The Legitimacy of Major League Baseball's Records

Allow me to run a few of Major League baseball records by you all.


Single season number of games played

1962 Maury Wills 165


Single season number of At Bats

1980 Willie Wilson 705


Career Home Runs

Hank Aaron 755


Career RBI's

Hank Aaron 2297


Career Total Bases

Hank Aaron 6856


Career Stolen Bases

Ricky Henderson 1334


All of these players are Afro-American and set these records post 1948.


Here are some other records to ponder;


Career Batting Average

Ty Cobb .367


RBI's for a Single Season

Hack Wilson 191


Batting Avg Single Season

Hugh Duffey Rogers 1898 .438

Rogers Hornsby 1924 .424


Ok there are a lot more increbile pre 1948 records I could post but I think you all get the idea. In mind the pre 1948 records are extremely suspect not because the game has changed so much in terms of how it is played but who is playing in the game. You can't tell me that Afro-American players all of a sudden could play Major League baseball in 1948 and couldn't play in the early part of the century. Of course they were systematically denied the chance and in my mind the pre 1948 records in baseball have no legitimacy because of this.

Of course they were systematically denied the chance and in my mind the pre 1948 records in baseball have no legitimacy because of this.


the fact that these records still stand possibly refutes this claim.


all of those records are very impressive.


i dont think you should slight the players because of the politics of their era.

Good point. It really made a difference in terms of pitching quality too. I know a lot of bow tie purists will lament the demise of pitching, but in those days they had a high mound, big strike zone, no relief pitching, and little ability to repair a "sore-arm" pitcher. (How many guys pitched with chronic arm problems they could treat today because they didn't want to go work at a factory?) A good hitter would get a lot of at-bats against weak pitchers. The great pitchers must have been a nightmare to face with the big strike zone and dead ball, but the weak pitchers were worse than the weak pitchers today. And the guy who is now a great relief pitcher would have been a mediocre starter. When you factor in the loss of several great pitchers and many decent ones, some hitting records are suspect.


But I think it is highly unlikely that baseball historian types would ever allow an asterisk to be placed over any racism-tarnished record. They will cite the "continuity" of baseball records and the "purity" of baseball and all that blather. And there were undeniably great players in the pre-'48 era who would have succeeded against any competition. I'd like to think Ted Williams could have hit the same .406 against somewhat better pitching, but who really knows. Maybe he would have only hit .395 if he had to face some good pitchers from the Negro Leagues. We will never know, but we do know Williams was great. Same goes for other players.

Tom,


I always enjoy reading Bill James's comparisons among players from different eras because he seems to have developed a workable system for making valid comparisons.


In particular, though, I wonder how hitters of the past were able to achieve some of the numbers they did given the ghastly hittings backdrops they confronted daily. I also wonder about the conditions of the fields and how the size and shape of old ballparks affected the game. One record many historians say will never be broken is the single season mark for triples, which I think is 35, because of the shape and size of modern ballparks.


In addition, modern ballplayers don't have to play with injuries--and older players often played entire seasons with nagging injuries because they would lose both their spot in the lineup but, most important, their job if they didn't.


Finally, I can't imagine a player like Ricky Henderson lasting long, given his self-serving attitude, in the days before free agency.


That being said, it's a tragedy that some of the greatest players of all time were denied access to "Major League" baseball. Thankfully, and perhaps with much chagrin, the Baseball Hall of Fame has tried to rectify some of the wrongs done by baseball. But, baseball certainly was no different than any other institution. At least we have the historians on the Negro Leagues. What about all the others, similarly excluded by other institutions, about whom we know nothing?


John

Very good points.


In Bill James new book, (I think it's called the Bill James Historical Abstract, supposedly a revision of one he came out with several years ago, but in reality a very different book), he rates the top 100 players of all times and includes players from the Negro Leagues. If you like baseball, this book is a must read.


He ranks Oscar Charleston as one of the top 5 players of all time and Josh Gibson as the greatest catcher of all time.


There is absolutely no way the quality of the game pre-1948 could be anywhere near as high as the quality now. First of all, the athletes are better. They're better in every other sport; that's why speed and stregth records keep improving. Second, we're drawing from a much bigger population base. The country has many more people now than it did pre-1948, we're not systematically including blacks, and the doors are open much wider for Latin and Asian players.


Also, statistics are a product of their era. We're now, for example, in an era dominated by offense. I don't believe the greatest sluggers of all time all played during the 1930s or now. I don't believe the greatest pitchers of all time pitched during the early 1900s or the 1960s. Statistics have to be adjusted for their context.


And a lot of the big numbers the early superstars piled up were done in the context of there not being a lot of great players, and thus the great players stood out above the crowd much more than they do now.


