Where Have All the .400 Hitters Gone ?

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

"....A long time passing...."

The complete List....the Number in parenthesis = Walks

1876 Barnes......429 (20)
1884 Dunlap......412 (29)........Stovey......412 (26)
1887 O'Neill......435 (50)........Browning...402 (55)
1894 Duffy........438 (66).......Thompson..404 (40)
1894 Delahanty..400 (60)........Turner......416 (23)
1895 Burkett......423 (74)
1896 Burkett......410 (49)
1897 Keeler.......432 (35).........Clarke.....406 (45)
1899 Burkett......402 (67)......Delahanty..408 (55)
1901 Lajoie.......422 (24)
1911 Cobb.........420 (44)........Jackson....408 (56)
1912 Cobb.........410 (43)
1920 Sisler........407 (46)
1922 Sisler........420 (49).........Cobb.......401 (55)
1922 Hornsby.....401 (65)
1923 Heilmann...403 (74)
1924 Hornsby.....424 (89)
1925 Hornsby.....403 (83)
1930 Terry.........401 (57)
1941 Williams....406 (145)

In 1980 George Brett ended the season with a .390 Batting Avg.
He made a very interesting comment to the media regarding as
to why he did not achieve .400...."I didn't have enough Walks".

The importance of Walks in trying to attain a .400 BA nowadays
is very under-reported. Brett in 1980 needed only 9 more Walks
to attain a .400 BA.

A great example of the significance of the "walks factor" is in
1941 when Ted Williams hit .406....he had 145 Walks.

The closest Ruth came to 400 was in 1923 with a .393 BA; he had
a record-setting 170 Walks that year.

Conversely, it is very interesting that Duffy, Keeler, Cobb,
LaJoie, Sisler, and some of the real Oldtimers did not require
many walks to help them get over the .400 level. They did it
with sheer hitting power.

We know that theoretically, all a batter has to do is have the
minimum official 400 At Bats and only 160 hits = .400; and to
accomplish this presently he needs a lot of walks. I conclude
it will be a very long time before we have a .400 hitter again
because none of the present day hitters have the discipline, or
perhaps the desire....."to work the count out".

[Archive]

Posted By: Marc S.

Ted:

They discuss this over on ESPN all the time. Among other factors - hitters today have to face a barrage of pitching specialists. Whereas in other baseball eras - a hitter may have to only face one, or maybe two, pitchers per game - now a hitter may have to face the likes of a fresh Billy Wagner or Mariano Rivera near the close of the game - and it's not unusual for a hitter to face three or four pitchers a game.

There also seems to be a bit of a reversion to the mean in overall hitting and pitching quality - namely, the hitters of present day baseball with leading batting averages have historically low differences between their batting averages and the league average. This, too, simply suggests that the overall playing field has gotten better, thus making it very difficult for a single hitter to be that much better than the norm.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chad

I think a lot of hitters have the patient and desire to work a count, etc., Bonds being the most obvious. I think the reason there are no .400 hitters has more to do with increasing quality of the competition. It's not that the players are getting worse, it's that they're getting better and so it's harder to dominate. I don't think it's a coincidence that there hasn't been any .400 hitters since the game integrated and opened itself up to an infusion of foreign talent, not to mention the revolutions in funneling talent to the majors through a Branch Rickey style minor league system. There's just a lot more talent top to bottom now than there used to be.

--Chad

[Archive]

Posted By: pete

pitchers of today are weak and cant hang, some are asked "just give me 5 innings and we'll give it to the bullpin" and some cant even do that...some will argue that the game has changed...and it has

is there a league minimum of how many "crybabies" each team is allowed"
pete-

my best pitch was the one that made it to the plate!

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Weren't you paying attention to Jay either? All of the .400 hitters are under his imaginary, pointless bell curve.

As time marched on from the 19th Century (which doesn't count) thru the early 20th, to today, the difference in ballplayers diminished. Therefore, the author concludes, overall performance is better today. Just do not try to measure it.

Edited to add:

But seriously Ted, there are many examples of players who have significant walks in a season without a chance of ever approaching .350.

It think it is the "hits factor" which prevents most from achieving .400.

