Conquer Club

Posted: **Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:04 am**

Yesterday craig biggio hit his 3000 base hit
Frank thomas got his 500 home run then got ejected The question is whic is better

Posted: **Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:27 am**

0ojakeo0 wrote: 300 home

you douche, you put 500 home runs in the question, idiot.

Posted: **Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:31 am**

Ronaldinho wrote:
0ojakeo0 wrote: 300 home

you douche, you put 500 home runs in the question, idiot.

Posted: **Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:49 am**

Alot of people in the next 10 years will reach 500 home runs, but not many will reach 3000 hits. Congrats goes more to Biggio for consistency.

Posted: **Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:51 am**

it was a typo it the post not question

Posted: **Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:31 am**

I'd rather have 3000 hits because no one would accuse me of steriods

Posted: **Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:33 am**

Cheesemore wrote:I'd rather have 3000 hits because no one would accuse me of steriods

I dunno, Biggio is pretty jacked... :lol:

Posted: **Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:33 am**

3000 hits is more of an accomplishment. 500 home runs are just 500 hits that are very long. 3000 hits shows consistency, home runs are hits after all.

Posted: **Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:46 am**

dwightschrute wrote:3000 hits is more of an accomplishment. 500 home runs are just 500 hits that are very long. 3000 hits shows consistency, home runs are hits after all.

good point but there are more players with 3000 hits than 500 homeruns

Posted: **Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:09 pm**

Bigfalcon65 wrote:
dwightschrute wrote:3000 hits is more of an accomplishment. 500 home runs are just 500 hits that are very long. 3000 hits shows consistency, home runs are hits after all.

good point but there are more players with 3000 hits than 500 homeruns

homeruns also show power (steroids) also in the early (i mean early) days of baseball there was no such thing as the home run so that also contributes to why the 500 club is so small.

Posted: **Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:10 pm**

dwightschrute wrote:
Bigfalcon65 wrote:
dwightschrute wrote:3000 hits is more of an accomplishment. 500 home runs are just 500 hits that are very long. 3000 hits shows consistency, home runs are hits after all.

good point but there are more players with 3000 hits than 500 homeruns
homeruns also show power (steroids) also in the early (i mean early) days of baseball there was no such thing as the home run so that also contributes to why the 500 club is so small.

good point, whos the all time leader in hits? I forget how many Rose has got

Posted: **Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:18 pm**

Bigfalcon65 wrote:
dwightschrute wrote:
Bigfalcon65 wrote:
dwightschrute wrote:3000 hits is more of an accomplishment. 500 home runs are just 500 hits that are very long. 3000 hits shows consistency, home runs are hits after all.

good point but there are more players with 3000 hits than 500 homeruns
homeruns also show power (steroids) also in the early (i mean early) days of baseball there was no such thing as the home run so that also contributes to why the 500 club is so small.

good point, whos the all time leader in hits? I forget how many Rose has got

Over 4000

Posted: **Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:20 pm**

the home-run has been overshadowed by the classic 2 run double or single when home runs really arent that amazing, i would rather have a 2 run base hit than a solo homer. Even though the homer is more exciting, hits are more important.

Posted: **Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:32 pm**

Gold Knight wrote:
Bigfalcon65 wrote:
dwightschrute wrote:
Bigfalcon65 wrote:
dwightschrute wrote:3000 hits is more of an accomplishment. 500 home runs are just 500 hits that are very long. 3000 hits shows consistency, home runs are hits after all.

good point but there are more players with 3000 hits than 500 homeruns
homeruns also show power (steroids) also in the early (i mean early) days of baseball there was no such thing as the home run so that also contributes to why the 500 club is so small.

good point, whos the all time leader in hits? I forget how many Rose has got

Over 4000

and hes still not in the hall of fame hahahahahahahahahaha dumb ass

Posted: **Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:34 pm**

I'd say 500 HR, 3,000 is more rare, and more constient. But really what do more people look at? HR or Hits. The anwser is obvious.

Posted: **Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:35 pm**

pete rose should definitely be in the hall of fame. he betted on baseball and admitted it. He is one of the greatest players and hitters of all time.

Posted: **Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:02 pm**

500 HR is more attractive because it is more rare. But having the most home runs doesn't mean you're the best. Lots of players either aren't built for home runs or its just not there game, whereas all players are suppose to get hit.

Both are impressive and it just depends on the player.
Personally though, i think i would rather have 3000 hits than 500 HRs.

Posted: **Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:30 pm**

dwightschrute wrote:pete rose should definitely be in the hall of fame. he betted on baseball and admitted it. He is one of the greatest players and hitters of all time.

