Page 1 of 3

Which record is better?

Posted: September 28th, 2004, 10:40 am
by sportsfanfromnb
This year in baseball the hipe is all about Ichiro breaking Sislers record of 257 hits in one season.

Do you think the hits record of 257 or the Homerun record of 73 is better?
The home run record stood for the longest at about 40 years or so. The single season hits record has stood for more than 80 years!! This day in baseball fielders are getting better and pitchers are getting better, I think the hits record is harder than the homerun record. Take nothing away from the homerun record, that is still an amazing record.

Re: Which record is better?

Posted: September 28th, 2004, 11:28 am
by HYNDMANWRESTLING
I would say the hitting record is more impressive

Re: Which record is better?

Posted: September 28th, 2004, 12:41 pm
by ShipWrecked05
I think the hit record is better. Just my opinion though.

Re: Which record is better?

Posted: September 28th, 2004, 3:19 pm
by Bedrock
Homers!! None of you could have told me how many hits a person needed to break the record because nobody talked about it. Hit .400 or hit it out of the park, but as far as individual hits, nobody cares.

Posted: September 28th, 2004, 4:53 pm
by Lefteyelouie
I agree with Bedrock! Any of us would have a much better chance of going up against a major league pitcher and getting a single than hitting a homerun.

Re: Which record is better?

Posted: September 30th, 2004, 11:00 pm
by count2infinity
i'd go with the hits record, consistency i think is a better quality, not saying 73 home runs isn't consistant, i'm just saying goin up there and getting the job done and getting on base i see is more important.

Re: Which record is better?

Posted: October 1st, 2004, 5:47 am
by Bedrock
SARCASM

And here I thought baseball was about scoring runs. Its about getting on base. If I had only known.

Re: Which record is better?

Posted: October 1st, 2004, 9:02 am
by raider131
I would have to say that they are pretty much equal. It is an accomplishment to just get a hit. Even with the game today with smaller parks and bigger hitters you still have to hit ball. I read the other day that the park in which Willie Mays made The Catch, the centerfield wall was 450 feet. My vote would go to the hitting record.

Re: Which record is better?

Posted: October 1st, 2004, 12:01 pm
by once a runner
Up until the time of Babe Ruth, getting a hit was more important to the game than getting a home run. Ruth changed the game and ever since then the sluggers have got the big contracts and the headlines. If hitting would have remained important in the eyes of the fans and owners, the hitting record probably would have been broken long ago. Not many players try to hit for average any more. They are mostly trying to hit for power. So the hitting record is softer record than the home run record.

Re: Which record is better?

Posted: October 1st, 2004, 12:12 pm
by deliverance
Both records are amazing. I'd have to say they're both just about as hard to get. No one will see 73 homeruns for a long time. Whereas 257 hits could be broken by next year by Ichiro. He's just that much of a slap hitter that it's not impossible to break his own record that he's going to set tonight. So I'd have to go with the 73 homeruns.