[Archive]

Posted By: tbob

hitters in the Golden Age had to deal with blackened balls (they only used a handful each game), spitballs were legal, cut baseballs were prevalent which made the ball do whacky things, bigger strike zones, etc.
It's amazing that anyone hit .400 at all back then. Yes pitchers more often went 9 innings and you didn't have to face "specialists" but the pitching is diluted with the addition of so many teams now. How do you explain guys with borderline mediocre stuff like 43 year old Terry Mulholland hanging on and pitching an inning a game?
Everyone cries about day games after night games, night games in general and flying from place to place. Don't you think the olden players were a tad uncomfortable when they traveled from place to place by train and played day games in the heat of the day?

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

GIL

The problem is....I was "paying attention to Jay" and after a
while I was totally confused. And, mind you I am retired now,
but I was a senior Electronics Engineer (30 yrs.) for a very
well-known Com. Co.; and,I thought I understood "bell curve"
functions. I guess I'm becoming "senile".

Anyway, I was motivated to post this thread because, to me,
next to watching Base Ball, there is nothing as much fun in
this sport than studying BB statistics. These numbers are simple
and uncomplicated and they are "telling" us a story.

[Archive]

Posted By: ItsOnlyGil

Well Ted, I can't fault any of that. Actually it mirrors my history and orientation surprisingly well.

However, on the bell curve stuff - that was not Jay's doing. He was simply trying to describe a theory proposed by an author. Lets leave the messenger unharmed this time, maybe he will have other messages for us.

On the walks thing: Boggs and Henderson were about as good at that as any recent non-slugger; and they couldn't make it to .400. I am gonna stick with my "not enuff hits" viewpoint.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

A few more walks and Tony Gwynn and Rod Carew both would have hit .400 in their best years. Gwynn may have reached 100 walks in 1994 if not for the strike, but Carew had no where near 100 when he hit .388.

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren J. Duet

Baseball has changed, no doubt. How it has changed is multifactorial, trying to credit this change with one factor is futile. We might never again see a .400 hitter in the bigs, just as we may never see a 30-game winner again, not to mention a 40 game winner.

Of course, when was the last time anybody saw someone slug .812 or hit 73 homers in one season (different seasons at that). Or strike out 383 in one season. Performance values for one, have changed. Currently, the "big ticket" seems to be homeruns for hitters and stikeouts for pitchers.

I reflect on my days on the diamond, I was more apt to brag about hitting 2 homeruns in a double header and going 2-for-9 than for a 4-for-10 performance without any homers.

Another time our pitcher pitched 7-inning complete game shutout win giving up 6 hits and striking out 8. The opposing pitcher pitched 6 complete innings striking out 18, and giving up 2 earned and 2 unearned. Guess who made the headlines on the local sports page. "Gros Stikes Out 18 in Losing Effort"

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

another thing that is lost on most people andnot discussed when talking about .400 hitters is bunts. Look at your .400 hitters. OUtside of Williams and Hornsby, almost all were good to great bunters and got a good portion of their hits from bunts. The one thing that stood out to me about Carew when I watched him as a kid was that he got an afwul lot of hits from bunts. You don't see players trying to bunt for hits anymore. I haven't seen Ichiro play enough to know if he does or not.

There was plenty of talk about the need to walk a lot last year when Bonds was hitting over 400 for the early past of the season.

Someone also misquoted the criteria for a batting title. You need to make 3.1 plate appearances per game played by your team, which is 502 in a 162 game season. If Bonds get 200 walks in a season again, he only needs 302 ABs and 121 hits to hit .400. There is nothing in the rules that says you have to ahve 400 ABs.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

GIL

In no way I am blaming Jay.

You are right about recent players like Boggs and Henderson
And, of course getting enough Base Hits are the prime reason
for approaching the "elusive" and coveted .400 mark. However,
I find it quite interesting that Walks are a secondary factor
in this dynamic.

And, again, going back to Brett's comment at the end of the
1980 season...."I didn't have enough Walks"....He could have,
instead, said "I just didn't have enough Hits". It is somewhat
strange to me that he framed it in that manner. All he needed
was 9 extra hits.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Crisafulli

The author in question was Stephen Jay Gould, and the theory was a really, really good one. His theory is based in principles of evolution, as Gould was a paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. I just read his writing on this topic this past summer, and it was definitely thought-provoking.

