What baseball milestone do you find the most impressive?
 

300 wins as a pitcher?
500 HRs as a batter?
3000 hits?

Another?


Me, I'd say 3000 hits. 150 hits over 20 years. Although at 20 years, it looses some appeal to me. Do it in 15-17 awesome, after that it starts to become watered down. That can be said however with any milestone.

3000 hits. 500 HR is watered down now cuz it's much easier to hit homeruns then it was back when Aaron and Mays were doing it. 300 wins is also not as impressive when guys were doing it on 3 man rotations.

milestones are just round numbers. They dont really hold any merit to me.

Cal Ripken Jr's 2,632 straight games...thats impressive, because he's the only one.

Hank Aaron's 755 career homeruns...impressive because he's the only one

etc etc

"milestone" numbers dont really matter, they're just a nice round number.

^^Yeah, but you only saw 3 man rotations in the late 1800's. Hence Cy Young's 511. But remember, season's were much shorter back then.

Anyway, today I'd go with 300. If anybody reaches 300 with the way the game is played right now, it would be TREMENDOUS.

Those are records, not milestones. There is a difference.

no shit sherlock

im saying milestones are overrated...its records that are impressive

oh, my fault. Read it wrong. But Milestones aren't overrated when you consider how many guys have played professional baseball and how many guys have actually reached that certain milestone.

they are when you see someone like Fred McGriff, who was once a great ball player, hanging onto what they once were, just so he can get to the 500 hr mark.

I mean if he has 49x HR's or 500 - is it really going to make a difference? Not in my opinion.

Him hanging around, being a shadow of his former self, just so he can get this "milestone" number hurts him a lot more than it helps him IMO.

^^Yeah, that's exactly what I said in Your Hero's thread about the 300. The guys that got to a particular milestone, but did it in a way in which they were still helping their team by producing decent numbers, those are the guys that deserve a lot of respect for reaching that particular milestone.

Case in point: Roger Clemens.
Tony Gwynn
Barry Bonds.

Those are just three random guys who have all reached a particular milestone, but did it while still being a producer for their team.

Do you think the 500 HR mark should be re-adjusted? To maybe 600?

If they're still helping their team..then yes, 500 homers, 3000 hits and 300 wins are a nice number....but you know what are nicers numbers than those?

501 homers
3001 hits
301 wins

those are even more useful, and a bigger accomplishment than 500/300/3000

what do you mean readjusted?

a milestone number is a round number

100 hr is a milestone
200 hr is a milestone
etc etc etc

just some milestones are harder to reach than others.

400 HR is not a elite player in the mind of baseball writers, fans. Just as 200 wins is not. I think you misunderstand what I'm reffering to as milestone numbers. The 300 wins, 3000 hits, 500 HRs are considered numbers only elite players can reach... not simply plateaus.

4000 hits

so say McGriff doesnt get the 500 hr

he doesnt have 3000 hits

so are you saying he's not an elite player?

he'll be a hall of famer when its said and done.

That's another level all together. Onlt 4 guys have reached that. That's not the samething... you know what I mean...?

edit

I do not think he is, whether he gets #500 or not. But that is besides the point. getting to 500 is considered a level of excellence very few can accomplish.

my point stands that you dont have to reach milestone numbers to be considered an elite player. In fans minds or baseball writers.

I think 500 HRs will become extremely watered down in the next 10 or so years. Right now Thome, Manny, Sheffield, Juan Gonzalez, Bagwell, Frank Thomas, Piazza, ARod, and Delgado all have a chance at reaching 500 before they retire. So when say Albert Pujols reaches 500, what will people say about it then?

I see Klepto's point. Take a guy like Koufax. Some people say he's the greatest pitcher of all-time. He's doesn't have 300 wins. Does that not make him an elite player? Of course not. But, you have to give credit where credit is due. Reaching the 300/500/3000 milestone is quite an accomplishment because not a lot of guys have done it. That doesn't mean that some of the guys who haven't or will never get there aren't elite players.

And Your Hero, about the 600 thing. Yeah, I think maybe we may need to readjust that milestone sometime in the future because it seems like hitting homers is nothing these days.

Go back to the 1920's and 30's Hornsby wound up with 300 homers and if not for Ruth, that would have been considered quite a feet. This was at a time when people were joining the 200 homerun club. I think readjustments may have to happen for different era's

I think it will be 600 homeruns pretty soon.

