Announcement

Collapse

Updated Baseball Fever Policy

Baseball Fever Policy

I. Purpose of this announcement:

This announcement describes the policies pertaining to the operation of Baseball Fever.

Baseball Fever is a moderated baseball message board which encourages and facilitates research and information exchange among fans of our national pastime. The intent of the Baseball Fever Policy is to ensure that Baseball Fever remains an extremely high quality, extremely low "noise" environment.

Baseball Fever is administrated by three principal administrators:
webmaster - Baseball Fever Owner
The Commissioner - Baseball Fever Administrator
Macker - Baseball Fever Administrator

And a group of forum specific super moderators. The role of the moderator is to keep Baseball Fever smoothly and to screen posts for compliance with our policy. The moderators are ALL volunteer positions, so please be patient and understanding of any delays you might experience in correspondence.

II. Comments about our policy:

Any suggestions on this policy may be made directly to the webmaster.

III. Acknowledgments:

This document was based on a similar policy used by SABR.

IV. Requirements for participation on Baseball Fever:

Participation on Baseball Fever is available to all baseball fans with a valid email address, as verified by the forum's automated system, which then in turn creates a single validated account. Multiple accounts by a single user are prohibited.

By registering, you agree to adhere to the policies outlined in this document and to conduct yourself accordingly. Abuse of the forum, by repeated failure to abide by these policies, will result in your access being blocked to the forum entirely.

V. Baseball Fever Netiquette:

Participants at Baseball Fever are required to adhere to these principles, which are outlined in this section.
a. All posts to Baseball Fever should be written in clear, concise English, with proper grammar and accurate spelling. The use of abbreviations should be kept to a minimum; when abbreviation is necessary, they should be either well-known (such as etc.), or explained on their first use in your post.

b. Conciseness is a key attribute of a good post.

c. Quote only the portion of a post to which you are responding.

d. Standard capitalization and punctuation make a large difference in the readability of a post. TYPING IN ALL CAPITALS is considered to be "shouting"; it is a good practice to limit use of all capitals to words which you wish to emphasize.

e. It is our policy NOT to transmit any defamatory or illegal materials.

f. Personal attacks of any type against Baseball Fever readers will not be tolerated. In these instances the post will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the personal attack via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue personal attacks will be banned from the site.

g. It is important to remember that many contextual clues available in face-to-face discussion, such as tone of voice and facial expression, are lost in the electronic forum. As a poster, try to be alert for phrasing that might be misinterpreted by your audience to be offensive; as a reader, remember to give the benefit of the doubt and not to take umbrage too easily. There are many instances in which a particular choice of words or phrasing can come across as being a personal attack where none was intended.

h. The netiquette described above (a-g) often uses the term "posts", but applies equally to Private Messages.

VI. Baseball Fever User Signature Policy

A signature is a piece of text that some members may care to have inserted at the end of ALL of their posts, a little like the closing of a letter. You can set and / or change your signature by editing your profile in the UserCP. Since it is visible on ALL your posts, the following policy must be adhered to:

Signature Composition
Font size limit: No larger than size 2 (This policy is a size 2)
Style: Bold and italics are permissible
Character limit: No more than 500 total characters
Lines: No more than 4 lines
Colors: Most colors are permissible, but those which are hard to discern against the gray background (yellow, white, pale gray) should be avoided
Images/Graphics: Allowed, but nothing larger than 20k and Content rules must be followed

Signature Content
No advertising is permitted
Nothing political or religious
Nothing obscene, vulgar, defamatory or derogatory
Links to personal blogs/websites are permissible - with the webmaster's written consent
A Link to your Baseball Fever Blog does not require written consent and is recommended
Quotes must be attributed. Non-baseball quotes are permissible as long as they are not religious or political

Please adhere to these rules when you create your signature. Failure to do so will result in a request to comply by a moderator. If you do not comply within a reasonable amount of time, the signature will be removed and / or edited by an Administrator. Baseball Fever reserves the right to edit and / or remove any or all of your signature line at any time without contacting the account holder.

VII. Appropriate and inappropriate topics for Baseball Fever:

Most concisely, the test for whether a post is appropriate for Baseball Fever is: "Does this message discuss our national pastime in an interesting manner?" This post can be direct or indirect: posing a question, asking for assistance, providing raw data or citations, or discussing and constructively critiquing existing posts. In general, a broad interpretation of "baseball related" is used.