Essentially, his theory was that, in the early days of baseball, the differences between the best and worst players was much greater than it is today. Furthermore, things about the game that we consider second nature today - like where to position the infielders with certain types of pitchers on the mound, how to shift an outfield to adjust for wind and such, the actual field conditions (which tend to be better groomed today than they were at the turn of the century) - were not second nature as the game was in its early stages. They were still early on the game's evolutionary scale.

To me, these things make a whole lot of sense.

His theory was NOT that the .400 hitters in the past were not great players. Nor was his theory that today's players are better than those of yesteryear. The way I read it, he gives due credit to the greats of the game. His theory seemed to revolve more around the handful of hits each year that are taken away because the game - and the competition - has evolved over the years. A more athletic shortstop, with a larger glove, playing on a smooth infield, with a round, white ball, is more likely to snag a grounder up the middle that may have gone through for a base hit when it was a mushy ball bouncing off a rocky infield past a less athetic shortstop with a tiny glove.

I read this "evolution of the game" to include things like lefty-righty specialists, relief pitchers, a batter's propensity to take more pitches, etc.

So according to Gould, as I understood it, he thinks that this evolution, as well as the narrowing of the gap between the game's best and worst players, is responsible for the 30 hits that make the difference between a .340 and .400 batting average in a 500 at bat season.

It was well-written and drew parallels from the world of biology and evolution, and after reading the theory, I subscribe to it.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

There is no crying, and no paleontology in baseball.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chad

I would agree with that, but at the time everybody was hitting .400, not all the great players were allowed to compete so the depth of talent was diluted. Just imagine baseball in the 60's without Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Roberto Clemente, Bob Gibson, Willie Mac, Orlando Cepeda, Juan Marichal, Frank Robinson, Vada Pinson and on and on. The league just isn't as good and it would be easier for a great player to dominate. They're still great, tho. I think Hans Wagner would be a stud if we could put him in today's game. But he wouldn't be twice as good as everyone else.

--Chad

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Ted: On your list of .400 hitters - who is Clarke? Also Ted: some sources credit Ross Barnes (1876), Tuck Turner (1894), Billy Hamilton (1894), and Hughie Jennings (1896) with batting averages which may qualify for your list. Have you rejected them from consideration?

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

GIL

I, with all due respect to Ross Barnes, did not include him since
he didn't have 400 AB or more (I recall it was somethig like
322 AB; they did not play as many games back then).

That is Fred Clarke.

I always refer (and compare) two BB Encyclopedias before I
state any Statistics; therefore, I feel confident that my
numbers are correct. Turner batted .416 with 339 AB, so I
did not include him. Hughie Jennings and Billy Hamilton came
very close, .398 and .399, respectively. Now, my sources
are CopyRighted 1984, BB historian are constantly updating
statistics. And, new numbers for these two guys might have
resulted in their recently updated BA = .400

[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?

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

GIL

I'm not sure I completely follow your entire line of thinking.
I agree Cobb is certainly a bonafide 400+ hitter; but, I do not
see how you include Jackson (who barely hit 400 and only once).
Unless you are considering his lifetime BA as a factor. Please
excuse me if I draw an example from Bowling. A Bowler who has
an average of say 220, can and will bowl a 300 game (or two).
So, Joe Jackson with a lifetime BA = .356 can and will hit .400
during his lifetime.

But, I really don't understand why Sisler and Hornsby (multiple
400 years) are not part of your 400+ club ? Furthermore, there
are guys like Harry Heilmann, who had multi "near 400" seasons
that don't get their due as very consistently strong hitters.

And, as much as I loved Ted Williams, and the great story of him
playing out the last day's doubleheader in 1941, how exactly
does he fit into your 400+ club ? Or, again does the "bowling
analogy" apply since Ted's lifetime BA = .347

I think you have to do a better job of convincing me of the
merits of your premise.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

I know it's not my job to play moderator (my apologies Leon), but it seems that a few of you guys are carrying chips on your shoulders from other posts. There are some great contributions and opinions, but the personal jabs turn me off from wanting to contriubte.

