New all-time batting champ !!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jack R.</b><p>I was amazed to recently find out Rogers Hornsby's .424 BA in 1924 was no longer the zenith of modern MLB batting average for a single season !!<br /><br />A check of stats on BB ref, shows one additional AB and 3 extra hits have been "discovered" for Nap Lajoie in his 1901 performance. This has resulted in a new all time MLB, (1901, commonly called modern start, home plate size finalized, and the AL joins the NL as major leagues) record of a .426 BA !!<br /><br />I would have thought this would be BIG news, MLB providing hoopla and fanfare galore to introduce a new (triple crown component, no less) all time record being broken. Perhaps because no one would buy tickets or watch a comercially sponsered TV show, MLB decided to "overlook" any type of notice.<br />Seems sad they have so little regard for the past and baseball's rich historical stat base.<br /><br />I am aware that Hack Wilson got an extra RBI for a seson, and Cobb lost some decimal points to drop his career BA by a point. Neither changed his respective position on the all time list though. Who authorizes this research, who verifies the results, are there certain players or stats or years picked, ????

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>All the research is done by SABR members and is usually checked by several people before anything is officially released by them. They then submit it to whomever MLB now considers their keeper of records for varification.<br /><br />Entire boxscores are checked. Any discrepincies are verfied by several boxscores from other newspapers before any call for a change is a made.<br /><br />JAY<br><br>I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Hugh Duffy's record should still count as modern. Anything pre 1893 is clearly distinct as the mound distance was shorter. But the game didn't change that dramatically from 1893 to 1901. 1901 just looks nicer because it's the new century. And what about 1900? No one seems to care about that year.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Fred C</b><p>Anybody ever see "Mr. 3000"?<br /><br />I'll still stick with Duffy's record. As mentioned it was post 1893.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I the problem with Duffy's record is that fair-foul hit was legal base hit. The term Baltimore Chop comes from the 1894 Orioles skill at hitting the ball into the ground in fair territory then going foul, making difficult to field and making infield hits much easier. I'm not sure if a BB counting as a hit was still in effect in 1894.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Fred C</b><p>Jay,<br /><br />When did that rule change? Thanks for that piece of information. That would certainly make a difference if someone could prove that there were enough hits by Duffy that benefitted him to the point where his average would have been less than the post rule change highest average.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>I am pretty sure the fair foul hit changed in like 1877. That's what helped end Roscoe Barnes career.<br /><br />But I did discover that a foul ball didn't count as a strike till 1903.<br /><br />So both Hugh Duffy and Nap Lajoie's numbers were probably helped significantly by that fact.<br /><br />Long live Rogers Hornsby, I guess.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Keeping all of the 19th Century rules changes straight in your head, with a timeline crossreference is a daunting task.<br /><br />I believe that you are right tho, Justified8, because Ross Barnes didn't play far into the 1880s. He got sick, and couldn't keep up. But while he did play he was quite a threat: both the master of the fair-foul hit, and one of the strongest sluggers to come to the plate at that time.<br />And the Baltimore chop must have been fun while it lasted. What a season or two those guys put together. Thats the baseball to have season tickets for, and the time to attend. They say that Keeler made it all the way to second before one of his chops came down, but I don't believe it. I think it was a close play.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Max Weder</b><p>baseballlibrary.com has a chronology of the rule changes at <a href="http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/excerpts/rules_chronology.stm" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/excerpts/rules_chronology.stm</a><br /><br />Max

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ken W.</b><p>Pretty sure BB as a Hit was only a one-season experiment in 1887. I believe Tip O'Neil led the league with a .487 ave that year, which, is essentially an OBP. (Pretty good one, btw).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Thank you Max. I now have it as a handy reference.<br /><br />But I've got another question: I read somewhere that in 1887, I think it was Toad Ramsey, struck out 17 batters in a game. I haven't been able to verify this. The reason I'd like to is that in 1887 four strikes were required for a K. And to me, striking out 17 under that rule could be considered every bit as much an accomplishment as striking out 20 under the current rules.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David</b><p>That is true of Toad Ramsey it was June 23 1887. My source was the New Biographiacl History of Baseball.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Guy Hecker walked 118 times in 1886 when you needed 7 balls to get a BB. I'd be willing to bet he wasn't intentionally walked more than a few times.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jack R.</b><p>Thomas "Toad" Ramsey only led the league once 1887 in Ks, but he does have the second most Ks ever 499 in a season 1886 however he was behind Matt Kilroy, the all time any time era leader, that year.<br /><br />Does not anyone else feel MLB missed the boat by not making/giving a major notice of an 80+ year old triple crown stat record being broken ??<br /><br />Regardless of any time era disputes, ever since the Major Leagues were composed of the AL and the NL, we always "knew" Rajah was the BA king, now Napoleon rules. There will plenty of hoopla when Bonds replaces Aaron in another triple crown ( career ) stat, why so little interest in this one ??

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I think part of the reason there hasn't been a big deal made about is that if I recall correctly, MLB made a decision to count any and all records, no matter when they were set and according to the rules of play at that time. Hence, Lajoie going a few points doesn't matter because it still isn't the highest BA of all-time.<br /><br />The modern media likes to play the "modern day" record game. Hell, teams even simplify things down to their current location, ingnoring the franchises previous history. Being from MN, the Twins make a perfect example. Among team records, you find no mention of Walter Johnson, Sam Rice or Goose Goslin. I find this more disturbing than anything else.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Im thinking that only a small percentage of current baseball fans know who Hornsby was. And essentially none of them have ever heard of Duffy or Lajoie.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ken W.</b><p>So maybe we oughta change that? I absolutely HATE the way the modern sports media set totally arbitrary dividing lines about sporting eras. The 1900 (1901) division pisses me off enough. But when I see ESPN listing a bunch of modern players in some best-of list, and just when I am beginning to say, "Wait just a minute," I notice the little subscript at the top that says (since 1970), and I realize that probably the sports editors were all born around 1970 so that's when the world began - just makes me wanna puke! Long live Hugh Duffy!!!!!!!