Played in Four Decades

[Jackaroo Dave]

How soon we forget: Jack Quinn

[Jackaroo Dave]

Does a decade start in the 0 or 1 year?
(edit: sorry, missed dates for Williams et al and previous discussion.)

Cap Anson? Tris Speaker?

[Jackaroo Dave]

Cy Young . . .

[GiambiJuice]

I have updated the OP with the correct guesses. 25 down, 4 more to go...

[BigRon]

Does a decade start in the 0 or 1 year?
(edit: sorry, missed dates for Williams et al and previous discussion.)

Cap Anson? Tris Speaker?

Hopefully this won't turn into a debate. Normally, when people think of decades they think of, for example, 1950-1959, 2000-2009. I'm pretty sure that's what we're using here.

[GiambiJuice]

Hopefully this won't turn into a debate. Normally, when people think of decades they think of, for example, 1950-1959, 2000-2009. I'm pretty sure that's what we're using here.

It won't turn into a debate, because it is obvious that for the purposes of this thread the decade starts at zero and ends at 9.

[DJC]

It won't turn into a debate, because it is obvious that for the purposes of this thread the decade starts at zero and ends at 9.

By my count, there are 31 players who qualify under the criteria specified. Since I looked it up, I won't make any guesses, but I believe you're missing two.

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

Jack Ryan and George Davis

[milladrive]

Does a decade start in the 0 or 1 year?

Strictly speaking, since there was no year zero, all decades, centuries, and millennia begin with a year ending with a 1. It won't turn into a debate because I made it quite clear I wasn't going to derail the thread by pursuing it. Being an iconoclast would take the fun out of the thread, and that would be unfair to everyone just to make a technical point.

Besides, even if, just for fun, we discount those who played their last games in a year ending in a 0, I'm pretty sure it would balance out anyway with the players who began their careers in years ending in a 0 and retired 22 years later in years ending in a 1, thus qualifying for four decades. I think it would still be close to 30 players. I almost wonder what the differences would be. I mean, obviously, guys like McCarver, Williams, Collins, McCovey, Vernon, Buckner, et al, would leave the list, but I'm virtually certain they'd be replaced by just about the same amount of other players.

Whichever way it's sliced, I'm quite surprised that there have been so many players to have played in the Majors in four decades. It's an eye-opening number of players. And either way, I think this is a great trivia thread.

[DJC]

Strictly speaking, since there was no year zero, all decades, centuries, and millennia begin with a year ending with a 1. It won't turn into a debate because I made it quite clear I wasn't going to derail the thread by pursuing it. Being an iconoclast would take the fun out of the thread, and that would be unfair to everyone just to make a technical point.

Besides, even if, just for fun, we discount those who played their last games in a year ending in a 0, I'm pretty sure it would balance out anyway with the players who began their careers in years ending in a 0 and retired 22 years later in years ending in a 1, thus qualifying for four decades. I think it would still be close to 30 players. I almost wonder what the differences would be. I mean, obviously, guys like McCarver, Williams, Collins, McCovey, Vernon, Buckner, et al, would leave the list, but I'm virtually certain they'd be replaced by just about the same amount of other players.

Whichever way it's sliced, I'm quite surprised that there have been so many players to have played in the Majors in four decades. It's an eye-opening number of players. And either way, I think this is a great trivia thread.

There are 31 players who played in 4 or more decades under the more commonly used 0-9 system, whereas there are 28 players who did so under the technically correct 1-0 system. 22 players are in both groups, so there are 9 who qualify under the former system but not the latter, and there are 6 who qualify under the latter but not the former.

[milladrive]

There are 31 players who played in 4 or more decades under the more commonly used 0-9 system, whereas there are 28 players who did so under the technically correct 1-0 system. 22 players are in both groups, so there are 9 who qualify under the former system but not the latter, and there are 6 who qualify under the latter but not the former.

Super info, DJC. The defense rests, heh.

When this list is complete, I'd sure be interested to know who those six players are. ...that is, unless you'd like to PM me with them. Up to you entirely.

