.400 Ba

[fenrir]

how come no modern player has ever hit 400? is it the quality of play? ive always been curious about this. i don't know much about stats, but it seems to me that the highest ba hitters of alltime were players who played 60-70+ years ago. im curious to know why.

[SamtheBravesFan]

how come no modern player has ever hit 400? is it the quality of play? ive always been curious about this. i don't know much about stats, but it seems to me that the highest ba hitters of alltime were players who played 60-70+ years ago. im curious to know why.

Well, it does have to do with the quality of play, which got a LOT better since those days in the 19th century. Just take a look at the league leaders in BA from year to year and you'll get a general idea.

[slugger33]

I think the last person to get close to .400 was Tony Gwinn in 1994 with a .394 BA. I think the reason is that most players are trying to hit home runs every at bat.

[AznInvasion]

Ichiro is a guy to watch for .400 usually. Ya I agree completely that players are trying pull the ball for HR's too much. A candidate for .400 needs patience to draw walks, willingness to go the other way and consistent hitting basically.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

There are no more .400 hitters because pitchers are so much better these days than in the old days.

There are no more 30-game winners because pitchers were so much better in the old days than these days.

[DodgerBlue8188]

There are no more .400 hitters because pitchers are so much better these days than in the old days.

There are no more 30-game winners because pitchers were so much better in the old days than these days.

lol what are you trying to say here? Obviously pitchers wont' get 30 wins anymore because they only pitch about 33 times in a season.

[Yankwood]

There are no more .400 hitters because pitchers are so much better these days than in the old days.

There are no more 30-game winners because pitchers were so much better in the old days than these days.
:crazy I'm totally confused.:crazy

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I think the last person to get close to .400 was Tony Gwinn in 1994 with a .394 BA. I think the reason is that most players are trying to hit home runs every at bat.
The strike hit on August 11th, 1994 and Gwynn was hitting .394. In 2000, Todd Helton had a higher BA later than August 12th.

August 18th: .399
August 30th: .395

[Ubiquitous]

Two players have hit .400 in the modern game over a 162 games.

[GiambiJuice]

Ichiro is a guy to watch for .400 usually. Ya I agree completely that players are trying pull the ball for HR's too much. A candidate for .400 needs patience to draw walks, willingness to go the other way and consistent hitting basically.

Oh yeah..Ichiro draws a ton of walks :crazy

[Seattle1]

How come no modern player has ever hit 400? Is it the quality of play? I've always been curious about this. I don't know much about stats, but it seems to me that the highest ba hitters of alltime were players who played 60-70+ years ago. I'm curious to know why.

The late Stephen Jay Gould, an exemplary evolutionary scientist and huge baseball fan, had the best explanation I've ever heard for why no one hits .400 anymore.

Here's an interview from January 1997:

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/1997/01/outspoken.html

Q: In your book you examine the inability of baseball players to hit .400 anymore and argue that it's because hitting has improved.

A: The overall batting average has been about .260 throughout the history of baseball. But the variation around that average has shrunk. It's at least plausible that variation declines because play improves. A batting average is a comparison between hitting and pitching. So if everybody's improving, as long as they improve at the same rate, the batting average will remain constant. But it gets to the point where everyone is so good that there's just not much variation anymore. Hitting .400 in baseball is a good example because there's a "right wall," if you will, of human limits. Given how our muscles work, there's just so much that the human body can do. There will always be a few individuals who, by dint of genetic gifts and obsessive commitment and training, will stand close to that right wall. That's where Ty Cobb was in 1911 and where Tony Gwynn is today. But there is this limiting wall. What has happened in baseball is that all aspects of play have improved enormously. Back in 1911, average play was so far inferior to where Ty Cobb was that his batting average could be measured as .420. Today, Tony Gwynn is just as good, maybe even closer to the wall than Cobb was. But the average player has improved so much that Gwynn's performance -- equal to or better than Cobb's -- is not measured as high.



Here's another interview from November, 1996:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/gergen/november96/gould.htm

DAVID GERGEN: What ever happened to the 400 hitter?

STEPHEN JAY GOULD: That used to happen. Between 1900 and 1930, seven different plays, did it in nine of those years. No one’s done it in 55 years. To understand that, you have to use the same perspective of considering the full range of variation, rather than our usual false way of just looking at a single thing moving through time. That’s why I call my book "Full House." It’s not only the poker hand in life’s randomness, it’s a plea for looking at the full range of variation. Everybody assumes that 400 hitting disappeared because hitting has gotten worse. After all, it was good. It used to exist in abundance. Nobody’s done it for 55 years. What you have to do is reconceptualize the whole problem in terms of variation, that is the full house, the full range of variation.

