No more Tony Gwynn or Boggs type players seem to come down the pike anymore. Just Dingers matter I assume.
?. Do you think in my life time that anyone will flirt or hit for a 400 average in MLB.
- Thread starter Mr. Potter
- Start date
Never say never, but highly doubtful. At current baseball salaries I doubt any team could afford to pay a .400 hitter!
For ***** and giggles, 2 career MLB records that will never be broken:
Career stolen bases - Ricky Henderson 1406. Current active leader Dee Strange-Gordon at 336.
Career wins - Cy Young 511. Current active leader Justin Verlander at 241. (Although Verlander is married to Kate Upton which trumps every record!)
Career stolen bases - Ricky Henderson 1406. Current active leader Dee Strange-Gordon at 336.
Career wins - Cy Young 511. Current active leader Justin Verlander at 241. (Although Verlander is married to Kate Upton which trumps every record!)
Only if you are really young! As others point out, given the almost total disregard for batting average in today's game, it becomes even less likely. I feel like the current emphasis on HR and acceptance of Ks is beginning to shift slightly. But it is close to impossible to hit .400 as evidenced by the fact that it has not been done in 80 years. IIRC George Brett hit .388. Tony Gwynn was one of the best our hitters of all time. If those guys couldn't do it I will be surprised to see it happen.
The analytics say that home runs and walks are more beneficial than slapping singles in the 5-6 hole. I don’t necessarily agree with that as I’d much rather see a pitcher throw from the stretch in a pressure situation than give up a solo dinger and be able to pitch with the bases empty again.
As long as the shift is still allowed there are some guys who are capable of doing it if they swallow their pride a bit and burnt down the third baseline.
As long as the shift is still allowed there are some guys who are capable of doing it if they swallow their pride a bit and burnt down the third baseline.
I remember when Ichiro set the single season hit record and Sheffield said if all you want are singles he could do that all day long. People forget how close we came with Carew, Brett, Gwynn, and Barry. Barry was the most interesting because he was more in line with today’s players and emphasis on home runs. For each of those guys, if you reduce their AB’s and increase their hits by a tiny number, they hit .400. Gwynn if I recall hit .400 over a 162 game stretchbut it was done over the parts of 2 seasons.
People forget that when Williams hit.400, the batting average computation was different. It made for a great story when he decided to play the double header the last day to end at .406. I think if he hit using today’s methodology, he would have hit closer to .420.
People forget that when Williams hit.400, the batting average computation was different. It made for a great story when he decided to play the double header the last day to end at .406. I think if he hit using today’s methodology, he would have hit closer to .420.
Yes, Williams went 6-8 on the doubleheader, at Shibe Park. Going in he was at .39955, this would be rounded up. The Philadelphia catcher: “Ted, Mr. Mack said that if we let up on you, he’d run us out of baseball. Sorry, but we’re not giving you a damn thing.”
You are correct about the rule change, although I can’t remember specifically what it was. Yes, his average was .420 under the current rules.
RBI’s in a season. 191 held by Hack Wilson. Ruth said no one would ever break that.
What are the changes? I imagine one might be that no at bat is now counted if a sacrifice fly.is hit.
You’re right. The career Wins, K’s, Stolen Bases will never be approached unless the game changes dramatically or structurally. 4 man rotations ain’t coming around, pitchers are normally pulled at 110 pitches, and although people are as fast or faster than Rickey, nobody is going to steal. Plus, stealing bases is an absolute grind on your body. When Wills became the weapon he was, that had to basically attach his skin back on his body. Heck, these guys don’t do sliding drills to any extent they did before.
Baseball has changed. Batting average is not as important as on base percentage (OBP), because a walk is as good as a hit. There is basically no statistical difference between a walk and a single, except that the walk adds cred because it indicates a good eye. Slugging percentage (SLG) gives credit to extra base hits, so that OBP + SLG = OPS, which is the new and improved measure of a hitter.
Also, and I expect some protests, but a strikeout with the bases empty is no better or worse than any other kind of out. Plus, if you strike out, you’re not grounding into a double play. I’m trying to think of an out which is “better” than just about any other out and came up with: deep fly out with runners on base and less than two outs. Another: a ground ball (or a bunt) out which advances a runner. Anything else?
