Ross Barnes

[candy curveball cummings]

Ross Barnes dominated the early years of baseball. In the National Association, he had a .400 average in each of his first 3 seasons, 1871-1873, leading the league in average in ‘72 and ‘73. In 1876, he played for the Chicago Cubs in the newly-formed National League. In this first season, he batted .425, a whopping 63 points higher than anyone else that year. He led his league in Runs Scored 4 times, Average 3 times, OBP 3 times, SLG three times, and Times on Base 5 times all in a 9 year period. If it qualified, his .359 batting average would be second all-time, behind only Ty Cobb.

So, here’s the question: How Good was he? In the 1870’s, was he the best player?

[Buzzaldrin]

You're probably wondering why nobody's answered this yet, but there was a huge Ross Barnes thread a few months ago. Go back through the earlier posts of 19th c. baseball and check it out. It's good because it's seriously polarized.

[Baseball Guru]

You're probably wondering why nobody's answered this yet, but there was a huge Ross Barnes thread a few months ago. Go back through the earlier posts of 19th c. baseball and check it out. It's good because it's seriously polarized.

http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=40507

[SABR Steve]

Ross Barnes dominated the early years of baseball. In the National Association, he had a .400 average in each of his first 3 seasons, 1871-1873, leading the league in average in ‘72 and ‘73. In 1876, he played for the Chicago Cubs in the newly-formed National League. In this first season, he batted .425, a whopping 63 points higher than anyone else that year. He led his league in Runs Scored 4 times, Average 3 times, OBP 3 times, SLG three times, and Times on Base 5 times all in a 9 year period. If it qualified, his .359 batting average would be second all-time, behind only Ty Cobb.


The highest batting average I have for Barnes in 1871 is a .399 from an old source. !872 is a disputed year, Davy Force is the batting champ according to the MacMillan Encyclopedia. Every other source gives it to Roscoe. Every source lists Barnes as the champ for 1873, but with various averages. The MacMillan gives the championship to Barnes for 1875. I believe Deacon White is the champ that year by every other source I have. Barnes is definitely the champion for 1876. I have three marks, however: .403, .404, and .429. The first two figures are really the same, one rounds off and the other doesn't. The .403 appears to be the official average. The .429 is an adjusted figure for comparison purposes, walks having been counted as outs up to 1877.
Which source are you using for 1871 and a .400 average?
Which source are you using for 1876 and a .425 average?

[Buzzaldrin]

I would imagine he's using baseball-refernce.com; they have .429 for 1876 and .401 for 1871.

[Dalkowski110]

I'm not sure if this is true, but I have read it in several books. Ross Barnes caused a change in rules on foul balls due to his taking advantage of hitting one just fair, and then having it go foul. Back then, a ball was considered in play if it was in fair territory at any time. However, when the rules were changed in 1877 because that was such a hard play to defend against, Barnes collapsed.

[Brian McKenna]

MacMillan, out of the business, is no longer the go to encyclopedia.

[SABR Steve]

MacMillan, out of the business, is no longer the go to encyclopedia.

I liked the original MacMillan because it was more readable. Which source do you use now?

[SABR Steve]

I'm not sure if this is true, but I have read it in several books. Ross Barnes caused a change in rules on foul balls due to his taking advantage of hitting one just fair, and then having it go foul. Back then, a ball was considered in play if it was in fair territory at any time. However, when the rules were changed in 1877 because that was such a hard play to defend against, Barnes collapsed.

Ross Barnes was not the only hitter that utilized the fair-foul hit to his advantage. All the best hitters employed it.

He was stricken with "the ague," a malaria-like affliction. See Robert H. Schaefer's "The Lost Art of Fair-Foul Hitting" in the National Pastime for 2000.

[SABR Steve]

MacMillan, out of the business, is no longer the go to encyclopedia.

I was merely pointing out different sources that have different numbers. No one yet has given Barnes' newest batting average mark for 1876.

[jjpm74]

I liked the original MacMillan because it was more readable. Which source do you use now?

If you're looking for a written book along the lines of the now defunct Baseball Encyclopedia, the ESPN Baseball Encyclopedia seems to be the go to these days, though I don't like their coverage of 19th century baseball.

[SABR Steve]

Thanks jjpm74.

Actually I have the ESPN encyclopedia and it's the one I use most of the time. Again, I have accumulated several encyclopedias over the years and I was merely illustrating the changing numbers. (who knows what the truth is)
As a member of SABR's records committee, I have access to the latest figures of all types, many are simply too boring to detail.
I gave Pete Palmer some things to think about. If you notice the ESPN attempts to list the original batting champion in the top spot even though it may not be the best figure anymore. I tried to point out that the original champs are sometimes unknown. As a result I have undertaken a new project of batting champs, original and posthumous. So far it's been fun, and yes some surprises.

Thanks again.