Baseball Fever is not a promotional environment. Advertising of products, web sites, etc., whether for profit or not-for-profit, is not permitted. At the webmaster's discretion, brief one-time announcements for products or services of legitimate baseball interest and usefulness may be allowed. If advertising is posted to the site it will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the post via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue advertising will be banned from the site. If the advertising is spam-related, pornography-based, or a "visit-my-site" type post / private message, no warning at all will be provided, and the member will be banned immediately without a warning.

It is considered appropriate to post a URL to a page which specifically and directly answers a question posted on the list (for example, it would be permissible to post a link to a page containing home-road splits, even on a site which has advertising or other commercial content; however, it would not be appropriate to post the URL of the main page of the site). The site reserves the right to limit the frequency of such announcements by any individual or group.

In keeping with our test for a proper topic, posting to Baseball Fever should be treated as if you truly do care. This includes posting information that is, to the best of your knowledge, complete and accurate at the time you post. Any errors or ambiguities you catch later should be acknowledged and corrected in the thread, since Baseball Fever is sometimes considered to be a valuable reference for research information.

VIII. Role of the moderator:

When a post is submitted to Baseball Fever, it is forwarded by the server automatically and seen immediately. The moderator may:
a. Leave the thread exactly like it was submitted. This is the case 95% of the time.

b. Immediately delete the thread as inappropriate for Baseball Fever. Examples include advertising, personal attacks, or spam. This is the case 1% of the time.

c. Move the thread. If a member makes a post about the Marlins in the Yankees forum it will be moved to the appropriate forum. This is the case 3% of the time.

d. Edit the message due to an inappropriate item. This is the case 1% of the time. There have been new users who will make a wonderful post, then add to their signature line (where your name / handle appears) a tagline that is a pure advertisement. This tagline will be removed, a note will be left in the message so he/she is aware of the edit, and personal contact will be made to the poster telling them what has been edited and what actions need to be taken to prevent further edits.

The moderators perform no checks on posts to verify factual or logical accuracy. While he/she may point out gross errors in factual data in replies to the thread, the moderator does not act as an "accuracy" editor. Also moderation is not a vehicle for censorship of individuals and/or opinions, and the moderator's decisions should not be taken personally.

IX. Legal aspects of participation in Baseball Fever:

By submitting a post to Baseball Fever, you grant Baseball Fever permission to distribute your message to the forum. Other rights pertaining to the post remain with the ORIGINAL author, and you may not redistribute or retransmit any posts by any others, in whole or in part, without the express consent of the original author.

The messages appearing on Baseball Fever contain the opinions and views of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of Baseball Fever, or of the Baseball Almanac family of sites.

Sincerely,

Sean Holtz, Webmaster of Baseball Almanac & Baseball Fever
www.baseball-almanac.com | www.baseball-fever.com
"Baseball Almanac: Sharing Baseball. Sharing History."
See more
See less

Ty Cobb didn't bat .401 in 1922

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ty Cobb didn't bat .401 in 1922

    On May 15, 1922 Ty Cobb hits a grounder SS Everett Scott. The official scorer of the game John Kieran rules it an error. Fred Lieb scores it a hit for the Associated Press.
    At the end of the year the AP says Ty has 211 hits in 526 at bats, good for a .401 batting average. The official scorers tabulations is 210 hits in 526 at bats, good for a .399 batting average.

    At the end of the season a mini-controversy erupts when the AL uses the AP tabulations as the final numbers. To add to the confusion the New York Times has at the end of the season with 527 at bats and 210 hits.



    Last edited by Ubiquitous; 07-14-2007, 10:44 AM.

  • #2
    Then on top of all that Fred Lieb the guy who gave Ty the extra hit takes the hit away and says Ban Johnson shouldn't have done what he did.



    Last edited by Ubiquitous; 07-14-2007, 10:49 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      More of the saga.

      Comment


      • #4
        Ubi is quite correct in this particular instance. AL President, Ban Johnson, should have used the official score, as submitted by NY sports writer, John Kieran.

