OT: Perhaps the Greatest Single Game Feat in the History of Baseball

[RegisteredUconn]

Years ago, I was watching a game on TV between the Phillies and (maybe) the Pirates. On an infield out, Pete Rose scored from third. But Gary Maddox ALSO scored from second without benefit of an error. It was the hustle play of “for ever.”

In a minor league game, I saw a pitcher set down the side on nine straight strikes, NONE of which were fouled off. Never saw it happen again at any level.

Go Phils!!

 

[RegisteredUconn]

I would also argue that Ed Delahanty's four HR's, on July 13, 1896 which included 2, yes 2 inside the park HR's comes awful close to being the greatest hitting feat ever. His is the only 4 homer day in MBL history that includes even one inside the park HR's.

Only 18 have ever hit four out (OK, Delahanty didn't actually knock all of his out) in a single game, but this is one those remarkable achievements that is increasing in frequency. Someday we may see a five HR game.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

As well as being a Yankee fan, I was also a Pirates fan in the late 50’s and early 60’s. I listened to many Pirates games on KDKA with a portable radio tucked under my pillow trying to muffle the static. KDKA was a powerful station, but reception in New England was still spotty in those days.

At any rate, I listened to that game, which was played in Milwaukee, as well as many other Pirates games in those days. By the time they got to the 10th inning it sounded as if the Braves fans were actually pulling for Haddix to keep it going and the cheers for him kept growing with each inning. It’s a virtual certainty that this will never be duplicated. One of the things that made that night so remarkable was that Haddix was not a star pitcher, but a journeyman 4-5 starter.

I remember listening to Jim Bunning's perfect game on the car radio as I was headed to the shore (or Jersey shore for those of you not from the state). I had to pull over and stop to make sure I didn't miss anything for the last two innings or so. Admittedly, the game was against the Mets and they weren't exactly top tier competition in 1964, but don't forget, this is the Phillies we're talking about. I was absolutely certain they would find a way to screw it up. Lest you think I may be in need of a screwdriver ("screw loose" get it?), '64 was the year the "fightin' Phils" held a 6.5 game lead with 12 left to play. Vegas stopped taking bets on them. Their subsequent ten-game losing streak cost them the pennant and started the rumor that the team would be moving to the Philippines and renamed the Manila Folders.

 

[JordyG]

Only 18 have ever hit four out (OK, Delahanty didn't actually knock all of his out) in a single game, but this is one those remarkable achievements that is increasing in frequency. Someday we may see a five HR game.

How many no hitters are there in history? Granted Haddox's is quite special indeed, but Delahanty's included, again, not one, but 2 inside the park homers. Perhaps the single most exciting hit in baseball. No one else even has one inside the park homers in their 4 homer games. Plus this feat hasn't had anyone come close in 122 years. To me his feat is singular.

Now, I agree that perhaps with today's slew of free swingers a 5 homer game is possible. But 2 inside the park homers? C'mon.

 

[willtalk]

Gotta love mods with a sense of humor. I was on a board many years ago in which the mods replaced the word "sex" with "lichen." It was quite humorous when the occasional spam made it past the filters.

The proper term to use would be Zug Zug.

 

[Bronx23]

I was lucky enough to see Haddix and most of his Pirate teammates in person in the early 60's. I saw all of his teammates mentioned in that piece at some point during my youth. I got to see Mays (many times, my favorite player of all time), Spahn, Marichal and even Stan "the man" Musial.

Mays was also IMO the greatest player to ever play the game. While I didn't see DiMaggio, Mays did everything and extremely well. We used to argue Mays vs. Mantle all the time. How about Mays' unbelievable catch running towards the fences with no view of home plate or the ball.
What also popped into my head was seeing Minnie Minoso stealing home. I just looked it up and while it's much less frequent than it used to be (still very infrequent back when) I was surprised that it still happens. Ty Cobb I think I just read had 54 in his career and the record eight in a season. Jackie Robinson seemingly had the best career percentage of steals of home over 60%.
Read and truly enjoyed each post but Cloninger seems the standout as it was from both pitching and hitting. Very rarely happens in the game and now we have Ohtani doing it.
Sorry that much of this is off the point but it got me thinking.
Bronx23

 

[Bigboote]

"What also popped into my head was seeing Minnie Minoso stealing home. I just looked it up and while it's much less frequent than it used to be (still very infrequent back when) I was surprised that it still happens. Ty Cobb I think I just read had 54 in his career and the record eight in a season. Jackie Robinson seemingly had the best career percentage of steals of home over 60%."

Rod Carew stole home SEVEN times in 1969. In one game, he got an infield single (maybe a bunt single?), stole second, third then home -- and that wasn't the only time he did that.

 

[BlueDolphin]

My college roommate at RPI was from Pittsburgh. Through some atmospheric quirk that night we got the Pittsburgh broadcast of the Haddix game in our freshman dorm room. Poor roomie almost died when Harvey lost both the perfect game and the game itself.

The following year we were still roommates, now in a fraternity. He did much better that year when the Pirates won it all on the Maz HR. This after many years of being the worst team in the league. After he passed out from ingestion of spiritous liquors I had to carry him upstairs and tuck him into bed.

