Will anyone ever hit .400 again?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I forgot to add a poll to the first thread. Will anyone ever hit .400 again? Why or why not?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

From Pghfan987:

I think so.

Tony Gwynn hit .394 in 1994. I think that Ichiro has a couple of more shots at it (assuming his slow start this year is just a slump and nothing more). I still think that Pujols is going to get BETTER, and he could challenge .400.

There are very, very few records in baseball that I consider "unbreakable". The only such records are ones that were set in an era so different that the environment that the record was set in can not be duplicated (like 500 wins for a pitcher).

[Red Sox Rule]

yeah, i think it's possible

[Go Bravos!!!#1]

Yep, eventually.

[wamby]

I doubt it. No one has done it in my father's lifetime, let alone mine.

[gator92]

I doubt it. Too many specialized pitchers so batters don't face tired pitchers as often as they did, better scouting to position players, but the biggest difference I think between the early 20th century golden age of .400 hitters and now is the equipment the fielders use. Back then, what the fielders wore on their hands was barely bigger than the hand itself, so if you didn't hit a grounder right at someone, it got through much more often than today, with the baskets the players wear on their hands now. And there couldn't have been many successful attempts at diving, one-handed catches in the 1920's. I tried a glove from that era once when I was growing up, the ball would fall out about half the time if you didn't immediately cover with the throwing hand.

Mind you, I'm not arguing for the old-style gloves, just pointing out the difference.

[Gashouse6]

If someone's done it before, someone can do it again.

[gator92]

I'm not sure that what a hitter would have to do to hit .400 today has ever been done before: the specialized relief corps, the defensive positioning, the detailed video scouting by opposing pitchers, the huge, high-tech gloves, the media scrutiny...

However, you make a good point, it's hard to say .400 won't ever happen when Brett hit .390 a couple decades back (Gwynn's .394 is slightly less impressive due to the smaller # of AB's in the strike shortened 1994). The difference between .390 and .400 could easily be bridged by luck. On the other hand, Brett's luck was probably already running hard in his favor for him to even get as close as he did...

[KingJ]

I'm sure there are some that can naturally. Only way I can see it happening is if Colorado gets a mega-rich owner that signs all the Pujolses, Bays, and A-Rods in free agency to just pound the ball at home.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I'm not sure that what a hitter would have to do to hit .400 today has ever been done before: the specialized relief corps, the defensive positioning, the detailed video scouting by opposing pitchers, the huge, high-tech gloves, the media scrutiny...

However, you make a good point, it's hard to say .400 won't ever happen when Brett hit .390 a couple decades back (Gwynn's .394 is slightly less impressive due to the smaller # of AB's in the strike shortened 1994). The difference between .390 and .400 could easily be bridged by luck. On the other hand, Brett's luck was probably already running hard in his favor for him to even get as close as he did...
And didn't Boggs or Gwynn hit over .400 in 162 games over two seasons?

[gator92]

And didn't Boggs or Gwynn hit over .400 in 162 games over two seasons?

I'm not sure, but it rings a bell. It's a good point, and it covers a lot of the factors I cited, but not the media scrutiny part, for sure.

Plus, statistically speaking, that criteria gives hitters a lot more chances - essentially, you get 1 try at the traditional .400 for each full season played, but for .400 over 162 consecutive games, you get a number of opportunities equal to (# career games played - 162). So the chance of someone accomplishing that is inherently more likely than doing over an April-Oct. season; it's as difficult, but you get more tries at it...

[tigers527]

I doubt it. Too many specialized pitchers so batters don't face tired pitchers as often as they did, better scouting to position players, but the biggest difference I think between the early 20th century golden age of .400 hitters and now is the equipment the fielders use. Back then, what the fielders wore on their hands was barely bigger than the hand itself, so if you didn't hit a grounder right at someone, it got through much more often than today, with the baskets the players wear on their hands now. And there couldn't have been many successful attempts at diving, one-handed catches in the 1920's. I tried a glove from that era once when I was growing up, the ball would fall out about half the time if you didn't immediately cover with the throwing hand.

