When Derek Jeter of the New ¥ork ¥ankees checked into Major League Baseball’s “Mr. 3,000 Club” back on July 9, 2011, he became both the twenty-eighth member of the society, but only the second man to turn the elite group’s “members only” door with a home run. A current HBO documentary, “Derek Jeter 3K”, chronicles the stress that reaching this significant and widely revered baseball plateau can place upon an individual player, even upon a “cool-as-a-cucumber” guy like the Jeter-Man.
Heck! All Jeter had to do was get enough hits to go where no other great Yankees before him had ever gone. Not Babe Ruth. Not Lou Gehrig. Not Joe DiMaggio. Not Mickey Mantle.
Whoa! – None of these other 100% pure Yankee Immortals ever got there with 3,000 Yankee hits – and here was little Derek Jeter from New Jersey, by way of Michigan – beating on the golden door of an unimaginable other-level immortality as the only pure New York Yankee member of the club.
WOW! – Just think about that a minute and what it means. The most recent other new member prior to the Jeter-Yankee breakthrough was Craig Biggio in 2007. – Our Texas boondocks-moored Houston Astros reached the gates of the “Mr. 3,000” club a full four years ahead of the New York Yankees. Biggio collected his 3,000th hit, a single that died when Biggio tried to stretch his landmark hit into a persona; trademark double, did the deal at Minute Maid Park in Houston on June 28, 2007 – a full four years and eleven days prior to Jeter’s accomplishment of same.
What follows is the complete list, although the numbers for its only active playing member, Jeter, could be different by this time tomorrow.On the morning of Friday, July 29, 2011, is in 25th place with 3,017 hits, but only three hits back of Wade Boggs, the only other man to reach the peak with a homer.
The Mr. 3,000 Club shows each player by his rank on the list, his name, hit totals, career batting average, and the team in played for on the day he reached 3.000:
(1) Pete Rose (4,256) (.303) Cincinnati Reds
(2) Ty Cobb (4,191) (.367) Detroit Tigers
(3) Hank Aaron (3,771 (.305) Atlanta Braves
(4) Stan Musial (3.630) (.331) St. Louis Cardinals
(5) Tris Speaker (3,514) (.345) Cleveland Indians
(6) Carl Yastrzemski (3,419) (.285) Boston Red Sox
(7) Cap Anson (3,418) (.334) Chicago Colts
(8) Honus Wagner (3,415) (.328) Pittsburgh Pirates
(9) Paul Molitor (3,319) (.306) Minnesota Twins
(10) Eddie Collins (3,315) (.333) Chicago White Sox
(11) Willie Mays (3,283) (.302) San Francisco Giants
(12) Eddie Murray (3,255) (.287) Cleveland Indians
(13) Nap Lajoie (3,242) (.338) Cleveland Naps
(14) Cal Ripken, Jr. (3,184) (.276) Baltimore Orioles
(15) George Brett (3,154) (.305) Kansas City Royals
(16) Paul Waner (3,152) (.333) Boston Braves
(17) Robin Yount (3,142) (.285) Milwaukee Brewers
(18) Tony Gwynn (3,141) (.338) San DIego Padres
(19) Dave Winfield (3,110) (,283) Minnesota Twins
(20) Craig Biggio (3,060) (.281) Houston Astros
(21) Rickey Henderson (3,055) (.279) San Diego Padres
(22) Rod Carew (3,053) (.328) California Angels
(23) Lou Brock (3,023) (,293) St. Louis Cardinals
(24) Rafael Palmeiro (3,020) (.288) Baltimore Orioles
(25) Derek Jeter (3,017) (.313) New York Yankees *
(26) Wade Boggs (3,010) (.328) Tampa Bay Devil Rays
(27) Al Kaline (3,007) (.297) Detroit Tigers
(28) Roberto Clemente (3,000) (.317) Pittsburgh Pirates
* Derek Jeter is the only active player on the list. His 3,017 career hits to date is virtually certain to change. Craig Biggio has been retired since the end of the 2007 season and will soon be eligible for induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame with the exception of Jeter and Biggio, most of the rest are already members of the Hall of Fame, (1) Pete Rose is not in the Hall because of his involvement in gambling on baseball and then lying about it for over twenty years, (24) Rafael Palmeiro is one of those players who is currently held in prejudice from the HOF honor due to his tainted, even if alleged, involvement in the steroids era scandal.