Ah, the ups and downs of sports fans!

 

[connie]

I would also argue that Ed Delahanty's four HR's, on July 13, 1896 which included 2, yes 2 inside the park HR's comes awful close to being the greatest hitting feat ever. His is the only 4 homer day in MBL history that includes even one inside the park HR's.

Just a comment (and this broadly applies to just about every post I've seen here). Absent a comparison to contemporaneous performances, statistics (most HRs in a game, Ks in game, most HRs in a season, etc.) are of limited utility in telling us about the "greatest" game, greatest season, etc. Statistical comparisons should account for rule changes, changes in how the game is played, changes in technique, changes in pools of talent, etc. Case in point is statistics for shutouts in a career. Yes, it is impressive that Walter Johnson threw 113, and that Clayton Kershaw would have to pitch for another 140+ years to match that. But then, pitchers in Johnson's day did not pitch as consistently hard as they do today (because they didn't have to). Nor did they face the level of talent as exist in today's game. Johnson pitched in the dead ball era, and at a time when the same ball was used throughout a game, becoming beat up and dirty. Pitchers like Johnson also did not wreck their arms by throwing specialty pitches. And of course the game in Johnson's day did not entail middle relievers, closers, and all those in between. So, while Johnson's career shutouts are impressive, they are not impressive because today pitchers only throw 1-2 Shutouts a year. It is because among the pitchers of his time (many of whom threw a dozen shutouts a season), he was one of the best.

As for Delahanty . . . His feat is impressive, but not necessarily for the reason cited. In the year in question, he tied for the league lead in HRs that season with 13. He hit 4 of those in 1 of the Phillies' 130 games. That a player could lead the league in HRs by hitting 13, while getting 4 of those in one game is, itself, remarkable. But I think that tells us something about the approach players took toward hitting (among other things) in the 1890s. That two of Delahanty's four HRs were inside the park is not necessarily as impressive as might first appear. The reason is because the rules allowed fielders to chase balls beyond given barriers. One of Delahanty's HRs was hit over a lower bleacher fence, yet in front of the wall. This required the fielder to chase the ball into the bleachers. Delahanty raced around the basis and the hit was scored as an inside the park HR. The other "inside-the-park" shot actually landed on the roof of a center field clubhouse--located within the park's furthest outfield wall, and thus technically scored as an inside the park HR. Modern parks make inside the park HRs much more difficult than in the earlier part of the 20th century. This is one of the reasons why career leaders in inside the park HRs are pretty much all from the early days of baseball.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

How many no hitters are there in history? Granted Haddox's is quite special indeed, but Delahanty's included, again, not one, but 2 inside the park homers. Perhaps the single most exciting hit in baseball. No one else even has one inside the park homers in their 4 homer games. Plus this feat hasn't had anyone come close in 122 years. To me his feat is singular.

Now, I agree that perhaps with today's slew of free swingers a 5 homer game is possible. But 2 inside the park homers? C'mon.

No disputing that 4 HRs with 2 inside-the-park is an amazing (and unique) achievement. Whether it's greater than the Haddix game is certainly a matter or opinion.

One itsy-bitsy issue with the Delahanty performance is that inside the park HRs were more prevalent in bygone days. Apparently many parks didn't have fences and the ones that did may have been farther away than today's stadiums. The park that Delahanty hits his in was 504 feet to center field. Here's an article with some interesting info, including that Dick Allen hit two in 1972.
https://www.quora.com/How-many-time...-park-home-runs-in-the-same-major-league-game

 

[JordyG]

No disputing that 4 HRs with 2 inside-the-park is an amazing (and unique) achievement. Whether it's greater than the Haddix game is certainly a matter or opinion.

One itsy-bitsy issue with the Delahanty performance is that inside the park HRs were more prevalent in bygone days. Apparently many parks didn't have fences and the ones that did may have been farther away than today's stadiums. The park that Delahanty hits his in was 504 feet to center field. Here's an article with some interesting info, including that Dick Allen hit two in 1972.
https://www.quora.com/How-many-time...-park-home-runs-in-the-same-major-league-game

Honestly though that just makes his feat even more impressive since his other two had to be well struck to clear the fences. Also, no one but the hitters complained about the dimensions of old Yankee Stadium. Besides, park dimensions shrunk during the age of domed stadiums and they're not about to go back to those times.

 

[JordyG]

Just a comment (and this broadly applies to just about every post I've seen here). Absent a comparison to contemporaneous performances, statistics (most HRs in a game, Ks in game, most HRs in a season, etc.) are of limited utility in telling us about the "greatest" game, greatest season, etc. Statistical comparisons should account for rule changes, changes in how the game is played, changes in technique, changes in pools of talent, etc. Case in point is statistics for shutouts in a career. Yes, it is impressive that Walter Johnson threw 113, and that Clayton Kershaw would have to pitch for another 140+ years to match that. But then, pitchers in Johnson's day did not pitch as consistently hard as they do today (because they didn't have to). Nor did they face the level of talent as exist in today's game. Johnson pitched in the dead ball era, and at a time when the same ball was used throughout a game, becoming beat up and dirty. Pitchers like Johnson also did not wreck their arms by throwing specialty pitches. And of course the game in Johnson's day did not entail middle relievers, closers, and all those in between. So, while Johnson's career shutouts are impressive, they are not impressive because today pitchers only throw 1-2 Shutouts a year. It is because among the pitchers of his time (many of whom threw a dozen shutouts a season), he was one of the best.

