have HOFers who do not 3000 hits in the HOF there whole career was examined and it was shown they did not need 3000 hits they were already HOFers.

But you're missing my point. If that player has 3000 hits, their entire career suddenly looks better. You're not just slapping 3000 in the Career Total column, those hits have to go somewhere over the course of their career. If you add 200-300 hits to someone who was around 2700-2800, once you trickle those hits across their career, they suddenly have 2-3 more seasons of .300+ BA, and since it's doubtful all 200-300 of those hits were bases-empty singles, probably more 2B, 3B, HR, and with all those hits come more opportunity for more runs, more RBI, higher OBP, SLG, etc.

Unless someone plays for 30 years, you just don't get to 3000 hits without it showing up in other categories as well, meaning that player was a pretty good if not great player.

[Bravesfan1984]

But you're missing my point. If that player has 3000 hits, their entire career suddenly looks better. You're not just slapping 3000 in the Career Total column, those hits have to go somewhere over the course of their career. If you add 200-300 hits to someone who was around 2700-2800, once you trickle those hits across their career, they suddenly have 2-3 more seasons of .300+ BA, and since it's doubtful all 200-300 of those hits were bases-empty singles, probably more 2B, 3B, HR, and with all those hits come more opportunity for more runs, more RBI, higher OBP, SLG, etc.

Unless someone plays for 30 years, you just don't get to 3000 hits without it showing up in other categories as well, meaning that player was a pretty good if not great player.

Sure it looks better that does not mean it was better. Of course you will get hits other then singles but that does not mean you have to have great years to get to 300o hits.

[Bravesfan1984]

I went ahead and selected all of them. 3,000 hits is just as idiotic as 300 wins being used as a threshold but it does guarantee induction.

I do not think it is idiotic but you have to look at the player career instead of just putting them in the HOF or you are just putting good players in for hitting a number.

[jjpm74]

Sure it looks better that does not mean it was better. Of course you will get hits other then singles but that does not mean you have to have great years to get to 300o hits.

Until we see the day that someone manages to play for 35 years until they are about 55 years old or so and gets to that mark without any 100 hit seasons, 3000 hits (I'd argue 2900) is an indicator that someone was a great player worthy of HOF consideration. It is not possible to stay in the major leagues long enough to get to 2000 hits let alone 3000 without exhibiting an ability that is above league average for a lengthened period of time. That does not mean that 50 years from now 3000 hits (or 2900) will still be an indicator. As many have said before, benchmarks change as the league changes.

[Bravesfan1984]

Until we see the day that someone manages to play for 35 years until they are about 55 years old or so and gets to that mark without any 100 hit seasons, 3000 hits (I'd argue 2900) is an indicator that someone was a great player worthy of HOF consideration. It is not possible to stay in the major leagues long enough to get to 2000 hits let alone 3000 without exhibiting an ability that is above league average for a lengthened period of time. That does not mean that 50 years from now 3000 hits (or 2900) will still be an indicator. As many have said before, benchmarks change as the league changes.

So when has Damon or Luis Gonzalaz been above league average? You keep saying it shows greatness but they have not been great anytime in there career. 2990 does not make them a HOF player and neither does 3000

[jjpm74]

So when has Damon or Luis Gonzalaz been above league average? You keep saying it shows greatness but they have not been great anytime in there career. 2990 does not make them a HOF player and neither does 3000

Prove it. You want to refute what I say, show some actual statistical proof that what I am saying is wrong.

EDIT: Until you show some actual argument with some actual evidence to support that argument when you decide to refute someone, I will not be responding to you in the future.

[Bravesfan1984]

Prove it. You want to refute what I say, show some actual statistical proof that what I am saying is wrong.

EDIT: Until you show some actual argument with some actual evidence to support that argument when you decide to refute someone, I will not be responding to you in the future.

Okay Damon best mvp finish has been 13th. He has never lead his team in obp even Giambi and Posada have done that. Damon was pretty much never considered one of the best players on his team let alone the league. Damon has only 172 home runs in his career and only has 880 rbis Damon has an OPS+ of 103.

Luis Gonzalez was only once in the top 10 mvp. His career obp is only 367. He has a 283 career batting average. Only once did he have over 200 hits in a season.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Okay Damon best mvp finish has been 13th. He has never lead his team in obp even Giambi and Posada have done that. Damon was pretty much never considered one of the best players on his team let alone the league. Damon has only 172 home runs in his career and only has 880 rbis

Again with the HRs and RBI? Damon is a leadoff hitter. His specialty is runs and hits not HRs and RBI. Damon has 2202 hits and 1331 runs. Those are fairly impressive numbers for a 34 year old.

