vintage related

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens&nbsp; </b><p>Just got my latest SABR Records Committee newsletter. It is has some great info in it, the most important of which is a change to Sam Thompson RBI total in 1894 which puts him ahead of Hugh Duffy for the RBI title that year and also eliminates him from the Triple Crown title. The additional stats found for Thompson also raised his BA to .416, giving him the highest BA for someone who did not win a title.<BR><BR>The other really interesting stat was that Rocco Baldelli and Carl Crawford passed Ted Williams and Bobby Doerr as the rookie duo with the most hits. Williams and Doerr had 352, Baldelli and Crawford had 351 as of Sept 24th. This list also points out that there are 15 rookie duos to get 100+ hits each and of the 15, only 3 of the duos do not involve HOFers.<BR><BR>If you guys ahven't already joined SABR, you really should since being colelctors of vintage cards is a perfect mesh with this organization and their annual publications are always outstanding.<BR><BR>Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>mrc32</b><p>Not trying to pick a fight, as I have considered joining SABR, but isn't this work they are doing, well, re-writing history? <BR><BR>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>While I appreciate the "discovery" end of SABR's research, this type of thing is a little bit alarming.<BR><BR>Why were these mysterious stats located for the guy who happened to be second in RBI's? And enough were found to pop him up from 141 to over 145?!? Amazing.<BR><BR>If SABRE researchers have actually come up with an entirely new set of stats, based on a more thorough analysis of 19th century baseball records, and the stats have been updated to reflect ALL players's records, then fine - make a case for throwing out the entire set of old stats and replacing them. But selective updates aren't a good thing.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>When discoveries like this are made, it's not just for the player I meantioned, but for all players involved in those games.<BR><BR>The discrepency seems to come from 3 games that were protested and not counted in the official stats that year. Since the protest was not upheld, they should have been counted in the final totals, but for whatever reason, the NL forgot to return them to the totals.<BR><BR>Is it rewriting history? Yes, but only to the extent that the history of the game is being correctly rewritten. If checks like these are not made, then vintage baseball becomes nothing more than simple mythology with the fan trying to figure out what is based on truth and what is based in fantasy (i.e. incorrect data/info).<BR><BR>Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>but to reiterate (but more clearly), why only a few games that Thompson was involved in? Coincidence or amazing discovery? Again, were these types of things discovered as a result of a pervasive check, or the result of a selective search?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>When it comes to 19th century games, researchers do their best to verify the game stats thru at least different papers; home team, visiting team and a neutral paper.<BR><BR>Also, there is ongoing research to verify the stats of all 19th century games. This is the reason Paul Hines is now credited as the first Triple Crown winner and not Hugh Duffy. Some people do selective research on a player, but the 19th Century Committee is very dedicated to trying to provide the most accurate stats for that era possible.<BR><BR>Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>and he will re-gain the 1894 triple crown! We can only stand by and watch with eager anticipation as the new games unfold...how exciting!<BR><BR>...personally, I think Duffy's will eventually win!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I think it's a proof card..........what was the question?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian H</b><p>Actually the "new" Thompson stats (RBI etc) were discovered in Florida where the scorekeepers had long refused to acknowledge them because Duffy's brother's great great grandson (Governot Jeb Duffy) said that they did not count and awarded triple crown to Hughie.<BR><BR>(I couldn't resist -- humor me I'm a Cubs fan)

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>"Hanging Chad" Gore ?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>How could Williams & Doerr ever have held the record for hits by a pair of rookies? Williams was a rookie in 1939, but Doerr had been playing since 1937 (and is even included in the "1936" R314 set.)

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Good question, and I will be sure to send a note to the person that did this presentation. Doerr isn't even close to being a rookie in 1939. Thi would have left Rueben Sierra and Jerry Browne with 292 combined hits as the leaders prior to this year.<BR><BR>Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>John(z28jd)</b><p>It wasnt Williams and Doerr it was Williams and Jim Tabor who also had 167 hits,just a coincidence him and Doerr had the same amount of hits but Tabor was a rookie in 39' Doerr wasnt