As for Delahanty . . . His feat is impressive, but not necessarily for the reason cited. In the year in question, he tied for the league lead in HRs that season with 13. He hit 4 of those in 1 of the Phillies' 130 games. That a player could lead the league in HRs by hitting 13, while getting 4 of those in one game is, itself, remarkable. But I think that tells us something about the approach players took toward hitting (among other things) in the 1890s. That two of Delahanty's four HRs were inside the park is not necessarily as impressive as might first appear. The reason is because the rules allowed fielders to chase balls beyond given barriers. One of Delahanty's HRs was hit over a lower bleacher fence, yet in front of the wall. This required the fielder to chase the ball into the bleachers. Delahanty raced around the basis and the hit was scored as an inside the park HR. The other "inside-the-park" shot actually landed on the roof of a center field clubhouse--located within the park's furthest outfield wall, and thus technically scored as an inside the park HR. Modern parks make inside the park HRs much more difficult than in the earlier part of the 20th century. This is one of the reasons why career leaders in inside the park HRs are pretty much all from the early days of baseball.

One interesting fact that many people seem to gloss over is how the strike zone has shrink over the years and how umpires never call a strike for pitches just under the armpits and just below the knees. Also, pitchers pitch from a lower mound today. All of which benefits the hitter and forces pitchers to pitch more over the heart of the plate. Gloves today are bigger. The fields are well manicured (which bebefits both hitters and pitchers), bats are better.

Yes, inside the park HR's are easier, but almost every other rule change, including smaller ballparks, have benefited the hitter. It seems as if both of Delahanty's inside the park HR's would have been over the fence in today's smaller parks. Different game, different era. It still in my mind doesn't negate or diminuish the achievement. Nor does it change the fact that my favorite hitter was Willy, and my two favorite pitchers were Bob Gibson (Mr Nasty), andd Sandy Kovacs.

 

[stamfordhusky]

One of the things that made that night so remarkable was that Haddix was not a star pitcher, but a journeyman 4-5 starter.

Haddix definitely wasn't a star - but to call him a journeyman 4-5 starter is a bit harsh. He didn't make it to the majors until Age 27 (1953), but he won 20 games that season. During his first three seasons with the Cardinals, he was their #1 starting pitcher each year. And in his first seven seasons - ending with 1959 when he pitched the perfect game - he won 93 games (13.3 wins per season). Averaged 30 starts per season with an ERA much better than average. For the '59 Pirates, he was the clear #3 starter (after Law and Friend), as he was the next two years as well.

The Pirates' 1960 World Championship was at least partly due to the 1959 trade involving Haddix. In exchange for power hitter Frank Thomas and a few journeymen, the Pirates got back Don Hoak, who was 2nd in the MVP voting the next year, plus Haddix, who was a good #3 starter, and Smokey Burgess, who hit over .300 as the Bucs' starting catcher over the next four years.

 

[connie]

One interesting fact that many people seem to gloss over is how the strike zone has shrink over the years and how umpires never call a strike for pitches just under the armpits and just below the knees. Also, pitchers pitch from a lower mound today. All of which benefits the hitter and forces pitchers to pitch more over the heart of the plate. Gloves today are bigger. The fields are well manicured (which bebefits both hitters and pitchers), bats are better.

Yes, inside the park HR's are easier, but almost every other rule change, including smaller ballparks, have benefited the hitter. It seems as if both of Delahanty's inside the park HR's would have been over the fence in today's smaller parks. Different game, different era. It still in my mind doesn't negate or diminuish the achievement. Nor does it change the fact that my favorite hitter was Willy, and my two favorite pitchers were Bob Gibson (Mr Nasty), andd Sandy Kovacs.

Over the years many changes, including rule changes, have been implemented to foster a perceived balance between hitting and pitching. The success of the strategy is borne out by one of the most awe-inspiring statistics almost never cited in popular baseball discourse: since the inception of the live-ball era, the overall batting average for each year for all players has remained around .260 to .265 (with some obvious slight variation above and below),while the standard deviation has decreased rather steadily. What do we learn from this? Simple: the difference between the best and the worst has decreased. Meanwhile, the overall performance of all players has unquestionably increased. This is why it is quite arguably more impressive for a "good" player today to hit, say, .310 than it is for a "great" player from the 1930s to hit .350.

