3,000

Here's a question - why is it that 3,000 hits are viewed as a "magic number" for Hall of Fame enshrinement whereas 3,000 strikeouts is not? There have only been 13 pitchers in baseball history to reach 3,000 k's (Curt Schilling will be the 14th with his next k). The have been 26 players who reached 3,000 hits - making 3,000 hits almost twice as common as 3,000 K's - yet it is 3,000 hits that are held in higher regard.

Yes - striking out is more common today (Jim Thome has twice the career K's as Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams combined) but it is also true that with the change t a 5-man rotation - starters have fewer innings per season.

Why is 3,000 hits a magic number but not 3,000 K's?

 

I've lived in 2 of those loser states; still live in one of them. What's the graphic related to, to what is the graphic related?

 

I think you may have answered your own question.

Strikeouts are cheaper by the dozen, and so it goes in the modern power era. Johnson and Clemens are neck-and-neck for second place, chasing Ryan. (I think both Unit and Rocket are HOFers.) It's the same argument we'll have with McGwire over the winter, I'll guarantee you.

And don't dismiss Schill as a HOFer yet. He may need to have another good year or two to get there. But it's possible.

The question is, what about Pedro? Barely 200 wins, right around 3,000 Ks. That may be a more interesting debate, actually.

 

Wins aren't as easily accrued anymore, though. How many times did Pedro leave a game winning only to see his bullpen flark it up? In the old days, pitchers went the distance and controlled their fate. Pedro would have, I'm guessing, 25-30-35, more wins if he wasn't pulled after the 6th or 7th inning (minus 2003 ALCS, of course). But that was Grady Little's fault, and postseason wins don't count toward overall records, right?

With strikeouts, pitchers get to face upwards of 27 batters a game. Batters only get to step to the plate 4 times a game, 5 if they're lucky, and some of them only 3 times. Fewer chances to get hits.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if 3000 K's became a benchmark now, especially since 300 wins is going to become rarer and rarer.

 

Because strikeouts are more style than substance. Doesn't help a team any more than a lineout to the second baseman.

The object is to GET people out, not necessarily strike them out.

Theoretically, you can throw a no-hitter, win 30 games and win a Cy Young Award if you never strike anyone out.

If you don't get hits, however, you are finished.

 

When Schilling gets to 3,000 strikeouts he'll also have 200 plus wins and two historic World Series performances to round out his resume. Will that be enough to get Schilling into the Hall of Fame? I think so but I also recognize that Schilling has ruffled many feathers in the sportswriter's ranks. It should be interesting.

Pedro should be a lock for the HoF. He'll have 3,000 K, 200+ wins, 3 Cy Young Awards and the 3rd best winning percentage in history (and the best since 1947).

Songbird - batters also get to play every day while a starter only works every 5th game. So a batter will have about 25 AB to the pitchers 25 batters faced (making a rough estimate since you don't expect the starter to have a complete game these days). So AB to batters faced should be about equal.

 

The object of a batter is to get on base. If a batter can't put the ball in play (because the pitcher strikes him out) then how can he get on base (without walking)? When is the last time you saw someone choke up on the bat with 2 strikes? It is no coincidence that the best pitchers of the past half century are also the same ones with the most strikeouts.

 

Buster Olney filled in for Golic one day in the past few weeks, and they discussed this.

Olney says Schilling needs to get another good season or two in and reach about 225, 230 wins. I agree with some of the others in here who say that he's already in, based on the World Series performances.

Another interesting case they discussed is Mussina. Olney says he's another one closing in on the Hall. But when I think Mike Mussina, I don't think Hall of Famer.

 

you're right. i didn't think about the everyday/once every 5 days ratio.

 

The answer to the question is: Bert Blyleven.

More than 3,700 batters didn't touch the ball against him.

But enough did --- and enough took him deep --- to keep him out of the Hall of Fame.

Somehow, despite those 3,700 strikeouts, he managed to lose 250 games and post a 3.31 ERA (very good, but not jaw-dropping).

Are 3,000-strikeout pitchers GENERALLY Hall of Famers?

Absolutely.

Is it a guarantee? Should it be?

Of course not.

 

In Blyleven's era(s), I'm not impressed with a 3.31 ERA. He didn't pitch in the 'roid years. If he were under 3, a different story.