[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

For the following analysis, Ted, it does not matter. Shown below is one of the opinions which I am formulating and evaluating.

The .400+ batting average is illusory.

In the beginning of the National League, a batter could direct the pitcher whether to deliver the ball high or low. Ross Barnes hit .400+ under these guidelines.

After the pitching distance was increased to 50’ from home plate, but before it was set at 60’6” four other batsmen also hit over .400.

Immediately following the increase in the pitching distance to its current dimension, ten players hit over .400 between 1894 and the end of the century.

Since the pitchers had to adjust to continual rule changes regarding the types of acceptable deliveries, the number of balls and strikes which resulted in walks and strikeouts, increasing pitching distances, the fair/foul rule, and other factors; I believe that batting records established during this period have no relevance to modern baseball, and should be ignored for modern comparison.

Similarly, I feel that the batting records compiled during the roaring 20s are not applicable for comparison to current baseball, because the characteristics of the ball were significantly altered to favor hitters. There are ample batting and pitching statistics available to support this view, including:

-Babe Ruth hit over 500 HRs during 1920-1930.
-Six hitters compiled season totals of 250 hits or more 1919-1930. This is the only time that anyone ever achieved 250 hits (until Suzuki).
-Hornsby wound up with 2085 hits for the decade of the twenties. He also averaged .400+ during a five year period.
-Two of the three pitchers to ever complete a career with an ERA greater than 5.00 plied their trade during this interval.

Now certainly some of us remember (and the rest of us know the story) of Ted Williams refusing to sit out the last day of the season in order to protect his borderline .400 batting average. The result being that he hit .406 in 1941. But if the two periods described above are not considered relevant because conditions existed which were not typical of baseball; then the only players other than Williams to hit .400 are Shoeless Joe, Cobb and Lajoie.

Four players over a 130 year period does not warrant the lament “where have all of the .400 hitters gone”. Because the .400 hitter is an illusion, it never existed (except for rare, stray occurrences – or as some prefer to think – superhuman accomplishments).

Does this argument have merit? What do you think?