Bob Gibson was surely one of the great pitchers of his era. And his 1968 season may have been his best. But people repeatedly misconceive the significance of his 1.12 ERA. As a raw number, the figure seems incomprehensible when compared to ERAs of other pitchers over the decades. But in the context of 1968 (and the few years leading up to it), it is only 1 of 7 ERAs among starters less than 2.00. (This lead to the lowering of the mound, as everyone knows, in order to tilt the advantage back in favor of hitters.) Compare with Pedro Martinez' year 2000 campaign. Pedro ended the year with a 1.74 ERA. The next closest starter in the AL was Clemens, with a 3.70 ERA. This means that Martinez allowed almost 2 fewer earned runs per 9 innings pitched than the next closest starter in the league--a figure that is far more impressive than Gibson's feat in 1968. People often speak of Martinez's year as among the best in baseball history, alongside Gibson's. I think there is a good argument that it isn't even close, particularly considering the fact that players were generally better in 2000 than 32 years earlier. Many, many other factors to consider, however.

The point is that raw numbers and magical whole numbers ("30 wins"; ".400" BA; "300 KOs"; etc.) tell us little outside of context.

 

[JordyG]

Well Connie, to me that batting average statistic is a bit misleading. Ballparks became smaller, the strike zone decreased, and more importantly, more people from other countries were included, rather allowed, to play the game at the major league level. It could be argued that if such players were allowed to play at the beginning of the live ball era those numbers would be commensurate. Also, let's not forget my original conceit, that Delahanty's feat which occurred during that dead ball era is as great a feat as any equivalent today in an era of a live BB, smaller parks and bigger gloves.

Now don't get me wrong. Today's athletes are bigger, faster, stronger, and better conditioned. Better condition year round using better techniques to hone their skills. I just don't think a player hitting .350 then is the equivalent of .310 today. Not with better and "live-er" bats, balls, artificial surfaces, Dan Hurley's, lower mounds, and shrunken strike zones. I just think .310 then and .310 today are just that: the same averages in different eras.

As for your comparative pitching numbers, well I agree. Nevertheless, you can't have it both ways. You can't say .350 from Delahanty's era is equivalent to .310 in the modern era, then acknowledge the inflated hitting numbers that occured because the mounds were lowered. In fact, it seems the other way 'round. I do agree with your final observation that raw numbers say little without context.

Man, this stuff is why I linger on the BY and practically no other site. People like you.

By the way, as a music lover I know you'll appreciate that fact that last night three friends and I attended Sullivan Fortner and his trio with Ambrose Akinmusrie. Just extremely high level, intellectual jazz. Incredible. June 1 it'll be just me watching Joey DeFrancesco and his band organ groover band.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Perhaps the best numbers to compare eras are the relativity numbers (ERA+) in Baseball-Reference. Pedro's spectacular 1.74 ERA has a 291 +/- ranking, which means that ERA is about 1/3 of the average ERA in the league. That is the best season by a starting pitcher since 1900 as compared to his peers. Gibson's 1968 ERA btw is the 4th best season, in relative terms, in the last 100 years. The career leader is Clayton Kershaw at 160, edging out Pedro's 154. If RP's are included, Mariano blows away the field with a 205, meaning his career ERA was less than half of the league average for his era.

The two best career hitters as measured by OPS+ are Babe Ruth and Ted Williams. The best active hitter, by a wide margin, is Mike Trout, not surprisingly. Many would probably be surprised by which hitter is #2 of active players.

 

[connie]

Well Connie, to me that batting average statistic is a bit misleading. Ballparks became smaller, the strike zone decreased, and more importantly, more people from other countries were included, rather allowed, to play the game at the major league level. It could be argued that if such players were allowed to play at the beginning of the live ball era those numbers would be commensurate. Also, let's not forget my original conceit, that Delahanty's feat which occurred during that dead ball era is as great a feat as any equivalent today in an era of a live BB, smaller parks and bigger gloves.

Now don't get me wrong. Today's athletes are bigger, faster, stronger, and better conditioned. Better condition year round using better techniques to hone their skills. I just don't think a player hitting .350 then is the equivalent of .310 today. Not with better and "live-er" bats, balls, artificial surfaces, Dan Hurley's, lower mounds, and shrunken strike zones. I just think .310 then and .310 today are just that: the same averages in different eras.

As for your comparative pitching numbers, well I agree. Nevertheless, you can't have it both ways. You can't say .350 from Delahanty's era is equivalent to .310 in the modern era, then acknowledge the inflated hitting numbers that occured because the mounds were lowered. In fact, it seems the other way 'round. I do agree with your final observation that raw numbers say little without context.

Man, this stuff is why I linger on the BY and practically no other site. People like you.

By the way, as a music lover I know you'll appreciate that fact that last night three friends and I attended Sullivan Fortner and his trio with Ambrose Akinmusrie. Just extremely high level, intellectual jazz. Incredible. June 1 it'll be just me watching Joey DeFrancesco and his band organ groover band.