When you do that, you realize the following: The average batting average has never changed. It’s always been around 260. It fluctuates back and forth, but it stays around 260. And that’s not an absolute measure like running a mile or throwing a javelin; 260 is a balance between hitting and pitching. The fact that it’s stayed 260 only shows that the balance has been maintained. I say it’s been maintained as everyone has gotten better. Hitting’s gotten better. Pitching’s gotten better. Everything’s gotten better. The balance remains the same. Now as everything gets better, the variation shrinks. That’s all that happens. There’s a right wall of human limits based on how tall we are and our musculature. Nobody’s ever going to hit a ball a mile or pitch it 200 miles an hour.

Ty Cobb was standing right next to the right wall in 1910, but the average level of play was so much worse, he was so much better than the average that his hitting could be measured as 420. Today, everybody’s gotten enormously better. Wade Boggs a few years ago, Tony Gwyn today. They’re standing in the same place Ty Cobb was, an inch from the wall. The best players are always there, but everyone is so much better now that the average has moved right next to them. So their performance, which is equal to Cobb’s, is now measured as three forty or three fifty. So, in other words, the disappearance of 400 hitting paradoxically is measuring the general improvement of play and not as we always thought the exact opposite of the disappearance of batting skills. But you’ve got to have that full house perspective.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Two players have hit .400 in the modern game over a 162 games.
I know it was Tony Gwynn and Wade Boggs but I don't remember when they did it. :shrug:

[Ubiquitous]

85-86

93-94

[Honus Wagner Rules]

85-86

93-94
I checked those years. The dates are:

Boggs 6/9/85-6/6/86
.401 (257/641)

Gwynn 7/1/93-7/2/94
.401 (205/511)

Gwynn only played 131 games during his stretch, though. He only played five games during September '93. I wonder if he was injured or something?

[PVNICK]

Anyone think the media crush and perpetual questions post-ASB ala George Brett 1980 have played into it? Though really it's been Carew in 77, Brett in 1980, Gwynn and wasn't there someone else in the .390s recently. So it's hard to draw any conclusions one way or the other on that I guess.

[four tool]

Two players have hit .400 in the modern game over a 162 games.

Who and when?

[four tool]

Two players have hit .400 in the modern game over a 162 games.

Who and when? All the references I've seen say the last 400 hitter was during the 154 game schedule back in 1941.

[ipitch]

four tool,
See post #14.

[Ubiquitous]

I checked those years. The dates are:

Boggs 6/9/85-6/6/86
.401 (257/641)

Gwynn 7/1/93-7/2/94
.401 (205/511)

Gwynn only played 131 games during his stretch, though. He only played five games during September '93. I wonder if he was injured or something?

Gwynn had knee surgery.

[Ubiquitous]

Your dates are a bit off HWR. For Boggs you got him in 163 team games. The actual dates are 6/13/85 to 6/8/86 in which he an average of .400 in 160 games played.

For Gwynn you have him down for 165 team games.

If you go from 7/4/93 to 7/2/94 I believe you get 162 team games and a .402 batting average for Gwynn.

[fenrir]

The late Stephen Jay Gould, an exemplary evolutionary scientist and huge baseball fan, had the best explanation I've ever heard for why no one hits .400 anymore.

Here's an interview from January 1997:

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/1997/01/outspoken.html

Q: In your book you examine the inability of baseball players to hit .400 anymore and argue that it's because hitting has improved.

A: The overall batting average has been about .260 throughout the history of baseball. But the variation around that average has shrunk. It's at least plausible that variation declines because play improves. A batting average is a comparison between hitting and pitching. So if everybody's improving, as long as they improve at the same rate, the batting average will remain constant. But it gets to the point where everyone is so good that there's just not much variation anymore. Hitting .400 in baseball is a good example because there's a "right wall," if you will, of human limits. Given how our muscles work, there's just so much that the human body can do. There will always be a few individuals who, by dint of genetic gifts and obsessive commitment and training, will stand close to that right wall. That's where Ty Cobb was in 1911 and where Tony Gwynn is today. But there is this limiting wall. What has happened in baseball is that all aspects of play have improved enormously. Back in 1911, average play was so far inferior to where Ty Cobb was that his batting average could be measured as .420. Today, Tony Gwynn is just as good, maybe even closer to the wall than Cobb was. But the average player has improved so much that Gwynn's performance -- equal to or better than Cobb's -- is not measured as high.



