Nearly all sports record books have the record for season batting average as held by Hugh Duffy, .438 in 1994.
However, The Elias Book of Baseball Records (at least the latest edition I've seen) gives the record to Tip O'Neil,.442 in 1887. (In 1887--and only in 1887-- walks counted as hits, giving O'Neil a .492 average, but this is irrelevant; O'Nneil's average was corrected for this).
What's the story? Who holds the record? Duffy or O'Neil?You have a couple of typos in your post.
Hugh Duffy set the single season record for batting with a .440 average in 1894.
Tip O’Neil set the previous record in 1887 with a .492 average, later adjusted to .435.
So, O’Neil held the record first. At the time of his death in 1915, it remained at .492 until it was subsequently adjusted. After, Duffy became the season record holder and O’Neill fell to second place.
Any serious discussion of baseball records should exclude the nineteenth century.
It should logically exclude 1901 too, but Nap Lajoie’s .426 from the year is usually the accepted “modern” record.
The highest batting average by a player in the integrated era in a season that actually counted is .390 by George Brett in 1980, so that’s the record in my irrelevant opinion.
Serious question: Why would you exclude 1901 from any discussion of historical baseball records? It’s the year when the American League established itself as a major league on par with the National League.
Why not Ted Williams’s .406 in 1941?
Rickjay mentioned the “integrated era”. MLB didn’t have any players of color until Jackie Robinson played for the Dodgers in 1947.
This is the correct record. All pre 1947 baseball records need to be asterisked if not expunged since white players didn’t have to face black pitchers or batters.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I think you’re wrong. I love the early days of baseball and there’s no way I’d toss out all the records held by players in the pre integration era. The history of baseball is tarnished with the awful color line, but I’m not going to omit outstanding baseball players prior to Jackie Robinson.
I just think of them separately. The old records aren’t relevant to the modern game. We’re on MLB 3.0 and it counts more.
2.0 was 1920 - 1950, roughly, and version 1 was everything before that.
Actually, you would need to go much later, one black player didn’t change the balance instantly.
I’m not much of a baseball historian, so can someone explain why pre-1900 baseball was significantly different than post-1900? Also, why would someone say 1901 should also be excluded?
I’m not trying to start an argument here, just looking for information like “some say that 1901 should be excluded because [that was the year that they forgot to buy baseballs]” or whatever the reason. Is pre-1900 the “dead ball era” whatever that was?
Thanks!
RS
Makes sense now, but I was wondering what he meant by “integrated era”. And I agree with the poster who said 1 black player in the league does not make it integrated.
There were all kinds of goofy rules in 19th century baseball. For instance, up until 1893 the ball was delivered from 50 feet (instead of 60 ft 6 inches) and pitchers could take a running start. At various times they had flat-sided bats, the practice of batters calling for either high or low pitches, and hits being called outs if they were caught on one bounce. In the 1870s, it took 9 pitches called balls for a walk. They were tinkering with everything, trying to find a competitive balance.
Foul balls didn’t become strikes until 1901 in the NL and 1903 in the AL, which pretty much explains Nap LaJoie hittng .426 for the AL Philadelphia Athletics of the newly minted America League.
I sort of look at 1903 or 1905 as the start of modern baseball, coincidental with the start of the World Series, but not really because of it. It was just a point where baseball reached a new level as an institution, with more formality and consistency in the rules and it’s perception by the public. I also consider modern baseball to have ended in 1973, I’m sure baseball fans understand why.
The “dead-ball era” is generally considered to be roughly 1900-1919. It started when baseball got rid of some of the rules (to which Blank Slate refers), which had the effect of lowering batting averages and scoring.
There are a couple of theories advanced as to why it ended, including changes in the ball, rules changes, and the emergence of the first modern power hitter, Babe Ruth; what is clear is that batting and scoring increased dramatically and rapidly.
But that’s as arbitrary as anything else. We can just as easily define baseball eras beginning when the farm system and improved scouting led to a bigger talent pool; 1923, when Firpo Marberry became the first real relief pitcher; 1935, when the first MLB night game was played; 1958, when the relocation of the Dodgers and Giants meant teams flying to destinations instead of taking multi-city train trips; expansion; playoffs, etc., etc.
But they didn’t have to face any Japanese players until 1964.
Yup. Also the fact that the American League and the National League really aren’t separate leagues any more. Their offices fall under the office of the Commissioner of Baseball, interleague play is an everyday thing, and there are no more separate A.L. and N.L. umpires. The designated hitter is the only thing that really differentiates the leagues now, which should rightfully be called conferences.
Any year you pick is arbitrary. Bit there’s no doubt that 19th century baseball was barely recognizable as the game played now, or even a few years later.