Tags: baseball's 3000 hit club
The Pecan Park Eagle 
July 29, 2011 at 3:04 pm |
It surprises nobody that Jeter is getting all this fanfare yet it irritates me that, outside of Houston, there was very little hoopla for Craig Biggio leading up to and including achieving the milestone. ESPN could not be so much as bothered as to have a “live break-in” as the moment approached or right after it happened.
Perhaps it was because Biggio started the game at 2,997 hits and achieved the feat with five hits in the same game, yet the huge yawn from the national media about this was stunning compared to how much they slobbered over Gwynn and Boggs as they approached 3,000.
I realize Jeter has no control over the media hype and I do not hold it against him personally that he received HBO specials and so much attention during his quest. But the contrast this received compared to the attention Biggio received is breathtaking. Only Palmeiro has probably been given less attention for reaching the milestone.
July 30, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
>>Rafael Palmeiro is one of those players who is currently held in prejudice from the HOF honor due to his tainted, even if alleged, involvement in the steroids era scandal.<<
Bill, not sure what you mean by "alleged", but I feel compelled to add that Palmeiro came up dirty on an MLB authorized drug test, He tested positive for a steroid called Stanazolol, which is administered only by injection. Then he blamed teammate Miguel Tejada (who openly admitted he used steroids), saying he thought Tejada gave him a syringe of Vitamin B-12.
July 31, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
Mark:
My use of “alleged” in the matter of Rafael Palmeiro is not made in disregard of his drug test results or established record of making statements that fly in the face of facts. I simply mean that he, like all the others, has never been fully convicted of a crime in this issue. To me, one of the saddest aspects of the steroids scandal has been the absence of a fair and equivalent hearing of due process in every “alleged” case.
August 4, 2011 at 7:01 am |
Bill, I think I can address that. MLB drug tests aren’t for criminal prosecution, so you won’t see charges pressed or cases going to trial (except in these perjury cases where allegedly false statements are made to congress or grand juries). Think of it like this: you own a manufacturing company that demands very safe and precise work by your staff. With each new hire, and in each orientation and in-service, your company policy stresses that there is zero tolerance for street drug use or any prescription drug use undertaken without a doctor’s prescription, and random drug screens will be administered to enforce your company policy. John Doe comes up dirty on a test for cannabis, or Hgh. Boom – he’s fired. You’re within your rights as a private business owner to fire an employee who violates your company policy. You aren’t interested in pressing charges against your employee and incurring legal expenses for a criminal proceeding that isn’t going to benefit you in any way. If your ex-employee wants to sue you for wrongful termination, he gets to prove in court why his rights were violated. But you don’t see that sort of action implemented very often in dirty drug test cases. (Palmeiro and Bonds never sued as far as I know.)
So the frustration you feel appears to be the result of framing the wrong question in your mind. The question isn’t, “Why are these guys guilty until proven innocent in a court of law?” Rather, the question is, “Do I as a private business owner have a right to fine/suspend/fire an employee who violates my company policies?”
The justice issue here falls more in the fair trade and commerce civil category than in the criminal procedural category.
Is that helpful?
Mark
August 4, 2011 at 12:06 pm |
Mark:
I have no problem with an employer terminating an employee for actions or patterns of behavior that are known to be either dangerous to the job or injurious to the reputation of the company that hired him or her. I do get it. We have “censure of professionals” procedures for ethical violations in my field that also may lead to suspension or revocation of one’s license if found guilty by the procedure in process for assessing culpability.
It remains my choice to still refer to these people as “alleged” whatevers in my public utterances about them unless they have also been found guilty by a court of law as having committed criminal acts.
You are correct. Employers have a right to terminate jobs, and/or, to withhold honors from those deemed guilty of acts that may harm a company’s reputation. We still need to be careful with how we use preponderant evidence or credible accusation as a basis for acting in the name of justice against others.
Remember Julio Lugo? A few years ago, the Astros got rid of him right away as a result of allegations by his wife that he struck her in the parking garage at Minute Maid Park following an argument on the way to work in a ballgame. Much later, I think Julio Lugo was exonerated of those charges, but I cannot say for sure. I don’t have all the facts in front of me. If, indeed, he was found innocent, of course, it was far too late to turn back the clock. He had already been dealt away in some dismissive form by the Astros. In effect, he had his future altered without any kind of extensive hearing into the facts of the case.
Sometimes the court of public opinion may lead to as much injustice as it does justice. We need to be careful with both our words and our actions. That’s my main concern.