Here's another interview from November, 1996:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/gergen/november96/gould.htm

DAVID GERGEN: What ever happened to the 400 hitter?

STEPHEN JAY GOULD: That used to happen. Between 1900 and 1930, seven different plays, did it in nine of those years. No one’s done it in 55 years. To understand that, you have to use the same perspective of considering the full range of variation, rather than our usual false way of just looking at a single thing moving through time. That’s why I call my book "Full House." It’s not only the poker hand in life’s randomness, it’s a plea for looking at the full range of variation. Everybody assumes that 400 hitting disappeared because hitting has gotten worse. After all, it was good. It used to exist in abundance. Nobody’s done it for 55 years. What you have to do is reconceptualize the whole problem in terms of variation, that is the full house, the full range of variation.

When you do that, you realize the following: The average batting average has never changed. It’s always been around 260. It fluctuates back and forth, but it stays around 260. And that’s not an absolute measure like running a mile or throwing a javelin; 260 is a balance between hitting and pitching. The fact that it’s stayed 260 only shows that the balance has been maintained. I say it’s been maintained as everyone has gotten better. Hitting’s gotten better. Pitching’s gotten better. Everything’s gotten better. The balance remains the same. Now as everything gets better, the variation shrinks. That’s all that happens. There’s a right wall of human limits based on how tall we are and our musculature. Nobody’s ever going to hit a ball a mile or pitch it 200 miles an hour.

Ty Cobb was standing right next to the right wall in 1910, but the average level of play was so much worse, he was so much better than the average that his hitting could be measured as 420. Today, everybody’s gotten enormously better. Wade Boggs a few years ago, Tony Gwyn today. They’re standing in the same place Ty Cobb was, an inch from the wall. The best players are always there, but everyone is so much better now that the average has moved right next to them. So their performance, which is equal to Cobb’s, is now measured as three forty or three fifty. So, in other words, the disappearance of 400 hitting paradoxically is measuring the general improvement of play and not as we always thought the exact opposite of the disappearance of batting skills. But you’ve got to have that full house perspective.

cool info, thanks!

[Seattle1]

cool info, thanks!

No problem, I really think Gould was right.

So, if guys like Wade Boggs, Tony Gwynn, and Ichiro Suzuki had been able to go back in time and play in MLB during 1910-1930 with the same abilities that they had/have at the peaks of their careers, it's likely that they would be capable of hitting .400+ too.

[fenrir]

i guess i should start giving modern players more credit. im usually harsh on most of them. i'll probably move a few of them up in my rankings.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Your dates are a bit off HWR. For Boggs you got him in 163 team games. The actual dates are 6/13/85 to 6/8/86 in which he an average of .400 in 160 games played.

For Gwynn you have him down for 165 team games.

If you go from 7/4/93 to 7/2/94 I believe you get 162 team games and a .402 batting average for Gwynn.

So these "hidden" .400 seasons are based on 162 team games and not 162 games played by Boggs and Gywnn? From 4/4/93-7/2/94 Gwynn didn't play 162 games.

[AznInvasion]

Oh yeah..Ichiro draws a ton of walks :crazy

I didn't say that he did. He doesn't need to. His approach is good though. :mad:

[dgarza]

The strike hit on August 11th, 1994 and Gwynn was hitting .394. In 2000, Todd Helton had a higher BA later than August 12th.

August 18th: .399
August 30th: .395

Also in 2000, Nomar hit the .400 mark several times in July, later in the season than either Gwynn or Helton did.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Also in 2000, Nomar hit the .400 mark several times in July, later in the season than either Gwynn or Helton did.
I checked Nomar's 2000 season. He was above .400 as late as July 20th. But he cooled of in August. August 7th was his last day above .390. I think being at .399 on August 18th is more impressive than being at .400 on July 20th.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Smaller parks on average today, less area for balls to drop in front of outfielders who on average now play more shallow and on average are much faster than the average outfielder of years ago.

Today it's the long ball. With more hitters going for the long ball there are less contact hitters, more strikeouts. Going back before Ted Williams and his .406 in 1941 there was a great number of contact hitters which began a slow decline ( in contact hitters) in the mid 1930s.