[Bravesfan1984]

Again with the HRs and RBI? Damon is a leadoff hitter. His specialty is runs and hits not HRs and RBI. Damon has 2202 hits and 1331 runs. Those are fairly impressive numbers for a 34 year old.

It does not matter what position you can not just throw out stats. Impressive yes HOF no. Luis Gonzalesz another person who is near 3000 has more hits and more rbis

[jjpm74]

It does not matter what position you can not just throw out stats. Impressive yes HOF no. Luis Gonzalesz another person who is near 3000 has more hits and more rbis

Johnny Damon has played 14 years and has 880 RBIs. Rickey Henderson, considered the greatest leadoff hitter of all time has 1115 RBIs in 25 years. Rickey played 11 years longer than Damon has and only has 235 more RBIs than him. RBIs are not an important stat for a leadoff hitter. One needs to focus on OPB, walks, hits and to a lesser degree runs and SBs. 1500 Runs in a career is considered hard to achieve. Damon is well on his way. Damon has 766 walks in his career. That's above average. Damon's career OBP is .354. Damon also only has 2200 hits and is a good 7 years away from being looked at as a serious HOFer unlike guys like Jeter and A-Rod so I don't know why his name continues to pop up along with the other 3000 guys in this conversation.

Luis Gonzalez is 40 years old, in his 19th year and will not come near 3000 hits so I have no idea why you're even bringing him into the conversation.

[Bravesfan1984]

Johnny Damon has played 14 years and has 880 RBIs. Rickey Henderson, considered the greatest leadoff hitter of all time has 1115 RBIs in 25 years. Rickey played 11 years longer than Damon has and only has 235 more RBIs than him. RBIs are not an important stat for a leadoff hitter. One needs to focus on OPB, walks, hits and to a lesser degree runs and SBs. 1500 Runs in a career is considered hard to achieve. Damon is well on his way. Damon has 766 walks in his career. That's above average. Damon's career OBP is .354. Damon also only has 2200 hits and is a good 7 years away from being looked at as a serious HOFer unlike guys like Jeter and A-Rod so I don't know why his name continues to pop up along with the other 3000 guys in this conversation.

Luis Gonzalez is 40 years old, in his 19th year and will not come near 3000 hits so I have no idea why you're even bringing him into the conversation.


He will probably not make i but I am saying if he does he is still not a HOFer.
his 354 career obp is average, He never had an obp over 400.

[jjpm74]

He will probably not make i but I am saying if he does he is still not a HOFer.
his 354 career obp is average, He never had an obp over 400.

For him to make it to to 3000 hits, he would need to go on an incredible surge (over 160 OBP+ kind of surge) in his 40s. Barring a PEDs scandal, that'd put him in a position to play another 5 years, 3 of which would have to be of that quality for him to get there. He has a zero percent chance of doing that, but if he does, that'd be the peak he currently lacks that he needs to enter into the HOF.

[White Knight]

It does not matter what position you can not just throw out stats. Impressive yes HOF no. Luis Gonzalesz another person who is near 3000 has more hits and more rbis

Why do you want a 3,000 hit man not in the HOF? How do you feel about Mike Mussina if he wins 300? He's very similar to Johnny Damon in the fact that some say he doesn't deserve to go in even with 300 wins, since he was never the best.

Also, how do you feel about alleged PED users? Should McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds go in?

[White Knight]

For him to make it to to 3000 hits, he would need to go on an incredible surge (over 160 OBP+ kind of surge) in his 40s. Barring a PEDs scandal, that'd put him in a position to play another 5 years, 3 of which would have to be of that quality for him to get there. He has a zero percent chance of doing that, but if he does, that'd be the peak he currently lacks that he needs to enter into the HOF.

No surge necessary. He's 34, so just 180 hits per year until he's 38, and he has roughly 3,000. There, it's that easy. :)

[Bravesfan1984]

Why do you want a 3,000 hit man not in the HOF? How do you feel about Mike Mussina if he wins 300? He's very similar to Johnny Damon in the fact that some say he doesn't deserve to go in even with 300 wins, since he was never the best.

