When did we start to care about baseball records set prior to 1901?
I first became interested in baseball -- including "current MLB stats" and "old records" -- in 1946 or 1947. Early on, I "learned" that the best Batting Average for a full season was Hornsby's .424 in 1924, that Ty Cobb had the record for stolen bases with his 96 in 1915, and that the most wins by a pitcher in a season were 41 by Chesbro in 1904 and 40 by Ed Walsh in 1908.
I also memorized all the .400 hitting seasons -- by Cobb, Sisler, Joe Jackson, Heilman, Hornsby, Terry -- and Ted Williams. (But with no attention to any stats for seasons before 1901.)
At that time we were vaguely aware that baseball had been played before 1900 but it wasn't really the same game. Record books at that time usually ignored seasons before 1901. I think the adults of that day were close enough to the pre-1900 game to realize it wasn't really the same game. A high batting average prior to 1900 was explained by different rules (one year giving credit for every walk to be scored as a "hit") High HR totals were explained by little-league diminsions to the fences; pitchers records were set by throwing underhand from a reduced distance; and fielders using mitts about the size of my driving gloves.
24 "major league" pitchers are credited 42 or more wins in a single season -- and all 24 were in seasons before 1900. Does anyone pretend that those are the 24 top pitching seasons of all time?
So what has changed? Why has it become necessary to consider archaic records from the "golden age" in all our threads here?
I would prefer to continue my personal focus on 1901 and later stats. If someone wants to discuss something prior to 1900, fine, but then stick just to that era in that thread. Don't try to mix and compare stats from the 1870's and 1880's with any records set after 1901, and pretend it is anything like the same game.
Does anyone here agree with me?
I first became interested in baseball -- including "current MLB stats" and "old records" -- in 1946 or 1947. Early on, I "learned" that the best Batting Average for a full season was Hornsby's .424 in 1924, that Ty Cobb had the record for stolen bases with his 96 in 1915, and that the most wins by a pitcher in a season were 41 by Chesbro in 1904 and 40 by Ed Walsh in 1908.
I also memorized all the .400 hitting seasons -- by Cobb, Sisler, Joe Jackson, Heilman, Hornsby, Terry -- and Ted Williams. (But with no attention to any stats for seasons before 1901.)
At that time we were vaguely aware that baseball had been played before 1900 but it wasn't really the same game. Record books at that time usually ignored seasons before 1901. I think the adults of that day were close enough to the pre-1900 game to realize it wasn't really the same game. A high batting average prior to 1900 was explained by different rules (one year giving credit for every walk to be scored as a "hit") High HR totals were explained by little-league diminsions to the fences; pitchers records were set by throwing underhand from a reduced distance; and fielders using mitts about the size of my driving gloves.
24 "major league" pitchers are credited 42 or more wins in a single season -- and all 24 were in seasons before 1900. Does anyone pretend that those are the 24 top pitching seasons of all time?
So what has changed? Why has it become necessary to consider archaic records from the "golden age" in all our threads here?
I would prefer to continue my personal focus on 1901 and later stats. If someone wants to discuss something prior to 1900, fine, but then stick just to that era in that thread. Don't try to mix and compare stats from the 1870's and 1880's with any records set after 1901, and pretend it is anything like the same game.
Does anyone here agree with me?
Comment