Look at these fielders flashing leather, infielders and outfielders, bigger gloves and these guys can fly. Imagine the hits they take away. Infielders making unbelievable stops and amazing throws some coming from short left field.I watch these guys on ESPN highlights and can hardly believe what I'm seeing

I would think pitching figures in but the three reasons above are pretty obvious to me.

[Imapotato]

how come no modern player has ever hit 400? is it the quality of play? ive always been curious about this. i don't know much about stats, but it seems to me that the highest ba hitters of alltime were players who played 60-70+ years ago. im curious to know why.

OOPS, Joe said it before I did...stay out of my head Joe!

because ballparks were actually decent in its dimensions, plus the ball was softer.

Nowadays you have a tighter wound ball and tighter bats...so more popups occur, and with faster athletes covering less ground with huge butterfly nets...well you get the idea

The massive amount of HRs have taken .50 off Batting averages and added 2.00 runs on to pitchers ERA almost

[RuthMayBond]

The massive amount of HRs have taken .50 off Batting averagesCould you expound on this please?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

OOPS, Joe said it before I did...stay out of my head Joe!
because ballparks were actually decent in its dimensions, plus the ball was softer.

Nowadays you have a tighter wound ball and tighter bats...so more popups occur, and with faster athletes covering less ground with huge butterfly nets...well you get the idea

The massive amount of HRs have taken .50 off Batting averages and added 2.00 runs on to pitchers ERA almost

Thats fine, been in that position myself more than one time.

[four tool]

four tool,
See post #14.

If split years count, we have to redo all the records, HR, SB, etc. etc.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

If split years count, we have to redo all the records, HR, SB, etc. etc.
I don't think anyone really considers these legit .400 seasons in the traditional sense. It's more like evidence that in their primes Wade Boggs and Tony Gwynn were capable of hitting .400.

[digglahhh]

To echo a couple of the other posters - and to rebut Gould, whom I almost always disagree with - in matters of baseball, anyway, I feel that the most important factors are external/technological.

The ballparks are a huge factor. Cavernous dimensions mean more fair ground for OFs to cover. Sure, some long outs become homers, but fewer fly balls and liners fall in for hits. Since these make up a greater percentage of batted balls than prospective homers do, I can only assume the bigger parks take more singles and doubles away than the homers they create.

The evolution of equipment and the fine manicuring and upkeep of the field are two other factors. So you have ball taking true hops and outfielders tracking balls on pristine pastures with larger gloves than the past. The effects of predominantly night games as opposed to predominantly day games should be considered too.

Additionally, you have advanced scouting reports on the tendencies of hitters and constant handedness platoon switches. I wonder about the tendencies of official scorers as well.

Of course, when Teddy Ballgame hit .406 in '41 he had a disadvantage to contend with. From '39-'53 (most of Ted's career) MLB did away with the sacrifice fly rule, so all sac flies were outs. I believe Williams would have hit .412 with the sac fly rule in place.

[PVNICK]

The ballparks are a huge factor. Cavernous dimensions mean more fair ground for OFs to cover. Sure, some long outs become homers, but fewer fly balls and liners fall in for hits. Since these make up a greater percentage of batted balls than prospective homers do, I can only assume the bigger parks take more singles and doubles away than the homers they create.

Can you repeat that again but slowly?

[digglahhh]

Can you repeat that again but slowly?

Larger dimensions in the outfield mean more square footage of fair territory. That means more ground for the OF to cover, which means more room for batted balls to fall in. If you shorten the dimensions, you will increase the amount of balls that are hit over the fence, but you also decrease the amount of territory and OF has to cover, so less batted balls will fall in for hits.

Since fewer balls are hit HR type distance than are hit in the general field of play, a batter may very well lose more singles to smaller outfields than he gains homers to shorter fences. The odds point to such an outcome.

Another really important effect of the small field is that the OF positioning becomes less important. Basically any ball not hit over an OFs head, not into the very corner, and not hit by a speedster is a double. OFs can cheat in, and the short wall will stop a ball before it rolls far and long enough for the batter to earn a triple. With a larger OF the fielder more often has to make a decision to protect against the extra base hit, but risk conceding a single. In most of today's parks, it is almost always worth it to cheat. The smaller parks, all around, minimize the detriment of poor outfield play, and don't really penalize being overzealous to stop that single (Tori Hunter in last year's ALDS aside).

In a really bad analogy it is kind of like being near to goal line in football. Theoretically much easier to score, but much more difficult to "find a seam" in the defense, as it is more concentrated into a smaller area.