August 5, 2011 at 5:21 am |
Well Bill, I figure if I want the game of baseball policing itself properly as a protection against cheating – which I do want, big time – and the CBA allows drug testing as the tool for implementing that protection – either I put my trust into that mutually agreed upon tool, or I need to ask myself why I’m complaining after I got what I wanted. What I got is a drug test that shows a banned substance is in someone’s body. I agree with you about the hazards of embracing the court of public opinion. But we’re talking about an initial finding that emerged from a test tube, not from a court of public opinion.
Are you opposed to the drug testing policy? Or do you favor it but lack faith in the methods being used?
August 5, 2011 at 10:35 am |
Mark:
In search of a pigeon hole that will allow us both to put this issue to bed as more mole hill than mountain, I certainly am not opposed to drug testing or the use of internal authority to keep baseball free of both mind altering and performance enhancing drugs. My concern is for the efficacy of some tests against the margin of error that may produce false positive readings in some tested people. Maybe false error findings is simply one of the fallouts we shall have to live with in preference to the worse alternative of not testing at all. Knowing you may be caught violating the law or rules never stops one from prohibited behavior, but it does stop some and slows a lot of others down. – That’s about as deep as I can dig this ditch. Sorry for the time and energy it has taken to reach this point. – Regards, Bill
August 6, 2011 at 3:13 pm |
Bill, Yours is the only blog to which I subscribe, and SABR-L is the only digest to which I subscribe. I consider my time allocated to these two cyber activities to be highly selective. It is because of my respect for your thinking that I sometimes wish to delve into it further. So in that light, I thank you for engaging me in dialogue about your thoughts, and for your patience with me.
I wonder what MLB tries to do as a safeguard re: false positives?
Mark
August 7, 2011 at 12:01 am |
Mark:
Don’t get me wrong. I value our time of mental engagement on the issues baseball faces as much as you. I was just concerned that I may have been wearing thin upon you with my line of thinking. The concern I have for false positives goes back to my professional life and history in the drug abuse treatment field over the past forty years. I have worked with people whom I felt were hurt by false positives, but there isn’t a one-size-fits-all answer to the general problems of certain testing.
To the best of my knowledge, opiates, like heroin, and stimulants, like cocaine, are pretty straightforward for blood level testing. These are in the system – or they are not.
I don’t know about steroids. If they are like the hallucinogens, and these include marijuana, then they may become systemic issues that do not necessarily metabolize out of the system over short periods of time, if at all, in some people. – And that last sentence is packed with power. It is the alibi of the innocent – and also the desperate hiding place of the guilty that some people may claim they have been hurt by “false positives” (really residual positives) from some earlier use of the drug. – Add the fact that the use of certain substances separately may also come together to mimic the chemical presence of a banned substance in some individuals. (Another reason I am not so quick to condemn Rafael Palmiero personally is that I am armed only with little more than “Entertainment Tonight” level data on his tests results and specific claims.
If baseball expects the tests to do all the work alone, we are going to see some innocent people get hurt – and also some guilty people dodge the bullet. I think the best we can do is (1) keep working to improve testing efficacy for specific drug use; and (2) establish a clinical review process that will most often help us determine accurately that those who walk like ducks are most often ducks, but sometime they won’t be. They are just innocent people who “quack.’
I don’t see any clear way to avoid a judgment call on most suspected abusers, so let’s do a lot better at making it an informed judgment call. I also don’t envy MLB if they choose to really take on the testing issue for the sake of protecting people from false positives. It isn’t going to be easy – and we should prepare to be skeptical of any test-loaded program that fits like a cookie-cutter pattern for all drugs.
August 8, 2011 at 12:38 am |
Excellent points. It occurred to me that the graduated increments in penalties may have been baseball’s answer to the false-positives dilemma. So when Manny Ramirez tested dirty the first time, he was suspended for 50 games; but when he tested dirty the second time … well, I forget how long that penalty was for, but he didn’t hang around to take it. As I recall, Palmeiro came back after his first penalty, but performed very poorly in a short stint and then retired. It seems counter-intuitive that a false positive would send a player packing so quickly. It makes more sense that a player would quit the game because the testing discourages him from juicing, and his performance then suffers. Heck, Barry Bonds tested dirty while under investigation for past PED use, and then he hung around for a few more years after that! Maybe Bonds wasn’t the sort of person to let the threat of testing stop him from using, or maybe he really was Superman.
Thanks for the dialogue.
Mark