This is truly an incredible thing that Ichiro is about to do. The single season hit record has been around since 1920! No one has even come close to it since 1930. This is just as impressive as Bonds' 73 homeruns.


Year-----Player---------------Hits

1920-----Sisler---------------257
2004-----Ichiro---------------254
1930-----Bill Terry------------254
1929-----Lefty O'Doul---------254
1925-----Al Simmons----------253
1922-----Rogers Hornsby------250
1930-----Chuck Klein----------250
1911-----Ty Cobb-------------248
1922-----Sisler----------------246

I agree that what Ichiro's doing is incredible and I'm happy for him & it's exciting to watching. However, I TOTALLY disagree with these "sport experts" who are voting for Ichiro for AL MVP. Sure what he's doing hasn't been done in 84 years, but I don't think he should win the MVP for that. Sure he should be in contention, but there is no way (IMO) that he should beat out either Sheff, Manny, or Vlad.

He got one more tonight, leaving him three shy of the record with four games to play. He'll do it.

The MVP issue aside, the question is how does Suzuki's season compare with Sisler's record season? Sisler hit 35 points higher than Suzuki is batting now.

Any comments?

I hate that SC. How many games did it take sissler to set the record?


Ichiro is having a great year but its nothing compared to what sissler did.

Same thing with McGwire, Sosa and Bonds.

Well not soo much Bonds but the other two were no where near the amount of games that Ruth did it in.

But for the overall Home Run lead Ruth would have hit 800 EASY had he not been a pitcher and played the amount of games these guys play.

Possibly.

Ruth's change of position really took place in 1919, which coincided with the end of the dead ball era. Even if he batted (as an outfielder) in his first 4 seasons he only POSSIBLY would have hit 20 more per year, giving him a total of 80 more for the 800 career total.

But, I think you're right about the total number of games played (or more accurately the number of at-bats) against whats being played now.

As of right now, Suzuki has about 60 more at-bats than Sisler did in his record breaking season. (Sisler hit .407 that year, compared to Suzuki's .372 now).

there really is no comparison then. There can never be a "real" leader no matter how you do it. Homeruns will be tainted by the number of at bats, batting average in a reverse way is tainted. This guy hit 400 in 250 at bats where as the new guy hit 398 in 500 at bats.

It really is a shame that we can't truly track players throughout the years.
Even for homeruns the stadiums over the years have changed...I thought I hears somewhere that the fence in left feild I think in Yankee Stadium was pretty much made for Ruth, I could be wrong though.

It was the right field fence. When the Stadium opened in 1923 the distance down right field line was only 296 feet.

You're right, though, arguments can be made using a variety of issues (like the change in stadiums, number of games in a schedule, etc.). There'll never be an accurate way to compare old era to modern era stats.

They played a 154 game season in 1920. Sisler played in all of them

Huh? On what basis can you say that? You want to make an argument that for whatever the reason, Sisler's record is more impressive (altho there are many reasons, IMO, that it's not as impressive as it appears), go ahead. But to say that Ichiro, who is about to break a record that has stood for 84 years, is about to achieve "nothing" is ridiculous.

I'm not sure I see your point here.

McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds all played 162 game seasons, and broke Ruth's record of 60 (and Maris' 61) well within the 154 games that Ruth played.

If you're talking career, at his present pace Bonds will reach 714, needing about 400 more games than Ruth did to reach 714 homers.

But he should pass Aaron in about 300 fewer games than Hank played.

First of all, Ruth was never exclusively a pitcher. From 1914-1917, he pitched in 121 games, but also played some outfield. He hit a total of 22 home runs during those four years, some, presumably, as an outfielder.

Assuming he was a full-time outfielder from 1914-1917, and keeping in mind that it was the "dead ball" era, when homers were scarce, I think it's fair to say that had he played an additional 400 games or so, he wouldn't have hit more than another 50 homers or so, leaving him considerably short of 800.

Bill James makes a distinction between "counting stats" and "percentage stats".

Most hits or homers in a season or career are "counting stats". They are dependent on games played, times at bat, etc.

Seasonal or lifetime batting average leaders are "percentage stats". How many games a guy plays or how many ABs he has are irrelevant.

You want to argue that Babe Ruth was maybe the greatest home run hitter ever because his percentage of home runs per times at bat was the best in history, then I might agree.

But Hank Aaron still holds the record for most homers in a career.

You want to argue that Ty Cobb was maybe the best "hitter" ever because he has a lifetime batting average of .367, then I might agree.

But Pete Rose still hold the record for most hits in a career.

"Counting stats" and "percentage stats" are two completely different things.

Yes, but......

If we look at those athletic endeavors which involve man against a clock, or man against a previous record, I think it's safe to say that today's athletes (as is everyone, generally) are bigger, stronger, and faster.

Could the lighter weight football players of years ago, for example, compete against today's behemoths?

How about the slower and smaller basketball players?

I think if you could somehow take the Babe Ruth of 1920-1930, and plunk him down in 2005, he'd be way too fat and slow to play today's modern game.

But if you took today's Barry Bonds and put him on the 1927 Yankees, there's no telling what he would have done.

He possibly would have been the fastest and strongest player in the game, and with the small stadiums and not having to worry about catching up with 95 MPH fastballs, who knows?

But it's a specious argument.

If Ruth were born in 1975 and playing today, I'm sure he still would have been one of the best ever.

And if Bonds were born 1n 1900 and playing in 1927, he would have been great, too, maybe even the best player in baseball, but I don't think he would have been hitting .400 with 100 homers a year like the present day Bonds might if you could transport him back into time.

258!

I also want to give some praise to Adam Dunn, the new strike out king.

He whiffed more times than Bonds/Bobby? More than 189 K's? YIKES!

How about the Cubs batting Corey Patterson in the leadoff spot with 168 strikeouts and an OBP of just .320? That's not the reason they didn't make the playoffs, but it's certainly an indication of why they won and lost in streaks all season and finished with just 89 wins.

tony b.

Well technically, the AL MVP will be Gary Sheffield of the New York Losers, err I mean Yankees(hey I couldn't help it. Besides, the only thing with the Empire I hate is "The Boss" and not the team nor players nor even the fans. Besides, Red Sox won't get this type of dominance for the next century for sure, knowing history)............however, Ichiro's record is just f*cking amazing. Not to mention this accomplishment adds to his AL MVP and AL Rookie of the Year and Gold Gloves and even All-Star trophies that are currently collecting dust in the Man in Japan's small expensive apartment somewhere in the land of Godzilla...