Just my two cents.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Koteles

couldnt they said it was in their "SOBE"?

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Al

Some of the things you are relating from this Professor's book
may perhaps explain why hittig .400 nowadays is not likely to
occur. However, there are many other mitigating factors that
I see would favor a 400+ hitter in today's environment.

Smaller playing fields, Astro Turf, better physical condition,
flying (less fatigue), starting at younger age, diluted pitch-
ing staffs due to many more teams, equipment improvements
(bats and balls), etc., etc. All these factors actually lend
themselves to a higher probability of hitting .400 nowadays.
Yet, it is not happening. In the past 25 years only two guys
have approached .400....George Brett .390 and Tony Gwynn .388

I'm sorry, but I cannot fully agree with your author's theories
And his drawing "parallels from the world of biology and evolution"
and applying it to explain modern day baseball sounds somewhat
frightening to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Crisafulli

That's okay, Ted, you don't have to agree with the theory - I was just posting the abridged version because it was a topic on this thread. I subscribe to it because, in my opinion, it's the most compelling theory that I've heard. Someone else might think it's complete hogwash, and that's cool.

But the fact remains that there hasn't been a .400 hitter in more than 60 years, and yet many other batting records have been equalled or broken in that same time.

These strangle little blips are part of the reason why I love baseball so much. The ensuing discussions/arguments are another part.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Ted, I'm not trying to bust your stones but Gwynn batted .394 in '94 (it was the strike shortened season).

Does anyone know how which .400 hitter had the most official At Bats (not plate appearances) and the least amount of walks? I'm too lazy to look it up.

A lot of neat theories.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Lets throw in a baseball card fact regarding the subject - 8 players that batted .400 (on Ted's list) have an N172 card!

[Archive]

Posted By: RC Mckenzie

Ted,

I'm an Astro fan. They may make the playoffs without a .300 hitter.


I thought Brett was joking about walks counting as hits.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Carew is the one that hit .388 in 1977.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Judge Dred Fred

I stand corrected on Gwynn. I was so disgusted with the 1994
season that I still have "mental blocks" against it.
That makes it easy to remember....Gwynn = .394 in '94.

OK, I can only come up with 7 of the above 400 hitters that are
in the N172 Old Judge set.....and they are:

Fred Dunlap
Harry Stovey
James "tip" O'Neill
Pete Browning
Hugh Duffy
"Big Sam" Thompson
"Big Ed" Delahanty

The other 19th Century guys Burkett, Keeler, and Fred Clarke
are not in the OJ set.

Fred.....I give you another chance to correct me.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Who was bigger - Big Sam, or Big Ed?

************************************************** **************************

This post contains comments addressed to three subjects which were raised recently.

Regarding the carrying of shoulder chips – I have not engaged in this, although comments which I have intended as kidding may be misconstrued as such. Perhaps I should use happy faces, or only make serious statements (no).

************************************************** ***************************

My main problem with Mr. Gould’s bell curve presentation is that to me it appears that his statements consist of the following thinking

-this is what existed at the beginning of the century
-this is what exists now

Therefore the following conclusions may be drawn ……..

I believe that an evolutionist should realize that more than two data points are required to establish an evolutionary relationship. However, when the third point is attempted (19th century performance), we find that the early 20th century players exhibited a greater differential in their performance than either current or 19th century players exhibit. This disproves his contention (if performance and talent are interchangable, which they are not).


Regarding .400 hitters:

In order to be considered by me to be a .400 hitter – a player must bat .3995 or greater during a season – no exceptions. Since different sources cite there own interpretation of who qualifies in this regard, the source universally available (well only if you have a computer) is baseball reference.

In my previous post I broke up those cited by that reference into four categories:

19th century .400+ hitters, early 20th century .400+ hitters, 1919-1930 .400+ hitters, .400+ hitters after 1930.

I then developed a rational to eliminate 19th century .400+ hitters from consideration.
I then developed a rastional to eliminate 1919-1930 .400+ hitters from consideration.

