A couple more baseball questions

Factual Questions
1

My father, brother, and I have been having a discussion the last few days (since Ted Williams’ death) and some questions have come up that maybe you folks can help answer.

The note that started the whole thing was from my father, who asked, “With the death of Ted Williams, it’s logical that a lot of stuff has been published about his life and career. In almost every article I’ve read about his hitting, the comment has been made in one form or another, that he was probably the greatest pure hitter of all time. My question: what do they mean by “pure” hitter? As compared to what? It’s strange that I see the word in almost every reference to Williams, and don’t recall seeing it used regarding anyone else.”

After some discussion of “5-tool players”, etc., my brother wrote, “I believe the key question in this theoretical issue is whether “purity” refers to hitting skills uncontaminated by additional skills at running, catching and throwing, or to an ability to make “clean” hits, such that one’s batting average is not tainted by dribbly little grounders beaten out for a single, Texas League bloopers that fall just between the infielders and outfielders, and wind-blown popflies down the foul line that just clear the fence on the fairball side and go down in the books for a homer just the same as if you’d hit a screaming line drive all the way to Nova Scotia.”

That led to the following, "A lexical question, relating to various cheap ways of getting a hit: a “Texas League single,” if I recall correctly, is the name for a blooper which doesn’t go straight enough to be a line drive nor high enough to be a pop fly, and falls to earth before anyone can catch it. But then what’s the name for those grounders that go straight down and bounce off home plate so high that the runner makes it to first before anyone even has a chance to catch the ball, let alone throw it to first?

I was able to find a thread here that discussed the origin of the term “Texas Leaguer”, but nothing about a term for the high bouncing grounder.

So, here are the questions I am seeking your input on:
[list=1]
[li]What is the definition of a “pure hitter” as applied to Ted Williams?[/li][li]Is there a name, and if so what is it, for a high bouncing grounder that the runner beats out before it can be caught?[/li][/list=1]

Thank you in advance for your efforts to fight our collective ignorance.

2

A pure hitter is a one-dimensional player who spends much less time developing his defensive skills than his hitting skills.

The term you’re looking for is “Baltimore chop”. It was a specialty of the team then known as the Baltimore Orioles in the late 1800’s.

3

However, Williams wasn’t a one-dimensional player. He could play major league level defense. His fielding percentage was about the league average, and though his range was slightly below average, he may have been limited by the Green Monster. In addition, he certainly hit for power, and speed wasn’t considered all that important when he was playing.

The “best pure hitter” is partly hype. DiMaggio was often called the greatest living ballplayer, and Williams took the “best hitter” label. (BTW, the two players were once traded for each other – Boston and NY had agreed to the deal, but the Red Sox got cold feet.)

Certainly few put so much work into his hitting – analyzing just about every part of it. In addition, Williams rarely swung at bad balls, leading the league in walks seven times. (It’s said that umpires knew the reputation and were sometimes reluctant to call a ball if Ted didn’t swing at it. Ted once lost a batting championship because he had too many walks.*) Not only did he have a great natural talent, but he worked incessantly on improving his hitting.

*The batting champion was determined by number of at bats, not plate appearances. Under current rules, he would have won.

4

What year was that, Rchuck? (that Williams lost because he had too may walks)

5

In 1954, Williams batted .345 in 386 at bats. The rule at the time was that the batting champion must have 400 at bats, so the title went to Cleveland’s Bobby Avila, who hit .341.

The kicker was that Williams was certainly a full time player; he drew well over one hundred walks, so he actually went to the plate more than 500 times. The rule was changed shortly thereafter so that the standard is based on PLATE APPEARANCES, not at bats, and I believe is now 3.1 plate appearance for every game your team plays; don’t ask me how they arrived at 3.1.

“Pure Hitter” has generally always referred to a player with an aesthetically and technically perfect swing who makes solid contact. Williams had about as beautiful a swing as anyone and hit .344, so he was a heck of a pure hitter. In terms of his hitting value, you COULD argue that he was the best hitter of all time; Babe Ruth’s numbers are better, but of course Ruth didn’t spend five years in the Marines in the middle of his career.

6

Thanks all for your answers. That’s pretty much what the 3 of us had decided was meant by “pure” hitter, but it’s good to get validation on that.

And thanks ElvisL1ves for providing the answer for the “Baltimore Chop”. I googled the term and found some pretty cool info about the tactic and its history. I guess now we’ll have to find something else to wonder about for a while.

7

Rick- true enough, Babe Ruth didn’t spend 5 years in the military, but he DID spend 6 years as a pitcher, before someone wised up and moved him to the outfield! If he’d been an everyday player his first 6 years, you think maybe HIS stats could have been a little better, too?

8

One nitpick - the name for a batted ball that bounces off home plate, or anywhere in the batter’s box, is a ‘foul ball.’

A hit that bounces in the short infield for a very high hop is, as noted above, a Baltimore Chop.

9

Nitpick[sup]2[/sup]: Unless it touches the batter, that is a fiar ball if it settles in fair territory or is touched in fair territory before leaving the infield. Also, the plate is in fair territory.

10

“Wised up,” Astorian? Ruth’s lifetime won-lost is 93-44. Until Whitey Ford bested it in the 1961 Series, Ruth (who went the distance in a 14-inning game against Brooklyn in 1916 and won twice in 1918 agains the Cubs) held a World Series pitching record of 29 2/3 consecutive scoreless innings. And where would Ernie Shore be if he hadn’t come on to relieve Ruth in a game against Washington in 1917, after Ruth protested too much about a fourth ball called on the leadoff hitter? (The basis for Ernie Shore’s perfect game.)
And to this day Ruth holds the second-best career won-lost record against the Yankees. :slight_smile:
I wonder if Guy Hecker or George Uhle or Red Lucas shouldn’t have been called on to hit more often. :slight_smile:

11

Officially, Ernie Shore didn’t throw a perfect game. The official record book says it is a combined no-hitter for Ruth and Shore. However, according the rules of scoring, Shore does get credit for a shutout, which normally requires a pitcher to start the game and finish it.

I also believe Ruth’s protest of the umpire’s call involved punching him.

12

Bob, I had heard about how some no-hitters allegedly don’t count–which, from what I have read, is the result of an effort by announcer Ernie Harwell–who, it seems, also claims to be the announcer who hollered “The Giants win the pennant!” at the Polo Grounds when Bobby Thompson hit his home run in the 1951 playoff game. It seemed to me the rationale for no-hitters such as those by Bob Wicker, Bobo Newsom, and Harvey Haddix was that it wasn’t their fault that their own team did not support them enough to win the game in nine innings. And, oh, yes–I mustn’t forget Andy Hawkins, Ken Johnson, or the double-no-hitter of Toney and Vaughn (in which, amazingly enough, the winning run was batted in by Jim Thorpe!) I saw that section about shutouts in the official rules, too.