I love this site.

[GiambiJuice]

By my count, there are 31 players who qualify under the criteria specified. Since I looked it up, I won't make any guesses, but I believe you're missing two.

That's interesting. Wikipedia only lists 29. I'd be interested to know who the other two are.

[GiambiJuice]

Jack Ryan and George Davis

Jack Ryan is correct but George Davis is quite the opposite. He's one of the few players who have played 20 seasons, but only in two decades (1890-1909)

[bluesky5]

Arlie Latham

[EdTarbusz]

I know I'm being nitpicky, but this really should read, Minnie Minoso (1949-1964, 1976, 1980)

From 1965-1980 Minoso had a grand total of 10 ABs

I have a hard time seeing how a couple of publicity stunts qualifies Minoso for this list.

[DJC]

That's interesting. Wikipedia only lists 29. I'd be interested to know who the other two are.

Should I reveal them now or wait until the 29 you have are guessed? -- Edit: I just discovered that these two guys each missed a decade in the middle of their runs, so I suppose they don't really count. My bad. In that case, I might as well reveal them -- Gabby Street (1904-1905, 1908-1912, 1931) and Charley O'Leary (1904-1913, 1934). Talk about a comeback.

Jack Ryan is correct but George Davis is quite the opposite. He's one of the few players who have played 20 seasons, but only in two decades (1890-1909)

There is only one other player besides Davis to play 20 seasons in only 2 decades (under the 0-9 system). However, there are another three players to do the same but under the 1-0 system.

[brett]

Strictly speaking, since there was no year zero, all decades, centuries, and millennia begin with a year ending with a 1.

??? So the 50s start in 1951??? A century starts at 1 because it is the nth century. If we called it the 6th decade of the 20th century it would start in 1951, but the 50s is a decade starting in 1950. Any 10 year period is a decade and any 100 is a century but we know that decades are conventionally the x0's, 50s, 60s etc.

[EdTarbusz]

??? So the 50s start in 1951???

According to the calendar we use they do. Decades end with a zero.

[DJC]

The distinction I make is based on what you call the decade/century/millennium. The 20th century runs from 1901-2000, while the 1900s run from 1900-1999. They're not exactly the same, being one year off. Similarly, the 200th decade (i.e., the 10th decade of the 20th century) runs from 1991-2000, while the 1990s run from 1990-1999. Both types of ranges are valid when discussing such time periods, and though the 0-9 system is used far more commonly, the 1-0 system is technically the more accurate one.

[Macker]

A decade is simply a period of 10 years. Since the officially designated major leagues (by MLB) begin with the National League in 1876, one could say the decades should run 1876-1885, 1886-1895, etc. If including the National Association, one might prefer 1871-80, 1881-90, etc. It is arbitrary, but when talking of the 30s, 40s, etc., then 1930-39, and 1940-49 are correct, and, the 50s do not start with 1951. The 50s are 1950-59. Just because 1950 is the end of the 195th decade AD, that doesn't make it part of the 1940s. The 1960 Pirates did not win the World Series during the 1950s just as Ron Santo and Juan Marichal did not debut in the 50s.

[GiambiJuice]

Arlie Latham

Arlie Latham is incorrect.

[DJC]

Arlie Latham is incorrect.

But he does qualify under the 1-0 system.

Edit: Also, you have Nick Altrock's last season as 1924, but it's actually 1933. He's a five-decade player like Minoso.

[brett]

According to the calendar we use they do. Decades end with a zero.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showth...-Decades/page2

a: a period of 10 years

[GiambiJuice]

But he does qualify under the 1-0 system.

Edit: Also, you have Nick Altrock's last season as 1924, but it's actually 1933. He's a five-decade player like Minoso.

That's weird, B-Ref doesn't show any appearances for Altrock in 1933...however it says Final Game: October 1, 1933. What gives?

[ian2813]

That's weird, B-Ref doesn't show any appearances for Altrock in 1933...however it says Final Game: October 1, 1933. What gives?

Look under his batting statistics. You'll see it.