Mind you, I'm not arguing for the old-style gloves, just pointing out the difference.

I remember using my grandfathers glove, and I loved it. Kind of a cross between a small infielders glove and a catchers. It seemed to gobble up anything that you got it close too. Being so padded you could take the ball at any speed and never have that little kid OUCH moment of a hard liner. Granted, I never did use it in a real game...It being so small. I did however use it messing with friends all the time. Now, the outfielders using such a glove and you do have a point.

That being said, I think the biggest reason holding potential .400 hitters back that no ones mentioned is ballparks. All these little ban boxes, although great for homerun hitters, shrink the gaps and give the outfielders a chance at just about every ball in the air. These days you have to hit it on the screws just to find the gap. You can see this by all the line drive one hop off the wall singles you see these days.

Now if Comerica park had kept its orginal dimensions and got an Ichiro or Tony Gwynn type and I could see it. A spray the ball lefty with all that room in left center. It would have been sick. Now, Comerica park plays a little to the pitcher but not much.

[Williamsburg2599]

Again?sure.Soon?probabily not. Mostly because the game has changed alot since williams,but theres no saying that the game isint going to change again?who knows what the game will look like in 10,20 or 50 years.

[1doug]

Yes it can be done again, and probably will be done again someday. Especially with the watered down pitching of todays era.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

OK, here an article that mentions Boggs hitting .400 over 162 games but it doesn't specify the years.

I'll keep looking.

http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2005/01/05/mlba05.htm

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Ok I found it. Boggs hit exactly .400 from 6/13/85 to 6/8/86.


http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/discussion/lowell_sun_scoggins

[Astro]

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=30159

Percentages are almost exactly the same from 10 months ago

[Astro]

Yes it can be done again, and probably will be done again someday. Especially with the watered down pitching of todays era.
The watered down pitching? PLEASEEEEEE... even the worst of pitchers today would have been great back in the 40's... the game as evolved and is played at a much higher level

[tigers527]

I think if Placido Palonco had any kind of wheels he might be able to do it. But he doesn't

[Go Bravos!!!#1]

If someone's done it before, someone can do it again.


That's not always true, especially when you think of Cy Young's 511 wins.

[Williamsburg2599]

That's not always true, especially when you think of Cy Young's 511 wins.
Who knows?I mean the game has changed soooo much in 100 years, who knows in another 50,75 or 100?

[Go Bravos!!!#1]

Who knows?I mean the game has changed soooo much in 100 years, who knows in another 50,75 or 100?

I guess you could be right, they do say history repeats itself. :waving

[gator92]

I guess you could be right, they do say history repeats itself. :waving

For some things, yes, but does anyone want to argue that we can expect to see someone throw two consecutive no-hitters again (Johnny Van Der Meer, 1938)? Never's a long time, but I'm almost willing to say that will never happen again...

[tigers527]

For some things, yes, but does anyone want to argue that we can expect to see someone throw two consecutive no-hitters again (Johnny Van Der Meer, 1938)? Never's a long time, but I'm almost willing to say that will never happen again...

How about if someone hits for the cycle in back to back games? No-hitters and hitting for the cycle historically happen almost as often.

For that matter perfect games and unassisted triple plays happen about as often.

[Astro]

How about if someone hits for the cycle in back to back games? No-hitters and hitting for the cycle historically happen almost as often.

For that matter perfect games and unassisted triple plays happen about as often.
A no-hitter is much more impressive than hitting for the cycle, in my opinion.... I dont really see hitting for the cycle as that big of a deal, its mainly just luck

[KCGHOST]

Forever is a long time so it probably will happen again.

[geezer]

I'll put a player hitting for .400 as same as difficult as a pitcher going for 30 wins, it's almost unreachable to accomplish.