I am left with the post 1930 .400+ hitters (= Williams), and the early 20th century .400+ hitters (= Lajoie, Cobb and Jackson).

The above is a summary of my previous post. It is not necessarily an analysis which is acceptable to me, but I ask: if you care to play, is it acceptable to you? In general, I believe that data should not be eliminated, without irrefutable cause.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Ted,

That '94 season disgusted most of us for a lot of reasons. One of those reasons (for me) was because Gwynn was so close to .400

Oops, my bad, Burkett slipped past me, you are correct, there are 7 players represented in the OJ set. Burkett played his first year in 1890 for New York (NL) and just missed being part of the issue - whew, I had to come up with some silly fact to save face and not look like a total blithering idiot... oh, too late, huh....

From a theory side this is a neat thread. There are so many good reasons why there "should be" and "wont be" any .400 hitters in the present and future. It's an enjoyable read... two thumbs up.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

I posted this in the "Our Love of Wagner" thread...I'll repost it here. As you see, Gould does look at the 19th century, as well as multiple data points. I'm not going to make his argument for him (I'm not qualified), but will just refer to anyone interested to go read his book.

==========
In Jay Gould's book "Triumph and Tragedy in Mudville", chapter "Why No One Hits .400 Any More", he uses "Difference between high average and league average in percentage points" and "difference between low average and league average in percentage points" from 1880 thru 1980. The graph he presents looks convincing. It is clearly sloping towards zero (less variability).

Later in the chapter, he presents similar data (using batting averages) separated in Decades and presents his evidence in Standard Deviation and Coefficient of Variation. Here is the table (first number = decade, second number = SD, third number = CoV)

1870 .0496 19.25
1880 .0460 18.45
1890 .0436 15.60
1900 .0386 14.97
1910 .0371 13.97
1920 .0374 12.70
1930 .0340 12.00
1940 .0326 12.23
1950 .0325 12.25
1960 .0316 12.31
1970 .0317 12.13

This table is very convincing. It shows that the variability of batting averages have decreased over the years.

He started the chapter by asking "Were the old guys really better?" And he concludes with: "we've exposed the extinction of .400 hitting as a sign of progress, not degradation - the paradoxical effect of declining variation as play improves and stabilizes, and as average contestants also approach the right wall of human limits. Do not lament the loss of literally outstanding performance....Celebrate instead the immense improvement of average play...."

I don't know enough about this stuff to back up his point or debate it, all I can suggest is for someone to read his book and see Jay Gould's argument.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakisc

Judge Dred....Fred

First, thanks for the "two thumbs up" regarding this thread;
you are a "Gentleman and a Scholar".

You corrected me first, so now I reciprocated....No Big Deal.
I guess you assumed that Burkett was in the Old Judge set
and it is certainly a fair assumption (since his rookie year
was 1890).

Jessie Burkett was not a big guy (5:8), but he was a formidable
ballplayer. A three-time 400+ hitter, he (unfortunately for us)
played between major vintage card sets. I am only aware of his
T204 Ramly card. But,he must be depicted on other BB card sets;
however, I have never seen them.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

cmoking: I find it difficult to reread something which I feel going in is without merit. This is my loss. I will stop expounding on my lack of knowledge regarding his work. I clearly do not remember much of what I initially read other than the coming away from it with a "this is BS" feeling. The thick head that I am still contends that no matter how many standard deviations, correlation coefficients, linear regression analyses, etc. you throw at me, the facts still remain the facts; and everyone can see them if they look.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

Hey, your fight is with Stephen Jay Gould, not me. I am just presenting his side of the argument as best as I interpret them in a thread that is relevant. I think readers of this thread would be interested in that post I made if they didn't see the post in the other thread. Since the other thread was on a completely different topic (Our Love of Wagner), while this one is on target, I felt it was meaningful to re-post it here so people can see it. Of course I knew you read the post since you were involved in that conversation, but I didn't post it for either you or me, but for others who are reading this thread.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Sheesh. I guess Id better tone it down.

cmoking: I do not have a fight.

I have an opinion, but it is on an unimportant subject. You know: one man's interpretation of data differs from mine. No big deal.