        Fred Lieb had more experience, and called it a hit, because it was a hard hit ball to Yank SS, Everett Scott. Official scorer John Kieran ruled it an error on SS, who had fumbled the ball. There had also been some suspicious scoring decisions during the last week of the 1921 season in NY too, and Ty brought that to the attention of the league office, but they failed to act on it.

        Would have been no big deal to rule Cobb hit .399, like Lefty O'Doul. Hitting .400 twice is enough to make the point. TC had enough glittering awards to stud his record. Didn't need that third one. He also hit over .390 on another occasion. No biggie.

        How much evidence is needed to prove the guy was especially gifted at putting the ball in play and getting on?
        Last edited by Bill Burgess; 03-17-2009, 12:50 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Hi Ubi:

          I've been really busy the last few months so I haven't had much time until now to look in on the happenings at BBF. However, I would take issue with your assertion that Cobb didn't bat .401 in 1922.

          In reading the articles you have cited for your evidence two important facts come to light. First, the following statement is conceded by the reporter in the first article.

          "There was some doubt on the play, and it could have been
          scored as either a hit or an error"

          Second, it is noted in the article that the official scorer (upon whom you are apparently relying upon in your revisionist claim), was not in his usual place when he called the play. The official scorer was in effect "out of position". Given these facts, I think the decision by the commissioner to give Cobb credit for a hit is entirely reasonable.

          I would also again point out to you that the statute of limitations has long since run on belated revisionist claims of this kind, and the interested parties are no longer around to argue their positions.

          Your claim that Cobb didn't hit over ,400 in 1922 is no more valid than the revisionist claim made a century after the fact that Lajoie batted ,426 in 1901 instead of .422 which was his official average for almost one hundred years. One gets a little weary of revisionist stat people running around trying to degrade the records of the historical greats they don't like and bolstering the records of historical figures they like.

          c JRB

          Comment


          • #6
            I'll just point out that if that at bat had never occured, Cobb would have gone 210-525 or .400, and since his hard running got him to first base anyway, he was actually BETTER for having had that AB.

            Comment


            • #7
              Why would the at bat never have occurred?

              For JRB:
              This isn't revisionist. The writer Fred Lieb recanted the hit. The official scorer scored it an error and the reporters that were around him scored it an error. Fred Lieb up in the booth had to make a decision on his own and he scored it a hit. He failed to check with the official scorer before handing in his score sheet. There is no reason on earth it should go down as a hit, which Fred Lieb himself points out. The league made a mistake and like mistakes in the past Ban just wouldn't admit he made one and bully onwards.

              Imagine today if a guy from the Chicago Tribune scores a hit for somebody and the official scorer scores it an error. What do you think will stand? The official scorers or the guy in the pressboxes decision?

              It isn't revisionist to state a simple fact. The official scorer scored it an error, it wasn't a hit.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Ubiquitous View Post
                Why would the at bat never have occurred?
                It would have. I'm just saying that we have a guy who batted .400 in 525 at bats, and in his other at bat reached on an error which actually made him more valuable. In this case, .400 + a valuable at bat=.399

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by JRB View Post
                  One gets a little weary of revisionist stat people running around trying to degrade the records of the historical greats they don't like and bolstering the records of historical figures they like.

                  c JRB
                  Very weary. Just as weary of the revisionist history which brought Cobb's career average down to .366, but which under further scrutiny, Major League Baseball has since restored the proper, accurate figure. Cobb's career average is once again .367.

                  Ty Cobb's Offcial Statistics, per Major League Baseball

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Ubiquitous View Post
                    Why would the at bat never have occurred?

                    For JRB:
                    This isn't revisionist. The writer Fred Lieb recanted the hit. The official scorer scored it an error and the reporters that were around him scored it an error. Fred Lieb up in the booth had to make a decision on his own and he scored it a hit. He failed to check with the official scorer before handing in his score sheet. There is no reason on earth it should go down as a hit, which Fred Lieb himself points out. The league made a mistake and like mistakes in the past Ban just wouldn't admit he made one and bully onwards.

                    Imagine today if a guy from the Chicago Tribune scores a hit for somebody and the official scorer scores it an error. What do you think will stand? The official scorers or the guy in the pressboxes decision?

                    It isn't revisionist to state a simple fact. The official scorer scored it an error, it wasn't a hit.