5 years I would have definitely disagreed with you. It still steams me that he continued to lie for a # of years that he never bet, and now he has admitted to it. I'm not sure if he should be allowed in or not now. I believe in forgiving people as long as they are truly contrite. He's admitted to it, but I don't know how sorry he is for lying all those years. It's a toss-up for me now.

I voted for 3,000 hits.

Posted: **Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:38 pm**

luns101 wrote:
dwightschrute wrote:pete rose should definitely be in the hall of fame. he betted on baseball and admitted it. He is one of the greatest players and hitters of all time.

5 years I would have definitely disagreed with you. It still steams me that he continued to lie for a # of years that he never bet, and now he has admitted to it. I'm not sure if he should be allowed in or not now. I believe in forgiving people as long as they are truly contrite. He's admitted to it, but I don't know how sorry he is for lying all those years. It's a toss-up for me now.

I voted for 3,000 hits.

I would rather have 3000 hits and it is definitely a bigger milestone in my opinion. As for Rose i think admitting to something is the best thing to do, I mean it isnt that easy admitting to something like that so i understand why he took such a long time. He is still one of the greatest hitters ever and the Hall of Fame celebrates great players so why shouldnt he be in it.

On a side note if Barry Bonds gets in then Pete Rose should definitely. Bonds has taken steroids which is worse than betting on baseball.

Posted: **Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:36 pm**

Home runs produce runs each and every time (sometimes multiple runs). Hits don't always mean runs. Anyways I voted for HRs.

Posted: **Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:51 pm**

Hits can be homeruns, and most likely, the amount of RBI's within those 3000 hits is about equal to the amount of RBI's within those 500 home runs, its just that home run hitters, by the nature of thier play will have a higher slugging percentage and therefore more RBI's, but that doesnt always mean its the homeruns that are creating all of the RBI's. Personally I find 3000 hits to be more impressive.

Although - in history, there have been 25 people with 3000 hits or more, while 20 people with over 500 home runs. Its not too much of a difference, but its a difference.

Posted: **Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:53 pm**

ritz627 wrote:Hits can be homeruns, and most likely, the amount of RBI's within those 3000 hits is about equal to the amount of RBI's within those 500 home runs. Personally I find 3000 hits to be more impressive.

Although - in history, there have been 25 people with 3000 hits or more, while 20 people with over 500 home runs. Its not too much of a difference, but its a difference.

well there wasnt a HR in the early days of baseball, that can explain that difference

Posted: **Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:59 pm**

dwightschrute wrote:
ritz627 wrote:Hits can be homeruns, and most likely, the amount of RBI's within those 3000 hits is about equal to the amount of RBI's within those 500 home runs. Personally I find 3000 hits to be more impressive.

Although - in history, there have been 25 people with 3000 hits or more, while 20 people with over 500 home runs. Its not too much of a difference, but its a difference.
well there wasnt a HR in the early days of baseball, that can explain that difference

True, in the first year of official baseball, 1871, there was 11 players in all, the league leader was Charlie Gould with 2 home runs, so they were rare, but still existed. Then again, the league leader in hits had 66, compared to the 224 and such that we see today. But to be fair, players today have more than 4 times the at bats than they did.

Posted: **Sat Jun 30, 2007 2:49 am**

ritz627 wrote:Although - in history, there have been 25 people with 3000 hits or more, while 20 people with over 500 home runs. Its not too much of a difference, but its a difference.

sure, but hits are coming at the same pace. 500 HR's more people just seem to be getting. And anyway, I'd rather have 500 HRs because that's what everyone is focusing on. No 3,000 hits, because only 1 person or so are doing it and are still active. Some 500 HRs are still active. Also most people seem to like the HR better than 6 hits.

Posted: **Sat Jun 30, 2007 12:02 pm**

Fircoal wrote:
ritz627 wrote:Although - in history, there have been 25 people with 3000 hits or more, while 20 people with over 500 home runs. Its not too much of a difference, but its a difference.

sure, but hits are coming at the same pace. 500 HR's more people just seem to be getting. And anyway, I'd rather have 500 HRs because that's what everyone is focusing on. No 3,000 hits, because only 1 person or so are doing it and are still active. Some 500 HRs are still active. Also most people seem to like the HR better than 6 hits.

wow i am surprised you are talking in this thread anyway, that is true a homer is what people want to see but it shouldnt be that way all the time. Sure the homer is great and exciting but so is a hit.

Conquer Club

500 home runs or 3000 hits?

500 home runs or 3000 hits?

Re: 500 home runs or 3000 hits?

Re: 500 home runs or 3000 hits?