Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hallowed Benchmark Numbers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hallowed Benchmark Numbers

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

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

    So I ask you: For which of these metrics is a 2% shortfall from a "holy standard" perceived to be most significant?
    20
    2940 career hits (2% less than 3000)
    30.00%
    6
    294 career wins (for a pitcher)
    15.00%
    3
    .392 season BA (.008 short of .400)
    35.00%
    7
    49 homeruns in a season (2% short of 50)
    5.00%
    1
    No difference in importance -- each is 2% short
    15.00%
    3
    Last edited by Appling; 01-05-2006, 05:13 PM.
    Luke

  • #2
    Originally posted by Appling
    There are some special benchmark numbers in baseball that have come to have special meaning. For a career, such numbers might be 300 wins for a pitcher or 3000 hits for a position player; for a single season, the benchmark numbers might be a .400 batting average or 50 homeruns.

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

    So I ask you: For which of these metrics is a 2% shortfall from a "holy standard" perceived to be most significant?
    I'd say the hits; since to me 3000 is already over-rated.

    Comment


    • #3
      I'll go with the hits. It at least signifies a long, substantive career.
      Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Appling
        There are some special benchmark numbers in baseball that have come to have special meaning. For a career, such numbers might be 300 wins for a pitcher or 3000 hits for a position player; for a single season, the benchmark numbers might be a .400 batting average or 50 homeruns.

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

        So I ask you: For which of these metrics is a 2% shortfall from a "holy standard" perceived to be most significant?
        I think you guys are misreading the question. If it's saying which SHORTFALL is the MOST significant, then it means you HAVE to meet that standard or forget it. That would be 49 HR, because it's a one-season amount, and several not-that-good people have done it.
        Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
        Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

        Comment


        • #5
          I guess I did misread it.

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

          Comment


          • #6
            I'd agree with KC, the exclusiveness of the respective clubs are compromised the most with the 49 HR inclusion. The hit or win club doesn't become less exclusive by reducing the standard, as exclusive as a homerun club of which Brady Anderson is a member of, well that's another issue...

            But it's not particularly important in the first place, these benchmarks are really all arbitrary cut-offs to reach thumbnail accounts of "greatness."
            Last edited by digglahhh; 01-07-2006, 02:05 PM.
            THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD

            In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die

            Comment


            • #7
              Hitting 392 and not 400 just ask Geroge Brett, Rod Carew and Tony Gwynn

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Jake83
                Hitting 392 and not 400 just ask Geroge Brett, Rod Carew and Tony Gwynn

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

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by KCGHOST
                  With you miss by 8 points or 80 points it is the same: you missed. Just ask Harry Heilmann and Lefty O'Doul.

                  The difference between 2940 3000 is the Hall of Fame

                  The difference bewteen 392 and 400 is being considered a legend

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Jake83
                    The difference between 2940 3000 is the Hall of Fame

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

                    As stated earlier, 2940 career hits or 294 career wins is "close enough" to enter the Hall of Fame; but you either hit .400 or you did not. Even .398 or .399 doesn't make the list!
                    Last edited by Appling; 01-06-2006, 05:37 PM.
                    Luke

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jake83
                      The difference between 2940 3000 is the Hall of Fame
                      Where do you get this?
                      Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
                      Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by KCGHOST
                        With you miss by 8 points or 80 points it is the same: you missed. Just ask Harry Heilmann and Lefty O'Doul.
                        Or ask Ruth how hitting .393 feels and not winning the batting title. Ask him how getting two legs of the triple crown seven times feels

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

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
                          Or ask Ruth how hitting .393 feels and not winning the batting title. Ask him how getting two legs of the triple crown seven times feels

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

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

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Jake83
                            The difference between 2940 3000 is the Hall of Fame
                            It sure doesn't explain Slaughter, Sandberg, McInnis, Mantle, Traynor . . .
                            Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
                            Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              3000 should not be a Willy Wonka style golden ticket to Cooperstown the way it is. Why don't they just let any .300 hitter in too. Or anyone with 10,000 AB gets auto entry.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X