                    Ubi: It may be a simple fact that the official scorer thought it was an error, however I think it would be revisionist to claim that "Cobb didn't hit .401 in 1922" . Cobb's official average for 1922 has been .401 for 85 years. A person may disagree with Johnson's decision, however his decision was the final word on the subject. Case closed! No doubt Cobb also had some bad decisions that went against him. Good and bad decisions usually even out over the course of a season. One of the problems with trying to change the historical record, is that those trying to change the records usually just cherry pick one or two particular instances which support their thesis, ignoring the fact that if the particpants were still around to represent their own interests they might very well be able to give their side of the incident or to point to other instances which would offset or mitigate the incident being cherry picked.

                    c JRB

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Ubiquitous View Post
                        When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.
                        I too have seen the Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, however I don't think you got my point.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          --The wisdom of the official scorers decision may be questioned, although none of us are really in a position to do so - not having seen the play. It is true that those types of decisions tend to even out over the course of a season or career (or not, home scorers do play favorites sometimes). However, this particular play was officially ruled an error. It was never overruled, the wrong info was simply entered into the record books. The fact that Ban Johnson decided not to correct the mistake when it was eventually pointed out to him does not change the fact that it was a mistake. Cobb did bat .399, not .401.
                          --Why anybody would care very much about that is another question. .399 or .401 coming at that particular point in history, especially by a guy with a pair of .400 seasons already in the books is pretty meaningless. Now if it was somebody this year trying to be the first .400 hitter since 1941 THAT would be a controversy.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by JRB View Post
                            Ubi: It may be a simple fact that the official scorer thought it was an error, however I think it would be revisionist to claim that "Cobb didn't hit .401 in 1922" . Cobb's official average for 1922 has been .401 for 85 years. A person may disagree with Johnson's decision, however his decision was the final word on the subject. Case closed! No doubt Cobb also had some bad decisions that went against him. Good and bad decisions usually even out over the course of a season. One of the problems with trying to change the historical record, is that those trying to change the records usually just cherry pick one or two particular instances which support their thesis, ignoring the fact that if the particpants were still around to represent their own interests they might very well be able to give their side of the incident or to point to other instances which would offset or mitigate the incident being cherry picked.

                            c JRB
                            How is it revisionist to point out that Ty Cobb didn't hit .401 in 1922. If the official stats say that Ty Cobb hit 40,000 hits in 1922 are we supposed to say "well that is what they say, so be it"?

                            This isn't cherry picking this is a well known and well covered event that happened in baseball history.

                            Ty CObb in 1922 hit .399, the record says .401.

                            Should the two hits for Cobb in the Lajoie controversy stand?

                            What we are talking about is reality vs. legend. In reality Ty was credited in his career with 3 extra hits. The legend says Ty has 4,191.

                            Record keeping was poor in those days, furthermore integrity of the stats was pretty low as well. I really don't understand why people wouldn't want to go through the process of discovering the truth as it pertains to the stats of players of old. Sure the numbers might change for awhile but at some point the dust will clear and we will be a lot closer to the truth then if we were to simply ignore what really happened and believe in the fairy tale.

                            Ty Cobb with 4188 hits isn't any different then Ty Cobb with 4,191 hits. He is the same guy.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by leecemark View Post
                              --The wisdom of the official scorers decision may be questioned, although none of us are really in a position to do so - not having seen the play. It is true that those types of decisions tend to even out over the course of a season or career (or not, home scorers do play favorites sometimes). However, this particular play was officially ruled an error. It was never overruled, the wrong info was simply entered into the record books. The fact that Ban Johnson decided not to correct the mistake when it was eventually pointed out to him does not change the fact that it was a mistake. Cobb did bat .399, not .401.
                              --Why anybody would care very much about that is another question. .399 or .401 coming at that particular point in history, especially by a guy with a pair of .400 seasons already in the books is pretty meaningless. Now if it was somebody this year trying to be the first .400 hitter since 1941 THAT would be a controversy.
                              Hitting over .400 for the third time tied him with Jesse Burkett who did it in the 1890's. Initially since record keeping was so bad (remember nobody at the time knew who Babe Ruth was surpassing when he was hitting homers) people thought Ty Cobb was the first to do it. Either way it would be a feather in Ban Johnsons AL reputation.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X