[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Regarding O'Doul: it is difficult in my mind to find fault with a player who has a .349 lifetime batting average. It is true, however, that he did not get much over 3000 at bats, and that is not considered a full career by some. I guess Joe Jackson has the same "what if" uncertainty associated with his abbreviated career.

I'd like to say that I dismiss this analysis, but in light of the fact that if you reduce Keeler's career to his first 3000 - 3500 AB, you wind up with a hitter who has an average 33 points higher than that of O'Doul (about .382 "lifetime").

Similarly, if you just take the last 5000 or so at bats which Heilmann had, and compare his record to that of Joe Jackson, I think that HH looks better than JJ.