Maybe I should reread what I type. I must seem too forceful. Remember all: Its only Gil + this is only cards. I bring no sword, I am on no mission. I am here to have fun + learn + to try to be fun, when I can. No shoulder chips. Gee, I better reread what Ive said.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

cmoking

I am studying these numbers and trying to make some sense of
them. This list at first glance appears to be a set of "cold numbers"
that have no meaningful relationship to the game of Baseball. They
are unlike the "warm numbers" that us avid baseball "junkies" are
constantly looking up in our BB Encyclopedias, Daily Sports News,
or Sports Mags. Numbers which actually represent a ballplayer's
performance yesterday, last year, or 100 years ago.

Now, if I am understanding this list properly, these numbers tell us
that in the first half century of baseball the wide disparity between
the superstars and the average player "yielded" many 400+ hitters.
I am not sure why this is so ?

By the 1920's this so-called disparity was approaching a level
state. Therefore, the number of 400+ hitters started diminishing.
If we look at the "400+ list", from the 1870's to 1920, there were
19 - 400+ hitters. During the 1920's there were only 7 who hit
400+.
In 1930 there was just one; and, in 1941 just one. And, note that
the CoV term from this list had exponentially leveled off to a factor
of 12.

Furthermore, it remains constant at this number for at least 3 more
decades and so to this day (if you allow me extrapolate). So, my point,
after all this "gobblygook", is framed in the form of a QUESTION......

WHY HAVEN'T WE HAD AT LEAST ONE 400+ HITTER IN EACH OF
THESE SUBSEQUENT DECADES ?

That is if we are to accept this author's theories as represented
in this list of coefficients.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

I'm not exactly sure what it is you don't understand...and I'm not 100% sure I am interpreting Gould's data correctly, so forgive me if the following sounds like the blind leading the blind Keep in mind too that I'm not 100% convinced about his numbers and I wonder how they would look if it was performed with more data and with other stats (see later in my post).

The average player over history has gotten better. Take aside expansion which throws a bit of a wrench in things (Maris in 1961 was, some argue, due to expansion and his facing weaker pitchers).

This means the best of the best are playing against better and better players as the timeline goes along. While the best of the best is not getting better or worse, the average player is getting better (this is what I think Gould is saying). So the top is static while the other players are getting better. If stats are perfectly smooth, maybe you would expect something like this where the top hitters hit 420 in the first decade, 410 in the second decade, 400 in the third, 390 in the fourth, 385 in the fifth, 380 in the sixth, etc. So that would mean fewer 400 hitters now than in the past.

But the fact that a few guys have been close (Brett in 1980 was .390, Gwynn was .394 in 1994), shows that it could have been 'easily' possible for one of those guys to actually have done it...it just turned out they didn't. .400 is an arbitrary line that we draw because it is a nice round number, we could have easily drawn the line at .390 instead.

I'll say this about Gould's argument though: it seems to me the best way to attack what his thoughts are is looking at OBP, and SLG rather than AVG. I haven't seen any stats, but I would suspect that SLG does not follow the same line as AVG. In the 20s and 30s maybe they would have been at an all time high, but I think they would have dipped down and then come back up in the 90s and 00s - especially with guys like Bonds and McGwire. That's why I'm not 100% convinced by his argument - but I don't have the ability to perform similar analysis for the other stats. Also, Gould stops in the 1970s, I wonder exactly what the numbers would have been if he also had the 80s, 90s and 00s in there. With guys like Boggs and Gwynn in those years, maybe that would have changed.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

CMOKING

You "jogged" my memory, besides Brett (.390) and Gwynn (.394) there was
Carew with a .388 BA; and, I recollect that Ted Williams in 1958 hit for
a .388 BA.

So, as you said....these guys were so close and that we have to realize
this is "about as good as it gets" in this present day environment. After
all, for these four guys to have attained .400, all they needed were only
1/2 dozen to a dozen more hits. You can figure every hit is another point
at this late stage in the season.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakisc

Jay B

Earlier in this thread you noted that Bonds could get away with
a .400 BA with only 302 At Bats and 121 Hits. This is totally
unacceptable. What happened to the old traditional requirement
of needing at least 400 At Bats to officially qualify for the
record book ?