The best way to think about the pre-1948 exclusion of blacks, I think, it to consider how much poorer major league baseball would have been had the following players been excluded from the game during the last fifty years: Hank Aaron; Willie Mays; Bob Gibson; Ernie Banks; Frank Robinson; Barry Bonds; Jackie Robinson; Roy Campanella; Maury Wills; Ozzie Smith; Derek Jeter; Eddie Murray; Dave Winfield; Kirby Puckett; Reggie Jackson; Ferguson Jenkins; Lou Brock; Billy Williams; Willie Stragell; and Joe Morgan, just to name a few.

"I wonder how hitters of the past were able to achieve some of the numbers they did given the ghastly hittings backdrops they confronted daily"


The great players, I think, were so much better than the average player because the player pool was so much smaller. So their numbers stood out. Bad backdrops or not.


"I also wonder about the conditions of the fields and how the size and shape of old ballparks affected the game. One record many historians say will never be broken is the single season mark for triples, which I think is 35, because of the shape and size of modern ballparks."


Good point. You look at, for example, Hall of Famer Chuck Klein's numbers both offensively and defensively (number of baserunners thrown out from the outfield) form 1928-1932 and you think he must have been the greatest player of all time. But the ballpark he played in played a major role in padding his statistics. Conversely, Goose Goslin and Jose Cruz, for example, had their numbers smashed by the ballparks they played in.


"In addition, modern ballplayers don't have to play with injuries--and older players often played entire seasons with nagging injuries because they would lose both their spot in the lineup but, most important, their job if they didn't."


I don't think there's any evidence that modern players play through injuries less than older players did. The records from 30-40-50 years ago and more are replete with player's complaining they were hurt, sitting out and management questioning whether they were hurt, etc. If anything, I would think nowadays players are more anxious to play and pad their numbers and games played because they can become wealthy by doing so.


"I can't imagine a player like Ricky Henderson lasting long, given his self-serving attitude, in the days before free agency."


A great player will always last long, no matter what the era. Certainly Ty Cobb and Rogers Hornsby, to name two, were bigger assholes than Henderson (and this is saying something). Hornsby, after he wore out his welcome in St. Louis was traded year after year, despite piling up spectacular numbers, because he was a jerk. Babe Ruth was nothing if not self-serving. He was thrown out trying to steal second base on the first pitch with his team trailing in a one-run game in the final game of the 1926 series with Lou Gehrig at the plate.


"it's a tragedy that some of the greatest players of all time were denied access to "Major League" baseball. Thankfully, and perhaps with much chagrin, the Baseball Hall of Fame has tried to rectify some of the wrongs done by baseball. But, baseball certainly was no different than any other institution. At least we have the historians on the Negro Leagues."


A sad chapter in the sad book of race relationsin the United States, no doubt.


By the way, I can't recommend Bill James's latest book enough. He makes some mistakes and when he throws in some political commentary he's terribly ignorant (IMHO), but a wealth of information, his usual entertaining writing style, and a chapter on the Negro Leagues and inclusion of the black players excluded from Major League Baseball in his list of the 100 greatest players of all time.

He ranks the 100 greatest players at every position, a Herculean task. A great book.

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the year Williams hit .406 (1941) a sacrifice fly was counted as an at bat (it is not now). His average would have been higher had today's scoring rules been in effect.


Williams is another example of a self-serving player, as per John Cole's post below. He's revered now in hit dotage, and he should be for his baseball ability, but he was a real jerk. It was he who said he would like to pour water on the reporters covering the Red Sox so he could get liquid shit. Probably one reason why he hit .406 and didn't win the MVP award. (He also hit .388 one year and didn't win it; another year he won the triple crown and didn't win it.)


Second greatest hitter ever, though, IMHO, next to Ruth.

Andy,


I'll have to add James's new book to my collection. I forgot about Ruth's steal attempt. And it's true that many players were assholes in every era; Joe DiMaggio wasn't very well liked by his teammates, but he was a team player.


However, many of the old Yankee players said they were forced to play with nasty injuries--just to keep their paychecks; this was in the pre-union days. Granted most players develop injuries throughout the season--and do play with those injuries--but given the emphasis on individual numbers, I can't see many players willing to sacrifice their numbers because of injuries.


One other note; expansion has certainly depleted the talent pool today. Are we seeing what it was like in the old days right now?


Recommended reading--Stephen Jay Gould's essay "The Creation Myths of Cooperstwon" in which he addresses the disappearance of the .400 hitter. I think you'll find it provocative.


John

Thanks for the tip on the Gould article. I'll look it up.


You make a good point about the old pre-union days. The players had virtually no rights then, so it stands to reason they would have been forced to play despite being injured, without recourse.


I don't agree that expansion has deleted the talent pool. The pool is so much larger now than it was in the early days, I can't believe having 30 teams as opposed to 16 means a weaker average team. How many great players in the good old days were named Rodriguez or Gonzalez or Sosa or Garciaparra or Rivera or Martinez or Ichiro or Park? Not very many.