The statistic I cite is not in the slightest bit misleading. It is supremely illuminating. For roughly 90 years, the overall BA among all players has tended around .262, with the standard deviation around that number shrinking steadily. This reflects what you would expect in any system of competition that evolves by conferring success upon those who are bigger, faster, stronger and smarter. If the system is limited as to pool of available talent, then the biggest, fastest, strongest and smartest will dominate the competition because the competition is statistically unlikely to present comparable specimens. The best are able to destroy the competition. Open the doors to more candidates, and suddenly there are a lot more big, fast, strong, smart candidates. That fosters sharper competition, with a tightening of the difference between best and worst. In this respect you are absolutely correct to observe that had the pool of available candidates been allowed to play MLB in the early days of baseball, then it is likely that the standard deviation around the overall BA among all players would be lower. But that simply proves the point: with a greater pool of talent comes increased overall excellence among all players. Better pitchers, better hitters, better fielders.

The advent of bigger gloves, superior fields, tighter balls and the like does not change the significance of the above. It actually amplifies it. Bigger gloves give the advantage to the defense. Superior fields (carefully groomed infields and the like) can cut in both directions--greater predictability on balls that are hit and better footing (favoring the D), sharper and faster bounce (perhaps favoring D, perhaps not). Shorter fences allows for more HRs. But it also keeps the ball closer to home when it doesn't clear the fence-- one reason why no one will ever hit 36 triples in one season, as did Chief Wilson in 1912. Lower mound helps the hitter. But then, today's approach to pitching includes higher velocity and greater variety in pitch type; meanwhile, hitters rarely see the same pitcher more than 3 times in a game, often not even that. Managers bring in specialty pitchers for specific occasions. Teams track hitters' tendencies, preferences and strike zone success. Fielders regularly position themselves in response to each hitter in a way that they rarely did 60 years ago. A hitter may see two lefties and three righties in a single game. Today's fielders are also remarkably acrobatic compared to the players of 75 years ago.

So, in this respect, there is no question that hitting .310 today can be understood as every bit as impressive (if not more so) as hitting .350 in the 1920s. Think about it. George Sisler hit .407 in 1920. Are you saying that if a player today hit .407 that would reflect a comparable achievement? Even if Sisler were able to travel in time to 2018, and was given every advantage while growing up to be groomed as an MLB player, can anyone really believe that he would ever hit .407 (or anywhere near that) playing in the majors today?

 

[connie]

Perhaps the best numbers to compare eras are the relativity numbers (ERA+) in Baseball-Reference. Pedro's spectacular 1.74 ERA has a 291 +/- ranking, which means that ERA is about 1/3 of the average ERA in the league. That is the best season by a starting pitcher since 1900 as compared to his peers. Gibson's 1968 ERA btw is the 4th best season, in relative terms, in the last 100 years. The career leader is Clayton Kershaw at 160, edging out Pedro's 154. If RP's are included, Mariano blows away the field with a 205, meaning his career ERA was less than half of the league average for his era.

The two best career hitters as measured by OPS+ are Babe Ruth and Ted Williams. The best active hitter, by a wide margin, is Mike Trout, not surprisingly. Many would probably be surprised by which hitter is #2 of active players.

Interesting. But the OPS+ stat. for career shows how much "better" Ruth and Williams were relative to the competition during their careers. As the difference between best and worse narrows, and as overall excellence among all players increases over time, the highest OPS+ would become lower over time, right? In that respect, I question how much OPS+ can tell us when comparing different players competing in different eras (and this assumes exterior conditions, such as rules, pretty much stay the same). This is not posed as a criticism. Just trying to understand what the statistic can tell us, and how we can avoid being misled by it.

 

[connie]

Man, this stuff is why I linger on the BY and practically no other site. People like you

"I'm not worthy. I'm not worthy."

 

[JordyG]

The statistic I cite is not in the slightest bit misleading. It is supremely illuminating. For roughly 90 years, the overall BA among all players has tended around .262, with the standard deviation around that number shrinking steadily. This reflects what you would expect in any system of competition that evolves by conferring success upon those who are bigger, faster, stronger and smarter. If the system is limited as to pool of available talent, then the biggest, fastest, strongest and smartest will dominate the competition because the competition is statistically unlikely to present comparable specimens. The best are able to destroy the competition. Open the doors to more candidates, and suddenly there are a lot more big, fast, strong, smart candidates. That fosters sharper competition, with a tightening of the difference between best and worst. In this respect you are absolutely correct to observe that had the pool of available candidates been allowed to play MLB in the early days of baseball, then it is likely that the standard deviation around the overall BA among all players would be lower. But that simply proves the point: with a greater pool of talent comes increased overall excellence among all players. Better pitchers, better hitters, better fielders.

The advent of bigger gloves, superior fields, tighter balls and the like does not change the significance of the above. It actually amplifies it. Bigger gloves give the advantage to the defense. Superior fields (carefully groomed infields and the like) can cut in both directions--greater predictability on balls that are hit and better footing (favoring the D), sharper and faster bounce (perhaps favoring D, perhaps not). Shorter fences allows for more HRs. But it also keeps the ball closer to home when it doesn't clear the fence-- one reason why no one will ever hit 36 triples in one season, as did Chief Wilson in 1912. Lower mound helps the hitter. But then, today's approach to pitching includes higher velocity and greater variety in pitch type; meanwhile, hitters rarely see the same pitcher more than 3 times in a game, often not even that. Managers bring in specialty pitchers for specific occasions. Teams track hitters' tendencies, preferences and strike zone success. Fielders regularly position themselves in response to each hitter in a way that they rarely did 60 years ago. A hitter may see two lefties and three righties in a single game. Today's fielders are also remarkably acrobatic compared to the players of 75 years ago.