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

I think that qualification for the batting title is based on the number of plate appearances. Perhaps he meant that with OVER 200 walks that a player might only need to get about 300 AB to qualify to win the batting title (and enough hits in those at bats to hit .400 in the process).

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

The current requirement for any title is 3.1 plate appearances per game. If Bonds walks 200 times, he only needs 304 ABs to qualify.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Thomas

As Ted Z pointed out, Williams at age 39 hit 388 in 1957. He played through sickness for the month of June that year - a month that he hit only 260 and hit 414 for the other 5 months of the year and there were not many leg hits in those legs. He won 6 batting titles in 1941(406), 1942(356), 1947(343), 1948(369), 1957(388)& 1958(328). Personally I think that if he had not lost the five years to the Wars and the plate appearance rule was as it is today, he would have hit 400 twice more and had 12 or 13 batting titles tying or surpassing Cobb's remarkable 12 in 13 years from 1907 to 1919, loosing only to Speaker's 386 in 1916. He would have likely won 2 or 3 during 1943, 1944 and 1945 and probably in 1952 and 1953, when he was fully recovered from the elbow broken in the 50 allstar game, he played in only 43 games but hit 407 with 14 hr and a had a .901 slg %, but spent the other 265 games in Korea. In 1954 and 1955 he had the highest average but not enough ab's but enough plate appearances under current rules. In 1949 he and Kell both had a 343 average, but Kell's was a higher 343. If he had not missed those 5 seasons and half of 1950 I think at the end of the 1960 season he would have had about 700 hr. Would he have played in 1961 to break Ruth's record - I think so. In 1960 he hit 316 with 29 hr in 113 games. A perfect man - no, a charitable man - yes, a brave man - yes, the greatest hitter - I think so.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Thanx Peter for your analysis on Ted's career and what could
have been. Ted was one of my favorite's from when I was a 10
year old. At that age I figured any BB player named Theodore
was OK with me. And, as you know I grew up as a Yankee fan. We
all did in our neighborhood, since Phil Rizzuto lived just two
blocks away.

Actually, one of Ted's famous comments to the "media" was.....
"if the Red Sox had Rizzuto at SS all those years, we would've
been the Champs".

Your last comments regarding what kind of person Ted really was
reminds me of an 1/2 hour conversation I had with him at a BB card
show in 1984. Actually, he did most of the talking. I started
with the subject of his 1954 Bowman card (which I showed him).
And, he changed the subject to the 1959 FLEER cards that portrayed
him in an 80-card set.

I will never forget his youthful enthusiasm as he told me about
the bidding war that Topps and Fleer engaged in for the rights
to portray Ted on their BB cards. Sy Berger (Topps Gum Co exec)
was an avid Williams fan, and of course Topps had the exclusive
rights to Ted from 1954 to 1958.

So, Fleer approached Ted with a $500 offer to have the exclusive
rights to do a story on him. Sy Berger called Ted and raised the
offer to $1000 to keep him with Topps. Well, Ted gleefully said
that a bidding war started and when it was ended Fleer won out
and they paid Ted $5000. Ted concluded our conversation with a
hearty laugh as he said....."I couldn't believe these guys were
paying me that much money just to print some silly little BB cards
of me. Hey, that was a lot of money back then, just think about it."

I would like to add to what you said Peter.....Ted was a really
great human being.

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

Peter

One more factor regarding Ted's hitting style (that both you and I forgot to
take into account). About the only weakness Ted had as a hitter was a "mental"
one, and that was his stubborness in being such a "pure" hitter that he seldom
would slice a ball into Left Field.

We all remember the "Boudreau Shift" which positioned three Infielders to the
right side of the diamond. And, the Outfielders all shaded to the right side
of the outfield. Ted would defy this defensive shift and still get hits or
just clearly hit over their reach.