[gator92]

A no-hitter is much more impressive than hitting for the cycle, in my opinion.... I dont really see hitting for the cycle as that big of a deal, its mainly just luck

Agree, cycle is more of an oddity than a transcendant performance - look at Soriano yesterday, 3 homers and a double, a much better day than if he had hit for the cycle...

[geezer]

Let's be honest, what do you want to see more, a player hitting for the cycle or a pitcher throwing a no-hitter???

[Go Bravos!!!#1]

Frankly, hitting for the cycle mainly benefits speedy players. In 2003 Vinny Castilla was 3 for 3 with a single a double and a homer, and in his final AB he hit a hard ball of the CF wall at Wrigley, and pulled up at second with a double, if he had tried for the 3B he'd have been thrown out by 20 feet.

A Rafael Furcal would have a better chnce of hiting for the cycle than a Pujols, I rest my case.

[cavalier1968]

Ichiro...as good as he is will never make it....doesnt walk enough

Pujols.....A GREAT hitter will also never make it....

400 is tough...just ask Gwynn, Boggs, CArew, Brett..................

CAv

[1doug]

The watered down pitching? PLEASEEEEEE... even the worst of pitchers today would have been great back in the 40's... the game as evolved and is played at a much higher level

You have that right to believe that. Today there are too many teams and not nearly enough good pitching. And I have that right as well.

[digglahhh]

The real question is, how will you guys try to explain it away when it does happen?...

[gator92]

The real question is, how will you guys try to explain it away when it does happen?...

For my part, if it happens (and I'm still alive, because never is a long time ;), I'll be applauding as loudly as anyone else... and if it almost happens, I'll be disappointed, not relieved that I wasn't proven wrong.

[digglahhh]

It just seems that there is a prevalent sentiment to romantisize the past.

In today's game it seems common for fans to seek the negative, to point out all the circumstances that mitigate accomplishments. Now, MLB has brought some of that upon itself, but the many of the fans take that and run with it.

If you don't want to recognize Barry's 73, I'm not going to say anything about it.

But when Ichiro's 262 hits is accompanied by talk of his 702 ABs, or whatever and his lack of walks, and overall value, blah, blah, blah... I question whether or not we even want to see great things accomplished in our game.

That notion is irrespective of the merits of the issues surrounding Ichiro, because there is a place for those discussions too, but the tone in which they were often brought up was somewhat bothersome.

You know how many fans would have jumped out the window if Rollins would have hit in 57 straight. He wouldn't have even broken the official record.

Never underestimate how people will fiter what they see to preserve the (perceived, but not really) self-fulfilling delusions that keep their boyhood heroes alive. The athletes of yesteryear are the Santa Clauses and Tooth Fairies of adults...

[gator92]

There are no doubt people like that... however, I think there are two different directions here:

1. People argue that today it's easier to hit 60 or 61 or 70 or 73 homers (probably true, look at how many 50 HR seasons came in the past 10 years or so)

2. I am arguing that circumstances today make it harder to approach or reach .400 for a season.

I think these arguments can be advanced, rebutted, whatever, without necessarily taking a position on what you *want* to happen. Personally, I enjoy seeing records being broken, and I enjoy debating the differences between the eras from which the old and new record-holder came...

[digglahhh]

2. I am arguing that circumstances today make it harder to approach or reach .400 for a season.

Circumstances is an interesting choice of word, and while I would agree somewhat, the term "circumstances" seems to remove the individual agency.

If we take "circumstances" as the things the player can't control we get a mix of things that help and hurt his chances.

Things like smaller parks hurt types of player most likely to challenge .400. But other things help him, like smaller strike zones.

Then there are things that could be argued either way, like pitcher specialization.

But one thing that is not a "circumstance" is the approach hitters take. Many good hitters choose to take a power hitting approach, which lowers the batting average and restricts the type of player likely to challenge .400. To put it another way, there is a good chance that the next .400 would be outproduced by an average Manny year. For this reason, many of the elite hitters don't strive toward .400 as their goal of choice.

[Astro]

It just seems that there is a prevalent sentiment to romantisize the past.