So, in this respect, there is no question that hitting .310 today can be understood as every bit as impressive (if not more so) as hitting .350 in the 1920s. Think about it. George Sisler hit .407 in 1920. Are you saying that if a player today hit .407 that would reflect a comparable achievement? Even if Sisler were able to travel in time to 2018, and was given every advantage while growing up to be groomed as an MLB player, can anyone really believe that he would ever hit .407 (or anywhere near that) playing in the majors today?

Again, much of what you say I agree with. Increasing the player pool in 1920 to black and Latino players you would have had commensurate numbers.

Yet, bigger, stronger, faster doesn't necessarily mean higher averages, and I disagree that today's players are smarter. Steroids make you bigger, stronger and faster, yet a no expert will tell you it increases averages. A great batting eye is a great batting eye. Great hand/eye coordination transcends eras. Bigger and stronger will make the ball go further, no doubt. Shorter fences increases the number of homers, no doubt, and averages are hurt by better fielders and gloves. But in the dead ball days you had to choke up and get the single, play the hit and run, steal bases, play a more cerebral game, because the ball didn't jump off the bat as today. With the larger parks of Sisler's era, yeah, you had no choice but to play the short game and spray the ball around the park. Players today don't even try to hit for average. Even the guy batting ninth swings from his heels. Are you saying that if a good young hitter took the attitude of a Sisler: Choke up, use the lines, use the gaps, step in front of pitches, chop the ball, bunt more, instead of overswinging, that he wouldn't approach the same numbers? For a guy like Sisler, it wouldn't matter how many different pitchers or pitching angles he'd see in one game. He's not going to try to beat you with the long ball, he's just going to make contact. Yes, I think with Sisler's approach and today's training techniques, if given a chance to play, he'd have a healthy average approaching his lifetime average.

Yes, today's pitchers have good velocity. I would argue about the variety of pitches. The use of grease and other additives I think was more prevalent back in those days, although the use of the slider has definitely increase during this era of ball. And yes, today's analytics and tracking has revolutionize sports. However, the strike zone shrinking has as much to do with today's HR's and good hitting as much as analytics and lowering the mound.

 

[connie]

Again, much of what you say I agree with. Increasing the player pool in 1920 to black and Latino players you would have had commensurate numbers.

Yet, bigger, stronger, faster doesn't necessarily mean higher averages, and I disagree that today's players are smarter. Steroids make you bigger, stronger and faster, yet a no expert will tell you it increases averages. A great batting eye is a great batting eye. Great hand/eye coordination transcends eras. Bigger and stronger will make the ball go further, no doubt. Shorter fences increases the number of homers, no doubt, and averages are hurt by better fielders and gloves. But in the dead ball days you had to choke up and get the single, play the hit and run, steal bases, play a more cerebral game, because the ball didn't jump off the bat as today. With the larger parks of Sisler's era, yeah, you had no choice but to play the short game and spray the ball around the park. Players today don't even try to hit for average. Even the guy batting ninth swings from his heels. Are you saying that if a good young hitter took the attitude of a Sisler: Choke up, use the lines, use the gaps, step in front of pitches, chop the ball, bunt more, instead of overswinging, that he wouldn't approach the same numbers? For a guy like Sisler, it wouldn't matter how many different pitchers or pitching angles he'd see in one game. He's not going to try to beat you with the long ball, he's just going to make contact. Yes, I think with Sisler's approach and today's training techniques, if given a chance to play, he'd have a healthy average approaching his lifetime average.

Yes, today's pitchers have good velocity. I would argue about the variety of pitches. The use of grease and other additives I think was more prevalent back in those days, although the use of the slider has definitely increase during this era of ball. And yes, today's analytics and tracking has revolutionize sports. However, the strike zone shrinking has as much to do with today's HR's and good hitting as much as analytics and lowering the mound.

And I say that without a single exception in every single sport in which human achievement can be measured against some absolute (such as a stop watch or distance), whether it is the shot put, 400m, marathon, 100M backstroke, high jump, long jum, weightlifting, you name it, over time all athletes (men and women) are better today than they were 50 years ago. They skate faster, jump higher, run quicker, lift more, throw farther. Why wouldn't the same be true of hitting, pitching, fielding in major league baseball? In that event, you've got better pitchers and better fielders, with greater access to information, and with more developed techniques creating greater challenges when competing against better hitters. Under these circumstances, I am confident that while Sisler may be competitive in today's game, perhaps even an All-Star, it is highly doubtful that he would ever hit anywhere near .400, or that he would have anywhere near a .340 lifetime BA. Seriously, Williams, Musial and Gwynn are the only MLB players playing since the 1930s in the top 30 for career BA. And only Williams had a lifetime BA higher than Sisler's .340. Since Williams and Musial retired, there are only 3 other hitters (Gwynn, Boggs Carew) in nearly 60 years who have cracked the top 50 for players with the highest lifetime BA.