Also, how do you feel about alleged PED users? Should McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds go in?

It is not that I do not want one in just that he does not deserve to go in with or without 3000 hits because he has never been great. On PED it depends on if they is concrete evidence they took it or not.

[Bravesfan1984]

For him to make it to to 3000 hits, he would need to go on an incredible surge (over 160 OBP+ kind of surge) in his 40s. Barring a PEDs scandal, that'd put him in a position to play another 5 years, 3 of which would have to be of that quality for him to get there. He has a zero percent chance of doing that, but if he does, that'd be the peak he currently lacks that he needs to enter into the HOF.

No it does not look at what I posted above that he can just need to have years like he has had before and stay healthy to make it.

[jjpm74]

No surge necessary. He's 34, so just 180 hits per year until he's 38, and he has roughly 3,000. There, it's that easy. :)

Luis Gonzalez is 40. Not 34. Gonzalez has no chance of getting to 3000 hits.

[Cougar]

Luis Gonzalez is 40. Not 34. Gonzalez has no chance of getting to 3000 hits.

I think White Knight was talking about Johnny Damon, who is 34. JJPM was talking about Luis Gonzalez, however.

So, uh, you're both right. But both your pronouns need antecedents. :-)

[digglahhh]

I think White Knight was talking about Johnny Damon, who is 34. JJPM was talking about Luis Gonzalez, however.

So, uh, you're both right. But both your pronouns need antecedents. :-)

Paging, HWR.

And you thought I was going to start lecturing about antecedents. Whoever had Cougar in the "antecedent use pool," Congrats.

[Bravesfan1984]

No surge necessary. He's 34, so just 180 hits per year until he's 38, and he has roughly 3,000. There, it's that easy. :)

He has hit 180 or more hits 3 times in his career. Now if he hit 200 plus hits and had high batting average then he would become a better HOF canidate.

[Captain Cold Nose]

He has hit 180 or more hits 3 times in his career. Now if he hit 200 plus hits and had high batting average then he would become a better HOF canidate.

Bye bye Yaz.

[Mike90]

Of those guys in the poll, Tim Raines is the only who is a clear hall of famer IMO.

Think of it this way. Raines had 2605 career hits and 1330 walks. If we pretend that a single is twice as valuable as a walk* and give Raines 395 singles while taking away 790 walks, he would have exactly 3000 hits and 540 walks. Assuming his at-bats, HBPs, and sacrifice flies stay the same, his batting average would rise from .294 to .338, and his OBP would drop from .385 to .376.

Would the voters hesitate to put a guy with a lifetime .338 batting average and 3000 hits in the hall of fame? Keep in mind that Raines' actual value drops with these adjustments.

*This is completely untrue, especially in the case of an extremely fast leadoff hitter like Raines, but this is a hypothetical.

[Fuzzy Bear]

No surge necessary. He's 34, so just 180 hits per year until he's 38, and he has roughly 3,000. There, it's that easy. :)

For Damon to do this, he'd have to age exceptionally well. Of course, if he does, that's a sign that he's a worthy HOFer.

The paradox for Damon (first explained by Bill James) is the matter of speed. Speed is Damon's central skill. He has other skills, of course, but the thing that allows Damon to be outstanding is his speed. If Damon had started his career with only average speed, he'd be nowhere near his current totals, and would probably be out of baseball by now.

Speed is a "young player" skill. Having speed is the biggest determnent as to how long a player will be able to play and how well he will age. (Hello, Prince Fielder!) Yet speed is the skill that players lose first. Players lose skill to age, to leg, ankle, knee, and back injuries that have chronic effects, etc. The difference is that a guy with good speed coming in will have enough speed at the end to keep playing the field and stay in the lineup as his "old player" skills (plate discipline, increased power, general experience and smarts) allow him to compensate somewhat for what Bill James would call "speed leakage".

Damon will probably not continue his current hit rate through from now through age 38. If nothing else, he's going to age, and he's going to lose some of the "leg hits" he currently is able to get. But if he maintains at or near his current rate of 180 hits per year, that's an outstanding example of ability retention.

Ability retention cannot be over-emphasized. It is the difference between good and great in many circumstances. In life, if we purchase something, and it lasts 50% longer and maintains it's utility, wouldn't we view its durability as a sign of worthiness? Why should that be downplayed in a baseball player? Why shouldn't longevity, itself, be considered a sign (not the only sign, but one of the signs) of greatness?