If the entire game was played from 10 yard line, scoring would increase, but you would still be making the game easier for the defense.

[Ubiquitous]

Except ball in play average has been pretty consistent from year to year.

Secondly the period from 1993 on has been the highest it has been since they kept track of the SF.

When Cobb and others were cracking .400 the BIPAVG was probably around .285. Last year in the AL it was .305

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Larger dimensions in the outfield mean more square footage of fair territory. That means more ground for the OF to cover, which means more room for batted balls to fall in. If you shorten the dimensions, you will increase the amount of balls that are hit over the fence, but you also decrease the amount of territory and OF has to cover, so less batted balls will fall in for hits.

Since fewer balls are hit HR type distance than are hit in the general field of play, a batter may very well lose more singles to smaller outfields than he gains homers to shorter fences. The odds point to such an outcome.

Another really important effect of the small field is that the OF positioning becomes less important. Basically any ball not hit over an OFs head, not into the very corner, and not hit by a speedster is a double. OFs can cheat in, and the short wall will stop a ball before it rolls far and long enough for the batter to earn a triple. With a larger OF the fielder more often has to make a decision to protect against the extra base hit, but risk conceding a single. In most of today's parks, it is almost always worth it to cheat. The smaller parks, all around, minimize the detriment of poor outfield play, and don't really penalize being overzealous to stop that single (Tori Hunter in last year's ALDS aside).

In a really bad analogy it is kind of like being near to goal line in football. Theoretically much easier to score, but much more difficult to "find a seam" in the defense, as it is more concentrated into a smaller area.

If the entire game was played from 10 yard line, scoring would increase, but you would still be making the game easier for the defense.

Agree in part but lets not leave out where it all starts, in the batters box. It's the long ball, the more free swingers the less contact the more strikeouts. Ted Williams the last of the .400 hitters and course a slugger but he was an exception. He would seldom swing at a pitch off the plate and had it all, great eye and quick reflexes.

Again I go back to another factor, maybe not that big but a part of it. The guys in the field, speed infielders and outfielders. I see more infielders throwing out runners from behind the bag, from short left and right field in a couple of days than I saw in dozens of games years ago.

Smaller parks yes but don't forget all the free swingers and the glove men.They all factor in.

[AznInvasion]

Todd Helton came close in 2000.

[digglahhh]

Joe,

I agree. And I was going to bring up BABIP, which Ubi used to ding me. The increased K totals are a problem because of the sheer law of averages that states that some batted balls, even those not struck well, will become hits. Again, though, as will become a big part of my point to Ubi, this question is only really relevant to a handful of players, potential .400 hitters. Ryan Howard racking up 200Ks doesn't impact Ichiro's 50Ks his chances at hitting .400 with 50Ks.

Ubi,

I understand your point, but a few rebuttals. One, the overall BABIP is not entirely relevant to the notion of one individual, or a very select group of individuals' chance(s) to hit .400. The question at hand is only really applicable to to best hitters for average of the last sixty years. The characteristics I cited are applicable. If other things have canceled them out, and done so league-wide, that is another matter.

The overall BABIP of the league is only tangentially relevant because the potential .400 guys don't have the control over it that, say, bottom third, of hitters do, as a group. Plus, the BABIP is the result of the factors that compose it. All the things I said could be fair and valid, and actually hurting the prospect of the elite modern AVG hitters from hitting .300, yet issues like overall league quality could be moving in their own direction independent of the effect of the modern game on potential .400 hitters, and yielding overall BABIPs similar to past years.

All this is a long and convoluted way to say that the BABIP number does not invalidate my claim because it is doesn't necessarily isolate the variables in question.

I suspect you may provide some BABIP numbers for elite AVG hitters over several eras. I'd be curious to see it - though it wouldn't exactly serve as prima facie evidence to disprove my claim either. It is kind of like looking at two schools in different districts, with different course materiasl and difficulty levels, seeing that both districts maintain a similar GPA, we can't really make judgments about the intelligence of the smartest students in eahc respective group from the data we've been given.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Ok, let's list current players that you feel have the best shot at hitting .400.

Ichiro
Pujols

...and that's it for my list...:nod:

[DoubleX]

There's a lot of reasons, one I think should be highlighted is ballpark size. Ballparks are generally much smaller than they used to be, meaning OFers have to cover much less ground. In older ballparks, the gaps were much bigger, and thus easier for hitters to "hit em were they ain't."