 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » .426 Vs .424 ( Lajoie & Hornsby)
ironhorse2ko
Among most historians, Hornsby's .424 in 1924 is considered to be the highest average of the 20th century. However, others contend that Lajoie's .426 in 1901 is the highest of the modern era. However, because fouls weren't counted as strikes in the AL until 1902-03 some historians disregard his .426 or in some cases, adjusted it to read .422 as in some books.
Another problem with this is that some would say that when Lajoie won the triple crown that season, it was against "subpar" talent on the basis that the AL was just an upstart league with few superstars (think of baseball during WWII) and that Lajoie just dominated against the competition. But couldn't we say the same of Hornsby during 20's when he went on his hitting tear and the rules definitely suited the hitter more so than the pitcher?
Personally, I believe that .400 in any league is still .400 like 70 homers is still 70 homers; or as Mays stated 70 home runs in little league is still 70 home runs. Then again, maybe not.[color=Black][/color]
[Edited on 11-26-2006 by ironhorse2ko]
.426 Vs .424 ( Lajoie & Hornsby)
November 26, 2006 at 02:01AM View BBCode
[color=Black]Who's average do you consider is more Legit?[/color]Among most historians, Hornsby's .424 in 1924 is considered to be the highest average of the 20th century. However, others contend that Lajoie's .426 in 1901 is the highest of the modern era. However, because fouls weren't counted as strikes in the AL until 1902-03 some historians disregard his .426 or in some cases, adjusted it to read .422 as in some books.
Another problem with this is that some would say that when Lajoie won the triple crown that season, it was against "subpar" talent on the basis that the AL was just an upstart league with few superstars (think of baseball during WWII) and that Lajoie just dominated against the competition. But couldn't we say the same of Hornsby during 20's when he went on his hitting tear and the rules definitely suited the hitter more so than the pitcher?
Personally, I believe that .400 in any league is still .400 like 70 homers is still 70 homers; or as Mays stated 70 home runs in little league is still 70 home runs. Then again, maybe not.[color=Black][/color]
[Edited on 11-26-2006 by ironhorse2ko]
barterer2002
November 26, 2006 at 03:09AM View BBCode
what????? Are you trying to debate that one or the other was better or that neither was "legitimate" or that one or the other wasn't legitimate or what exactly are you trying to say. Also, as a point of clarity, you imply but dont' quite say that because fouls aren't counted as strikes that some historians adjust Lajoie's average to be .422 instead of .426. The truth of the matter is that the question is how many hits Lajoie actually had that season and some researchers have one answer while others use another it has nothing to do with the foul strike rule. I'm also accepting your claims about the AL foul strike rule in 1901 as valid although I had thought that the NL had shifted that rule after the 1894 season and that the AL did count them in 1901 but can't verify that tonight.
bobcat73
November 26, 2006 at 03:17AM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
I would much rather hit .424 simply because it is a cooler number.
ironhorse2ko
Actually, which average was better in light of the competition faced and rule changes? That would have been more appropiate, sorry. Lajoie is listed in some books at .426, and others at .422, with Hornsby at .424 (and with no confusion over fouls not being strikes at a certain point)
November 26, 2006 at 03:38AM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002[color=Black][/color]
what????? Are you trying to debate that one or the other was better or that neither was "legitimate" or that one or the other wasn't legitimate or what exactly are you trying to say. Also, as a point of clarity, you imply but dont' quite say that because fouls aren't counted as strikes that some historians adjust Lajoie's average to be .422 instead of .426. The truth of the matter is that the question is how many hits Lajoie actually had that season and some researchers have one answer while others use another it has nothing to do with the foul strike rule. I'm also accepting your claims about the AL foul strike rule in 1901 as valid although I had thought that the NL had shifted that rule after the 1894 season and that the AL did count them in 1901 but can't verify that tonight.
Actually, which average was better in light of the competition faced and rule changes? That would have been more appropiate, sorry. Lajoie is listed in some books at .426, and others at .422, with Hornsby at .424 (and with no confusion over fouls not being strikes at a certain point)
barterer2002
November 26, 2006 at 03:43AM View BBCode
Well in 1901 Lajoie is listed in baseball reference.com as .426 with the next best being Turkey Mike at .340. That's an 86 point swing. Pretty significant. By contrast Hornsby's .424 was followed by Zach Wheat's .375 for a 49 point swing. The league average in the NL in 1924 was .283 whereas the AL in 1901 batted at a .277 clip. A slight edge to Lajoie there. Overall, I'd give the edge to Lajoie
Isaiah4110
Well it IS a palindrome.....
November 26, 2006 at 07:26AM View BBCode
Originally posted by bobcat73
I would much rather hit .424 simply because it is a cooler number.
Well it IS a palindrome.....
barterer2002
November 26, 2006 at 02:31PM View BBCode
So is "Madam I'm Adam" but it doesn't make it cool although "Able was I Ere I saw Elba" was a fairly cool Napoleonic quote.
jetpac
"Do nine men interpret?" "Nine men," I nod
November 27, 2006 at 12:37AM View BBCode
what about"Do nine men interpret?" "Nine men," I nod
Isaiah4110
November 27, 2006 at 04:56AM View BBCode
Well, if you remove the quotes and somehow make that make sense..... just maybe.
scaffdog
November 27, 2006 at 05:08AM View BBCode
to answer the question, they are both legit. I would consider .426 to be more impresive thoughPages: 1