Offical Ty Cobb Career Batting Average....

[cooldeafguy]

I have noticed difference in many sources. Ty Cobb's final offical career batting average remains a mystery.

1992 Baseball Almanac .367
Ty Cobb baseball card .368
Internet .366

this one is even more strange....Baseball History .370


They are not the same and I am trying to find the correct batting average. Anyone know it?

Thank you,

Dylan

[wrgptfan]

RE: Offical Ty Cobb Career Batting Average....

[updated:LAST EDITED ON Jun-21-02 AT 01:50 PM (EDT)]4189 hits in 11,434 AB = .36636 Avg

[cooldeafguy]

RE: Offical Ty Cobb Career Batting Average....

Where did you get that source?

I got a baseball card that states Ty Cobb got 4,191 but no AB information given.

This is so strange that no one got the offical stats of Ty Cobb!

[bluezebra]

RE: Offical Ty Cobb Career Batting Average....

>Where did you get that source?
>
>I got a baseball card that states Ty Cobb got 4,191 but no
>AB information given.
>
>This is so strange that no one got the offical stats of Ty
>Cobb!

Look in the right places.

baseball-reference.com: 11434 AB; 4189 HITS = .366

Hall of Fame: "— a lifetime average of .366, 295 triples, 4,189 hits, 12 batting titles (including nine in a row), 23 straight seasons in which he hit over .300, three .400 seasons (topped by a .420 mark in 1911), 1,938 RBI, 2,246 runs and the Triple Crown in 1909. Intimidating the opposition, "The Georgia Peach" stole 892 bases during a 24-year career, primarily with the Detroit Tigers."

At one time, Cobb was credited with a .367 avg., but further research took away two (2) hits, bringing his avg. down to .366.

Bob

[cooldeafguy]

RE: Offical Ty Cobb Career Batting Average....

Thank you very much....The card must have be printed before they researched and got the stats correct and fixed.

Thank you, Bob


Dylan

[Calif_Eagle]

If you take away 2 hits for Cobb, you also cost him his 1910 batting title over Nap Lajoie, which is where I think the 2 hits vanished. Memory suggests a 2 for 3 performance that year was entered in the records twice for the 1910 season and this phantom game gave Cobb his edge over Lajoie in the batting race. I personally have no problem with corrected records, & giving the true batting leader his due (despite the St. Louis Browns giving Lajoie hit after hit in the season finale by playing their rookie 3rd baseman extra deep, allowing Lajoie to bunt freely down that line all game.) I know MLB has a problem with changing significant numbers in BB history such as 4191 and 714, though. I also think Cobb's 1915 batting title should be looked at, as it was achieved in basically part-time play.

[Brian McKenna]

Continued research took 2 hits from Cobb a few years ago revising his totals to 4,189 hits and a .366 batting average.

MLB refuses to take away his 1910 batting title because of the tainted game-fixing that occurred in the season-ending doubleheader that granted Lajoie an 8 for 8 day.

Numbers should be adjusted when conclusive evidence is presented to do so - no matter what the consequences. It is much more important to get it right than to maintain some ideal.

It is my understanding that MLB's offical stat company (Elias I think) knows of many, many discrepancies but doesn't disclose such for some reason which benefits them not the study of the game.

[GrandSlam]

Continued research took 2 hits from Cobb a few years ago revising his totals to 4,189 hits and a .366 batting average.

MLB refuses to take away his 1910 batting title because of the tainted game-fixing that occurred in the season-ending doubleheader that granted Lajoie an 8 for 8 day.

Numbers should be adjusted when conclusive evidence is presented to do so - no matter what the consequences. It is much more important to get it right than to maintain some ideal.

It is my understanding that MLB's offical stat company (Elias I think) knows of many, many discrepancies but doesn't disclose such for some reason which benefits them not the study of the game.

Ha that guy had an 8-8 day nothing fishy about that lol

[Mattingly]

BTW, my spreadsheet calculates The Georgia Peach's 4,189 hits divided by his 11,434 hits to be a .366363 BA, which would be rounded down to .366.

[csh19792001]

I don't accept 4189 and neither does Major League Baseball. The previous revisions purported by that researcher in the 1980's were rescinded. The others (Elias and Total Baseball) should follow suit.

Ty Cobb's career batting average is .367, as it always was and should be. 4,191 for 11,429.

Cobb's official statistics, per Major League Baseball.

[The Kid]

Ahh, the big problem with deadballers. I actaully have a poster in my room listing Cobb's career BA at .366, and I had always read and saw that it was .367. I, until now, just thought of it as a misprint.

[brett]

Hornsby also lost the single season record when Lajoie's was raised to .426. That's one that I really don't care for because Lajoie played under different rules.

[Blackout]

If you take away 2 hits for Cobb, you also cost him his 1910 batting title over Nap Lajoie, which is where I think the 2 hits vanished. Memory suggests a 2 for 3 performance that year was entered in the records twice for the 1910 season and this phantom game gave Cobb his edge over Lajoie in the batting race. I personally have no problem with corrected records, & giving the true batting leader his due (despite the St. Louis Browns giving Lajoie hit after hit in the season finale by playing their rookie 3rd baseman extra deep, allowing Lajoie to bunt freely down that line all game.) I know MLB has a problem with changing significant numbers in BB history such as 4191 and 714, though. I also think Cobb's 1915 batting title should be looked at, as it was achieved in basically part-time play.

714 should be larger

[Sultan_1895-1948]

714 should be larger

Agreed. Personally, I'd settle for just one addition, to 715, for the "triple" in 1918, which would have been his 12th and only home homer that year. Instead, he takes a goose-egg at Fenway for '18, even though that tenth inning blast went nearly 500 feet.

[Calif_Eagle]

My only point re: numbers like 714 & 4191 was that MLB would never have supported an alteration of 714 when Hank Aaron was bearing down on it back in 1973-1974. I have always heard that Ruth was denied a home run because of a rule about only enough bases credited on a game winning hit needed to drive home the winning run and end the game. Just like MLB didnt want to change Ty Cobb's hit "total" of 4191 because Pete Rose was chasing it and getting massive pub for MLB and the game in doing so. They didnt want to hear from SABR or sabrmetricians or historians etc. I personally believe that changes that can be supported with evidence should be implemented regardless of the changes in certain "sacred" numbers. Hack Wilson's RBI total of 190 had 1 added to it by MLB, but I suspect that wouldnt have been the case had Barry Bonds or Albert Pujols been sitting at 175 RBI with 20 games to play at the time that Hack's additional RBI came to light. My feeling on these issues is that if we have a better way of doing things today (dealing with the walk off hit, and awarding of, criteria for; winning batting titles) I think its at least worth listing all these things in the books. A list of "alternate" or modern day rules batting champions, and of HR lost to the old rule would be a good thing to have, if we arent going to change totals or official champions.