That isn't because the players of yesteryear had better hand-eye coordination, were smarter, played harder, and didn't swing from the heels. It is because their considerable talents shone more brightly when competing against lesser stars within a smaller constellation.

Fun discussion.

 

[JordyG]

And I say that without a single exception in every single sport in which human achievement can be measured against some absolute (such as a stop watch or distance), whether it is the shot put, 400m, marathon, 100M backstroke, high jump, long jum, weightlifting, you name it, over time all athletes (men and women) are better today than they were 50 years ago. They skate faster, jump higher, run quicker, lift more, throw farther. Why wouldn't the same be true of hitting, pitching, fielding in major league baseball? In that event, you've got better pitchers and better fielders, with greater access to information, and with more developed techniques creating greater challenges when competing against better hitters. Under these circumstances, I am confident that while Sisler may be competitive in today's game, perhaps even an All-Star, it is highly doubtful that he would ever hit anywhere near .400, or that he would have anywhere near a .340 lifetime BA. Seriously, Williams, Musial and Gwynn are the only MLB players playing since the 1930s in the top 30 for career BA. And only Williams had a lifetime BA higher than Sisler's .340. Since Williams and Musial retired, there are only 3 other hitters (Gwynn, Boggs Carew) in nearly 60 years who have cracked the top 50 for players with the highest lifetime BA.

That isn't because the players of yesteryear had better hand-eye coordination, were smarter, played harder, and didn't swing from the heels. It is because their considerable talents shone more brightly when competing against lesser stars within a smaller constellation.

Fun discussion.

And Gywnn, Boggs, and Carew were not free swingers. During their careers many observed how "old school" their hitting techniques were.

Yes, and I acknowledge many of these improvements, especially where strength is involved (and a lot of those strength guys are and were on steroids). But where speed is involved, swimming, track, marathons, skating etc. much of the improvement can be put down to better training and equipment. In track alone the change from cinders to synthetic tracks improved times immeasurably. In marathons, well, that inclusion factor made the improvement leap more than quantum. In swimming the use of speedo's, training, heck what's even in the water made for vast improvements. Let us not forget that the use of steroids and PED's in T and F, swimming and many of these other sports contributed to many of these records; and still does. This doesn't mean that those athletes from yesteryear wouldn't benefit from these changes and excel.

I never said players from years ago had better eye/hand coordination. I said this factor doesn't change. Great coordination, be it eye/hand or body control, is the same across the ages. In these things Homo Sapien(sapiens) haven't changed at all.

Okay, I'm just going to shine your apple just a bit. Only you and some others (Scoop, UcMiami, MilfordHusky, CocoHusky, Kaizen, RSHERMVIKES, RockyMTblue, nwhoopfan, msf22b, bags27 and a few) have I been able to have fun in a discussion and in the Inbox, and learn some stuff without talking at each other. Like I said, 'preciate it like hell.

 

[mrmojack]

I can remember listening to that game on KDKA in Pittsburgh on my short wave radio.

 

[connie]

And Gywnn, Boggs, and Carew were not free swingers. During their careers many observed how "old school" their hitting techniques were.

Yes, and I acknowledge many of these improvements, especially where strength is involved (and a lot of those strength guys are and were on steroids). But where speed is involved, swimming, track, marathons, skating etc. much of the improvement can be put down to better training and equipment. In track alone the change from cinders to synthetic tracks improved times immeasurably. In marathons, well, that inclusion factor made the improvement leap more than quantum. In swimming the use of speedo's, training, heck what's even in the water made for vast improvements. Let us not forget that the use of steroids and PED's in T and F, swimming and many of these other sports contributed to many of these records; and still does. This doesn't mean that those athletes from yesteryear wouldn't benefit from these changes and excel.

I never said players from years ago had better eye/hand coordination. I said this factor doesn't change. Great coordination, be it eye/hand or body control, is the same across the ages. In these things Homo Sapien(sapiens) haven't changed at all.

Okay, I'm just going to shine your apple just a bit. Only you and some others (Scoop, UcMiami, MilfordHusky, CocoHusky, Kaizen, RSHERMVIKES, RockyMTblue, nwhoopfan, msf22b, bags27 and a few) have I been able to have fun in a discussion and in the Inbox, and learn some stuff without talking at each other. Like I said, 'preciate it like hell.

The athletes of yesteryear would certainly perform better, as a result of many of things you mentioned, had they played today. But in playing with and against today's contemporaries, their stats would suffer. Hornsby would be a better player. But he would not hit .424. Cobb would be a better player, but he would not hit .400 three times. Ruth would (probably) not hit 60 HRs. Pete Alexander would not pitch 16 shutouts in a season. But that is because all the other athletes one is playing against are generally better than those playing 80 years ago. One reason that competition is better now is because all the other players benefit from the things you mention. The other reason is because the pool of available talent is much larger. This is what I mean by referring to a decrease in the difference between best and worst, with an overall improvement in play. You see this in virtually every sport. It is an inevitable consequence of increasing competition, expanding pools of talent, and reaching the very limits of what flesh and bone can endure.