To me the most impressive "milestone" is 60 HRs in one season

Out of those i'd say 300 wins in today's game definitely, not taking anything away from the other two but as KK said, milestones are only a round number.

Joe DiMaggio didn't get 500 or 3000, but there are few who would argue he wasn't one of if not the greatest hitters as well as all around players of all time.

Guys that die or retire early don't need to be remembered by their career numbers. None do really, but while playing they are focused on by media, fans and players alike.

Someone said something in an article a while ago about the milestones like 300 wins, milestones that take 20+ years to achieve.

It went along the lines of, the reason why it's impressive to reach a milestone in 20+ years, is the fact that after 20 years, they're still playing, and at a high level.

For example, nobody will ever break Jerry Rice's records. I'm sorry, they just won't. It's not possible to play that well for that long. I'd love to see Randy Moss do it, but he won't. He always comes up lame at the end of a season, he won't make it through 20+ seasons like Jerry.

I guess I'm on a "pro-old people" kick lately, but the point of my post was going to be, who cares if it's a 3-man rotation?

The reason the 3-man rotation stopped, was for more rest, to prolong careers. So if you can get 300 wins despite damaging the hell out of your shoulder, then fine. The people back then could laugh at how people can get 300 wins NOW with 5-man rotations, with that extra 2-4- days rest for a shoulder, of course. It's a lot harder to wear out an arm nowadays than it was back then!

So the 3-man rotation BS doesn't cut it with me, sister.

I don't thing Cy Young was throwing into triple figure mph fastballs either

Ripken 2,632 hands down is the greatest record in baseball history

I think Orel Hershiser's consecutive scoreless innings record is a pretty awesome and underrated record.

Please tell me your kidding right?

That has to be one of the biggest jokes in the histroy of baseball, shouldn't have even be the starter his last 2 seasons but "the record" became more important then the team.

There were plenty of games where he was injured, hurt, in a slump, facing bad pitching etc... and he'd get 1 at bat, and then sit.

Sorry, that record was such a joke, it would be different if he performed at a high level most the time, but he didn't... he stats at most time were that of a journeyman.

he didn't hit over .275 over 13 out of 21 seasons 62%

He didn't break 90 rbi's 12 our of 21 seasons 57%

He didn't break 20 home runs 10 our of 21 seaons 48%

He has a good double hitter

Wasn't a speed/base stealer

Wasn't a great fielder.

He was a good man (I've never heard any reports of him treating fans or players badly) and a good journeyman player that played on a lot of bad teams and became the "draw" he was the reason people came to see Baltimore and weather by his choice or not, the record became more important then the team.

He was much better than an average journeyman, but I do agree his streak doesn't really mean anything because of the reasons you listed.


As for the original question, I think that 500 home runs is the least of the three listed, mainly because home runs are more of a novelty and don't reflect your overall game. I mean Sammy Sosa, all he can hit are home runs, I would consider someone who hits 3,000 or wins 300 generally a better player that one who hits 500 home runs.

I think Lou Gehrig's streak was more impressive, especially when you look at the mammoth numbers he put up during it.

Greatest record of all-time post 1900 is Chesbro's 41 wins in 1904. Try and beat that

or Hubbell's Consecutive Victories (24)

There are a bunch of random crazy records set in like 1900 by Cy Young and stuff.

yeah, Young's got Games Started, Complete Games and Innings Pitched.

Another good one is Walter Johnson's 110 Shutouts.

are we now talking records instead of milestones?

If we're going records... most impresive, I'd take williams last to hit over .400 and Dimaggio hit streak.

^^That's not a record though (The Williams one) That record would belong to George Sisler then because he had the highest single season BA. I can see Damaggio's being broken one day.

I know Williams isn't the record, but was the last to do it... better pitching etc... etc...

As for Damaggio's, it depends... if they expand again and pitching keeps getting worse then yeah... thats what makes Dammaggio's record so great, most #4 and some #3 starters today, wouldn't have pitched then.

300 wins. That's 20 wins a year for 15 years.

You've got to stay healthy, you've got to have a bullpen that isn't gonna blow your lead. You've got to have run support as well. So many little things that are the difference between a 14-14 season and a 20-8 season.