In today's game it seems common for fans to seek the negative, to point out all the circumstances that mitigate accomplishments. Now, MLB has brought some of that upon itself, but the many of the fans take that and run with it.

If you don't want to recognize Barry's 73, I'm not going to say anything about it.

But when Ichiro's 262 hits is accompanied by talk of his 702 ABs, or whatever and his lack of walks, and overall value, blah, blah, blah... I question whether or not we even want to see great things accomplished in our game.

That notion is irrespective of the merits of the issues surrounding Ichiro, because there is a place for those discussions too, but the tone in which they were often brought up was somewhat bothersome.

You know how many fans would have jumped out the window if Rollins would have hit in 57 straight. He wouldn't have even broken the official record.

Never underestimate how people will fiter what they see to preserve the (perceived, but not really) self-fulfilling delusions that keep their boyhood heroes alive. The athletes of yesteryear are the Santa Clauses and Tooth Fairies of adults...
Suzuki would have needed 19 of those outs he made to be hits (on top of his record), to hit .400... So he would have needed 281 hits in 702 At-bats

Or if you want to add another month to give him a chance he would have needed to go 31-for-31 (293 hits in 733 at bats) to hit .400

Suzuki just doesnt walk enough to be able to do it

[BristolBoy]

It's bound to happen. If we've learnt anything it's that history repeats itself and that records are meant to be broken. Someone will hit .400, and when they do I'll bet they make it look like it's just another day in the park.

[tigers527]

A no-hitter is much more impressive than hitting for the cycle, in my opinion.... I dont really see hitting for the cycle as that big of a deal, its mainly just luck

Well, a no-hitter has elements of luck as well. A pitcher can saw a guy off and it can still drop in.

I was just stating statistically they are equally rare. Since no one has gone back to back cycles, the back to back no hitter is very impressive.

The one I dont think we will ever see again, a perfect game in the WS. Maybe our great great grand children but not us.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

But one thing that is not a "circumstance" is the approach hitters take. Many good hitters choose to take a power hitting approach, which lowers the batting average and restricts the type of player likely to challenge .400. To put it another way, there is a good chance that the next .400 would be outproduced by an average Manny year. For this reason, many of the elite hitters don't strive toward .400 as their goal of choice.


Thats one of the reasons, one of the bigger reasons why there is little chance of seeing a .400 hitter, not impossible but improbable. The long ball has taken over todays game, less contact, more strikeouts more difficult to hit .400. The pool of contact hitters in todays game is smaller than ever, the smaller the pool to draw from the lower the percentage of hitting for that high average, .400 in this case.

Even many middle infielders have joined the home run derby, not so years ago. At contract time, home runs, RBI's and runs created are the chips agents and hitters toss on to the table.

Not impossible but with so many going for the long ball today that .400 is not likely.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

It just seems that there is a prevalent sentiment to romantisize the past.

Never underestimate how people will fiter what they see to preserve the (perceived, but not really) self-fulfilling delusions that keep their boyhood heroes alive. The athletes of yesteryear are the Santa Clauses and Tooth Fairies of adults...

For sure thats true and it plays a part in some of the opinions on this board but not all of us factor that in when coming to a conclusion. Some opinions are not formed simply because some wish to preserve the past.

With that thought out of the way consider the following. Years from now there will be some on this and other boards debating younger fans who speak of the stars of their time. And guess what, some of us will be telling them that they never saw Barry, AROD, Randy Johnson, that the stars of our time were better.

We have to remember the stars of today will some day be the stars of the past and a new debate will start, were they better than the stars of say....2025. It never ends.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

A no-hitter is much more impressive than hitting for the cycle, in my opinion.... I dont really see hitting for the cycle as that big of a deal, its mainly just luck

I agree, luck does play a big part in hitting for the cycle, not all luck it takes a good day at the plate to carry it out.

