Neither am I, but if we’re just setting arbitrary lines wherever we want, I’m calling the batting average record for George Brett but still recognizing Babe Ruth as the best player ever.
Exactly. In fact, the term “modern era” (1900 on) is always used in serious discussions of baseball records.
I’d second this. In the “modern” 162-game schedule, it’s the record to beat.
…missed edit window.
Apparently, Tony Gwynn hit 0.394 in 1994.
Sparky812:
Yes, but the 1994 season was cut short, so shouldn’t count as much as Brett’s 1980.
If the 1980 season had ended after 117 games like the 1994 did for Gwynn’s Padres, Brett’s official 1980 batting average would have been .401.
More importantly the season did not count. No championship was awarded. None of it mattered.
Again, it’s all arbitrary.
:smack: how could I forget about the strike!? I knew there was something up there…
Ted Williams is the answer I grew up learning.
I could see George Brett if you divide MLB into eras or something.
Ted Williams would be an odd answer just because I don’t know what cutoff you’d use to include him but not Rogers Horsnby, who batted .424 in 1924, and George Sisler, who batted .420 in 1922 and .407 in 1920. All those years, plus 1941 (Williams’s .406 year) are in basically the same era of baseball; post-lively ball, pre-integration.
By era:
19th Century: .440, Hugh Duffy, Boston Braves (then “Beaneaters”) 1894
Dead Ball Era: .426, Nap Lajoie, Philadelphia A’s, 1901
Lively Ball: .406, Ted Williams, Boston Red Sox, 1941
Modern Era: .394, Tony Gwynn, Padres, 1994 (Incomplete Season) or .390, George Brett, Royals, 1980.
If you want a 21st century record I am pretty sure that belogns to Todd Helton. In 2000 both he and Nomar Garicaparra batted .3724, but Helton beats him .37241 to .37240. Ichiro hit .3722 in 2004.
Then it has to be Ichiro, because 2000 would be in the 20th century. I think.
Also an arbitrary decision. 
I only count left-handed batters who don’t have an “A” in either their first or last names, unless they also have a “Q” in either their first and last names.
As an aside, what a crazy year 1994 was in the standings. I was just looking it up, as I remember the White Sox being in first when the strike happened, and was wondering how far ahead they were (only one game), but then I noticed in the AL West, the first place team, the Rangers, were 10 games under .500. Wow.
It was also the “what could have been” year for the Montreal Expos. They had the best record in baseball and a 6.5 game lead in their division at the time of the strike.
In another interesting nugget, the strike ended after a ruling against MLB by then federal judge Sonia Sotamayor.
Rogers Hornsby and George Sisler are still good, but I guess Ted Williams is screwed.
Yes, and my beloved Expos were in 1st place and 6 games up in the NL East. Sadly, this was the beginning of the end for them 
I think it ended in the 1993-94 offseason, for different reasons than yours obviously.
There was an error in my recent question on the record for season batting average.
The precise question should have been: When all other baseball record books give the season batting average record to Hugh Duffy (.440); The Elias Baseball Record Book (2012)-gives the record to Tip O’Neil (.442). I assume the 2018 edition does also
My error was to incorrectly ask the question about The Sporting News Baseball Record Book (which gives the record to Duffy) rather than about Elias (which gives the record to O’Neil.
This didn’t really matter much, because none of the replies–many of which were fascinating discussion of other issues—addressed the issue of ANY record book giving the record to O’Neil.
Thus, my question: When every other record book gives the season batting average record to Duffy, why does Elias give it to O’Neal (.442), not to Duffy (.438)… (The answer has nothing to do with walks counting as hits in O’Neil’s year; the average has been corrected for that.)
Similarly, Elias gives LaJoie .422, not .426 in 1901, surpassed by Hornsby’s .424 in 1924.
Elias is as close to an official major league record keeper as exists.
What accounts for the differences described?
It’s not “omitting” them, it’s recognizing that they played against inferior competition. They played against only the best players from the white population of the continental U.S. east of the Mississippi River. Who’s to say what the record books would look like if pro sports had been a true meritocracy from the beginning? But there’s NO doubt they would look different.