Should Teddy Ballgame be credited with a 7th batting title?
craig44
Posts: 11,255 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
The year was 1954. Williams hit .345. he had 526 PA but only 386 AB because of drawing 136 BB. the qualification at the time was 400 AB. though he had plenty of PA, he had 14 too few at-bats to qualify then. the batting title was given instead to Bobby Avila who hit .341. The qualification rule was changed in 1962 to require a hitter to make 3.1 PA per game and 502 overall to qualify. Ted would make both of those requirements.
What do you think? Should Ted get credit for 7?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
0
Comments
Rules are rules so at the time he didn't qualify
It don't matter though, Ted was and always will be considered one of the greatest
I didn't have to read your argument. I noticed this a few years back when reading a book on Ted.
The answer is YES.
MLB has gone back and changed numbers in the past where errors have occurred. Ignoring walks was a mistake. Williams had the highest average.
If there is a precedent, so be it. Do they apply this uniformly and fairly?
Either way, being the best, the snub almost adds to his lore.
Hard to say "uniformly and fairly" but some records were "fixed", I think the single season RBI record was adjusted by 1.
I can see both sides of the debate and am not going to get worked up about it. I think it was a bad rule and it got changed. On the other hand, Williams could have swung at a few more pitches and gotten the at bats. Of course he wasn't going to do that!
To give him credit means you have to take the credit away from Bobby Avila...gonna have to go to his ancestors and take away his trophy from them
. I'm joking, but that really is what you have to do, so you can't really take away the title that was done under those rules.
However, you can simply recognize the criteria and do what BaseballReference does and put a double ** by Ted's 1954 ranking as second but recognize that it actually carries a little more weight.
...
I like this.
yes, the statistical record has been adjusted over the years. Cobbs hit total was decreased by 2 and his BA dropped by a point. Ruths RBI total has also been altered
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Radbourn went from 60 wins to 59. Wilson went from 190 RBI to 191. Hugh Duffy went from .438 to .440. Cobb went from 4191 to 4189. And so on.
My thought on going back in a case like Ted's is, "did they have official criteria back then?" If yes, go by those rules. If not, sure, change it.
p.s. I love that, because Cobb had two fewer hits than previously thought, Pete actually broke the record earlier than thought - with no fanfare to it. I do wonder what happened to the 4190 ball though.
The rules at the time are what should be applied. You shouldnt retroactively go back and change awards/records because of a future rule change. Its one thing if theres an error in the box score, but other than correcting statistical errors the past awards and records should be left alone
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Even if you give Ted credit for the 1954 batting title, he still has fewer than Tony Gwynn's eight!
Steve
No.
How about this?
I knew the Sac fly rule had changed over the years, but i never ever thought about this!! What an incredible stat!!
Thank you for sharing that Joe!
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
My father used to call me "The department of useless information" 😁
Great question... And I will say no. If someone told I had to name the greatest -it would be Ted Williams and the real discussion is who is second best. One more title will simply not change my view. As for Tony Gwynn, he was great but simply not comparable to Williams.
If you follow the logic of Williams being named the 1954 AL batting champ, there are consequences. Jimmie Foxx might be in jeopardy of loosing his 1932 Triple Crown... seems an argument could be made that Dale Alexander would be the AL 1932 Batting champ at .367.
Sadly history is not kind to players similarly situated as Dale Alexander. The reality is sports history is forgotten nearly as fast as it is made. For those interested take a real deep dive to recognize and appreciate players that truly were amazing but there simply is no one remaining to say or write how great they were. This is about the power or oral history and what has been captured through interviews over time. Try taking a look at the work of Studs Terkel and the amazing accounts of what he was able to capture. There is so much to learn and appreciate... and somehow the discussion always turns to a selected few- blessed to have been inducted to the HOF-And others that simply are not even a footnote in MBL History.
I THINK WE CAN DO BETTER THAN THIS.
WE HAVE TO... MAINLY BECAUSE WHAT REALLY TRANSPIRED SHOULD SIMPLY NOT BE IGNORED THROUGH IGNORANCE.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
In the case of a Dale Alexander types they arent forgotten because of a lack of writers that saw them, they just simply didnt do much to be remembered in the long term picture. His first two years were real nice then had the great BA year, but that was essentially his entire career. He played less than 700 games total. The burns and infection that ended his major league career is certainly very sad it just unfortunately means they wont be in the all time discussions.
Theres a fairly recent example of this too with Jose Fernandez of the Marlins dying when he was 23. Hed pitched 471.1 innings and was a legitimate ace and an absolute stud. But even with media/fans that actually saw him pitch hes basically forgotten for the simple fact his career just didnt last long enough. Its a shame the careers were cut short and in one case a life, but fortunately with the records being kept in tack and digitalized people that are interested can find these players
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007