But, let's consider what greater achievements he could have gained if once
in a while he swung at an outside pitch and sliced it (or drove it) to Left
for an extra base hit. Both Ruth and Cobb hit to all fields, I just wished
Ted would have; because he would've averaged an additional 30 hits per season.
Then his lifetime BA would've ended up at approximately .377 (instead of .347)

I say this as someone who closely followed his career from 1949 to 1960.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Pennsylvania Ted: Williams was one of the best hitters ever, everyone knows that. We were lucky enough to be able to watch his career. He was also a heck of a sportsman, patriot and charitable individual.

He was also a thick head. He had some success in overpowering the shift. He likely would have had greater success learning to hit to left.

His fielding competence left a lot to be desired.

Of course, none of this detracts from my initial statements about Williams. But there is no way that Ted Williams could put together a lifetime batting average of .377.

Any more than the Yankees had the greatest 1-2 punch in Mantle and Berra that we have seen in our lifetime. I suggest to you that in the fifties alone, both Brooklyn and Milwaukee had better 1-2, 1,2-3 etc punches than them pansies from the Bronx.

Sincerely only submitted to get your goat, but you do push the envelope a bit.

Gil

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

While you are thinking about it, please bear in mind that in the 50s the only man to hit more HRs than Gil Hodges was Duke Snider.

And lifetime, the only pair with more HRs than Matthews and Aaron were ... oh gee, in the history of baseball no pair ever beat those two.

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

Sorry to disappoint you, GIL

But you aint gonna get my goat.

I projected a .377 BA for Ted because I knew someone would bite
at this "bait" and jump all over me. Well, you are the 1st, so
it worked. Let's consider these 3 Lefties with their lofty Bat-
ting Averages: Ty Cobb = .367, Joe Jackson = .356 (if I recall
right), and Ted Williams = .347

We know that Cobb hit to all fields; and, it is a fair assump-
tion that Shoeless Joe did too. Now, if they were, instead, as
"stubborn" as Ted and only pulled to RF most of their hits, do
you relly think they hit for those numbers ? Not in their life-
times, most likely anywhere from 10 - 20 points less.

OK, I will modify my imaginary .377 for Ted to a more realistic
.365 lifetime BA. Ted would have definitely added 15 - 20 hits
every season to his total if he was a tad more of a free swinger
and occasionally hit to leftfield. After all, those extra hits are
only a mere 10% of his season totals.

Regarding Gil Hodges.....I really, really do not understand why
he is not in the HOF.....The HOF Veterans committee for some
unknown, and unexplainable reasons, has shunned Gil. How could
a player with 7 consecutive 100+ RBI seasons be left out ?

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Lefties?

Riddle me this ..... why is it that 80% of the top 10 or so in batting average are lefties, but in pitching wins the story is reversed?

And I think you give Williams a bit more of a head start than he earned. My recollection is:

Cobb .366
Hornsby .358
Jackson .356
Williams .344

I know ... its perfect - so I hadta look it up. Hahahaa. Is it?

But I will concede that Williams would have increased his average if he hit to all fields (at the cost of HR production). Remember - he is part of that elite group of .600+ sluggers.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

GIL

1st....Thanks for the concession on Ted's "projected" BA.

Lefty's dominate in Baseball (and also Tennis) this has always
been true. One explanation of this is that they are facing a
majority of Right-Handed pitchers. And, mind you many of these
lefty's throw right-handed. However, there is a "leading-eye"
theory that perhaps explains it all. For example....I am right
handed, but bat Left-Handed and have a better Backhand (in
Tennis) because my better eye (right one) sees better than my
left eye.

Left Handed Batters

Cobb = .367
J. Jackson = .356
Keeler = .345
Brouthers = .344
Hamilton = .344
Speaker = .344
T. Williams = .344
Ruth = .342
Gehrig = .340
Sisler = .340

Right Handed Batters

Hornsby = .358
Ed Delahanty = .345
LaJoie = .339

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Well Ted, there is also the 350 club for pitchers (which Clemens is about to join) and which boasts of a single southpaw - who we were also lucky enuff to watch.

Rank Player Wins Throws
1. Cy Young+ 511 R
2. Walter Johnson+ 417 R
3. Pete Alexander+ 373 R
Christy Mathewson 373 R
5. Pud Galvin+ 364 R
6. Warren Spahn+ 363 L
7. Kid Nichols 361 R

8? Clemens - currently 340 R