Plus, there's the grinding 12-pitch out that takes enough out of the pitcher to either get pulled of give up a hit to the next batter.
I am old fashioned and disagree with this newer way of thinking. A single drives in that runner from 3rd, and good chance from 2nd. It at least moves the runner from 2nd another base, and may get a runner from 1st to 3rd.
I prefer real life runs (R+RBI-HR) over theoretical production.
A single can advance a runner more than one base, a walk zero to one base. First to third, second to home, third to home.
You're WAY more knowledgeable on this than me, but don't you expect batting averages to go up when they do away with the shift next tear?
Pitchers are smartly learning to pitch from the stretch all the time. There's no advantage gained in using a wind-up, and there's a disadvantage in switching from wind-up to stretch (and vice versa).
It's not true that there is no statistical difference between a walk and a single. The only time this is true is when there are no runners on base, but singles, overall, still have a statistically significant higher run expectancy (I think it's like .57 to .70 for a walk v. a single).
It is true that OBP is more important than BA, but that's because OBP essentially includes BA AND other beneficial ways of getting on base. So the .250 hitter with a .400 OBP is more valuable than the .300 hitter with a .320 OBP.
OPS is now considered old school and inexact. Much more advanced analysis measures of hitters' respective worth.
I'll be right back!Singles mean nothing. Today’s players act like they were born on 3rd base. We’ve lost our values and work ethic.
I'll throw out a career record even less likely to be matched than those cited by the OP: Complete games.
1st all time - Cy Young - 749
Active leader - Adam Wainwright - 27
1st all time - Cy Young - 749
Active leader - Adam Wainwright - 27
Some but not much as they still will ‘shift’ just not as far. No more 2nd baseman 50 feet in to right will allow for hits but the SS will still play almost on 2nd. Plus as mentioned before, the pitchers throw hard and for shorter lengths so you face more arms who aren’t as tired in your last ab of the game
The game of baseball has indeed changed from what it was when I first fell in love with it (late 50s). But then Cobb hated what Ruth did to "his" beloved game.
The reason that .400 will never be seen is the advent of specialization in relief pitchers. Up until the 60's a starting pitcher often completed his game and many relief pitchers were sore armed, aging former starters.
Hitters feasted on the tired starting pitchers who often threw 130-150 pitches and their batting averages spiked.
Today relief specialists are groomed in the miners and many throw 100 MPH plus.
The reason that .400 will never be seen is the advent of specialization in relief pitchers. Up until the 60's a starting pitcher often completed his game and many relief pitchers were sore armed, aging former starters.
Hitters feasted on the tired starting pitchers who often threw 130-150 pitches and their batting averages spiked.
Today relief specialists are groomed in the miners and many throw 100 MPH plus.
Have to agree with this. Since often the starter would pitch the complete game, not only did batters face pitchers with tired arms in the later innings, they also became used to seeing the pitches being thrown in their 3rd or 4th plate appearances ... allowing them to adjust and hit better. Now days, some managers seem to change pitchers, even if they're doing well, after going through the batting order only 1 or 2 times, to prevent the batters from getting used to the pitches coming at them.
.396 I beleive
and he struck out just 400 times or thereabouts in his 20 year career.
Most definitely. Especially for left-handed hitters (which is against whom the shift is most often implemented). The shift is a HUGE disadvantage for a lefty hitter (and the stats bear this out). The shift has been absolutely killing off lefty hitters - there are far fewer of them in the bigs ... and the percentage is dropping, and it's because of the shift.
Most pitchers are right-handed. Lefty hitters have more time to react to a RHP's pitch, so they are pull hitters. Additionally, since lefties can only pitch, play 1B or an OF position, they are usually bigger-bodied power hitters ... who also tend to pull the ball. So all a pitcher needs to do is pound them inside to get them to pull into the shift, or occasionally drop a pitch on the outside corner to get a pull-hitter to roll over and weakly pull an outside pitch, and with the shift set up, the typical LHB stands just about no chance.
Killing the shift will mark the return of the LHB, thankfully, and greatly increase BA all around.
Get unlimited access today.