And this is why there is nothing particularly magical about hitting .400. Just depends on how good you are and (critically) who else is playing. The decline in the appearance of the .400 hitter is evidence that batters today are actually better than they used to be.

Enjoyed the weekend. Thanks, Jordy.

 

[j66kicker]

The athletes of yesteryear would certainly perform better, as a result of many of things you mentioned, had they played today. But in playing with and against today's contemporaries, their stats would suffer. Hornsby would be a better player. But he would not hit .424. Cobb would be a better player, but he would not hit .400 three times. Ruth would (probably) not hit 60 HRs. Pete Alexander would not pitch 16 shutouts in a season. But that is because all the other athletes one is playing against are generally better than those playing 80 years ago. One reason that competition is better now is because all the other players benefit from the things you mention. The other reason is because the pool of available talent is much larger. This is what I mean by referring to a decrease in the difference between best and worst, with an overall improvement in play. You see this in virtually every sport. It is an inevitable consequence of increasing competition, expanding pools of talent, and reaching the very limits of what flesh and bone can endure.

And this is why there is nothing particularly magical about hitting .400. Just depends on how good you are and (critically) who else is playing. The decline in the appearance of the .400 hitter is evidence that batters today are actually better than they used to be.

Enjoyed the weekend. Thanks, Jordy.

With today’s live ball and short fences Ruth might hit 80 HRs. With PEDs maybe 95

 

[78AlwaysHappy]

How about Rick Wise June 23 1971? Pitched a no-hitter against Cincinnati’s Big Red Machine, and also hit two home runs, driving in three of the Phillies four runs in a 4-0 win. Cloninger gave up seven hits and three runs in his nine innings. I’d say that perfmance tops Cloninger, in that he (Cloninger) was lucky - not skilled - that the bases were loaded when he hit his two out of the park. Philadelphia Phillies at Cincinnati Reds Box Score, June 23, 1971 | Baseball-Reference.com

 

[stwainfan]

Steve Carlton won 27 games in 1972. The Phillies only won 59 games that year. One of the best season a pitcher ever had.

 

[stamfordhusky]

With today’s live ball and short fences Ruth might hit 80 HRs. With PEDs maybe 95

There is no way to compare the 1927 ball to the 2018 ball - but Ruth got to take advantage of a number of short fences. His home park, for example, was 295 feet down the right field line and about 350 feet to right center. It was, of course, very long to center and left center - but most of Ruth's home runs were to right field. His previous Yankee home, the Polo Grounds, was 258 feet down the right field line - but went out sharply to right center and an impossibly long center field. Fenway Park, his Boston home, had a very short RF line but was fairly long in right center.

Of the away parks where he hit his most home runs, a number had short dimensions - shorter than those of today's parks. For example:

Shibe Park (PHI) - 329 right field line, 355 right center.
Sportsman's Park (STL) - 310 right field line, 335 right center.
League Park (CLE) - 290 right field, 314 right center.


But a bigger issue is that the pitchers of Ruth's day didn't throw nearly as hard and didn't throw sliders until a few at the end of his career. Further, there was little use of relief pitchers so he often got to face tiring starters late in the game.

 

[JordyG]

There is no way to compare the 1927 ball to the 2018 ball - but Ruth got to take advantage of a number of short fences. His home park, for example, was 295 feet down the right field line and about 350 feet to right center. It was, of course, very long to center and left center - but most of Ruth's home runs were to right field. His previous Yankee home, the Polo Grounds, was 258 feet down the right field line - but went out sharply to right center and an impossibly long center field. Fenway Park, his Boston home, had a very short RF line but was fairly long in right center.

Of the away parks where he hit his most home runs, a number had short dimensions - shorter than those of today's parks. For example:

Shibe Park (PHI) - 329 right field line, 355 right center.
Sportsman's Park (STL) - 310 right field line, 335 right center.
League Park (CLE) - 290 right field, 314 right center.


But a bigger issue is that the pitchers of Ruth's day didn't throw nearly as hard and didn't throw sliders until a few at the end of his career. Further, there was little use of relief pitchers so he often got to face tiring starters late in the game.

But there was much more use of "illegal" pitches in Ruth's day, and pitchers threw a lot more "junk" pitches. Although hitters see more pitchers per game now, hitters then were contact hitters. Pitchers threw less pitches than today where hitters 1-9 swing for the fences, and strike out more. Strikeouts mean more pitches. But yes, even the 1927 ball was a dead ball, not to mention the corked bats and PED users of today, as compared to today's ball. Also umpires were tyrants in those days, and they enforced a very wide strike zone. Let's also consider how this conversation started. Haddix threw 115 pitches in 13 innings. That's preposterous with the number of pitches a pitcher needs to throw today in a mere 6 or innings of play. Yet, even today if a pitcher finishes the 8th with under 90 pitches and he's pitching well he's going to go in the 9th.

 

[temery]

This has to be on the list of greatest baseball feats: