If the 19th Century counted things may be different

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Yes Julie,

Many of those factors are not easily dismissed, nor adjusted for. In the cases of low fielding averages, 50' pitching distance, fair/foul hits, stolen bases due to taking extra bases, etc. I guess you just have to give yourself up to the force in order to accurately analyze those considerations.

However, if Tim Keefe was able to post an ERA below 1 in spite of those actualities, maybe that is more noteworthy than Gibsons mark in the late 60s. By this I mean: if a player sets a record that his peers do not approach, and it withstands the challenges of baseball's changes throughout its history, then a significant record is established IMO.

A couple of these records which have recently fallen are Sisler's 257 hits/season and Delahanty's 7 RBIs/inning. Both withstood the test of time. Walter Johnson's 3000Ks did too. For more than 50 years he was alone in the 3000K club. In the 70s Gibson joined him, in the 80s the floodgates opened. Now 3000 Ks are (not quite) trivial.

What is the point? Many of the records from the 1800s are noteworthy accomplishments which have been achieved independent of the era in which they were established. Of course, the naysayers will disagree with the validity of almost everything, just as the proponents will claim that essentially all records are valid and comparable to the present.

My favorite, right now, is Bill Joyce 4 triples/game 1897. Yeah - maybe it was windy that day, and the sun may have been in the outfielders eyes and the fans behind the ropes were distracting; but the official scorer recorded four triples for him that day.