No hitters, far more difficult. When the game starts there are only two players who can pitch a no-hitter of course, the two pitchers. There are 18 hitters who will come to the plate with the potential to hit for the cyle.

[Mattingly]

Ichiro...as good as he is will never make it....doesnt walk enough

Pujols.....A GREAT hitter will also never make it....

400 is tough...just ask Gwynn, Boggs, CArew, Brett..................

CAv
I'd tend to agre with this, since it would never happen with someone having 600 ABs. Now way someone has 240 hits, which is nearly a record, and has that many ABs.

Perhaps 400 ABs (isn't that the minimum to count for a batting title?) or 500 at the most, then with 160 or 200 hits, respectively.

I could see a guy getting injured at the end of a season, then if he goes on the DL, has had the minimum number of ABs, then that could happen. I remember once reading that Ted Williams had PA counted instead, as he'd walked too frequently.

[Mattingly]

I agree, luck does play a big part in hitting for the cycle, not all luck it takes a good day at the plate to carry it out.

No hitters, far more difficult. When the game starts there are only two players who can pitch a no-hitter of course, the two pitchers. There are 18 hitters who will come to the plate with the potential to hit for the cyle.
I think it was Strawberry or someone, who'd once missed a cycle because he'd hit into a 2nd double. He'd already hit a dinger and tripled. One of the announcers said that he should've stayed at 1B and he'd have hit for the cycle.

To me, it's a nice thing, but if you can get a double, I'd say you're being very selfish to stay at 1B, unless your team is winning by a very large degree. Even then, just go for what you can and if you can safely scoot into 2B, take it.

[digglahhh]

Suzuki would have needed 19 of those outs he made to be hits (on top of his record), to hit .400... So he would have needed 281 hits in 702 At-bats

Or if you want to add another month to give him a chance he would have needed to go 31-for-31 (293 hits in 733 at bats) to hit .400

Suzuki just doesnt walk enough to be able to do it

I never said he would do it, but thanks for doing the math that shows how far away he was.

[Cucamongadan]

I've posted before on a previous thread on this subject (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=191096#post191096).
from which I paste:

For the 2003 season there was a 1 in 1,448 chance anyone in the major leagues would bat .400. In 1941, there was a 1 in 19 chance anyone in the American League would bat .400 and a 1 in 99 chance if you removed Ted's .406 from the list before doing the calculation. In 1901 there was a 1 in 3 chance anyone in the majors besides Nap Lajoie would hit .400.

The chance of anybody batting .400 in the next 10 years is 0.7%; in the next century, 7%.

These numbers are from subjecting lists of qualified batting averages to standard deviation and normal distribution calculations; it just shows that the averages were more closely bunched in 2003 than they were in 1941 or 1901.

[west coast orange and black]

wags: And didn't Boggs or Gwynn hit over .400 in 162 games over two seasons?

it was wade boggs.

a "hidden season" in baseball is the length of time that it takes a team to play, over the course of consecutive seasons, 162 games.

over the final 107 games of of the ’85 season boggs batted .402.
then by 8 june 1986, the 162nd game of the skein, boggs had batted in 160 of 'em for an even .400
(for you old-schoolers: at the end of the 154th game boggs was at .402)

tony gwynn's best "hidden season": .398 from 1 july 1993 – 1 july 1994

[Honus Wagner Rules]

wags: And didn't Boggs or Gwynn hit over .400 in 162 games over two seasons?

it was wade boggs.

a "hidden season" in baseball is the length of time that it takes a team to play, over the course of consecutive seasons, 162 games.

over the final 107 games of of the ’85 season boggs batted .402.
then by 8 june 1986, the 162nd game of the skein, boggs had batted in 160 of 'em for an even .400
(for you old-schoolers: at the end of the 154th game boggs was at .402)

tony gwynn's best "hidden season": .398 from 1 july 1993 – 1 july 1994
WCOB,

I already beat you to it! See post #16.

[Erik Bedard]

Well, Pujols might just be THAT good. However, I wouldn't be willing to bet on it just yet.