What About Ichiro's Record and the Last .400 Hitter?

- Some writers have said Ichiro's record is not real because of the 162 game schedule (as opposed to 154 for George Sisler in 1920).

These writers first need to realize Ichiro broke the single season hit record.

Second, attacking his record because he did it in 162 games is sad, but expected. The sportwriters didn't attack Bonds' single season home run record or even McGwire's home run record like they have Ichiro's single season hit record.

Third, Ichiro can't control that MLB plays a 162-game season.

And there hasn't been a batting average over .400 since 1941. Why do you suppose the record lasted so long and what about the demise of the .400 hitter?

Batting .400 is harder than most records, you would have to get hits about 40% of the time. George Brett almost hit .400 in 1980 (he ended with a .390 avg.) and Tony Gwynn almost hit .400 in 1994 (he ended with a .394 avg.).

Some reasons as for why no one has broke the .400 mark include that there are more strike outs than ever in MLB, and there are very few hitters that could challenge .400 except Ichiro Suzuki and Barry Bonds.

- But Ichiro's record begs a question. This record stood for 84 years. And there hasn't been a batting average over .400 since 1941. Why do you suppose the record lasted so long and what about the demise of the .400 hitter? [...]

I think the biggest reasons can be summarized in two words: Home Run. Pure hitters such as Ichiro, Carew, and Tony Gwynn now come around every once in a while. Power hitters are practically found around the corner of the street.

You've touched on some of the factors for the demise of the .400 hitter, and I'd add a few more. Integration is certainly a factor as well, but the largest IMO is that as a sport matures, the extremes (i.e. the top and the bottom) are drawn closer to the middle. There are many writings about this, including some by Bill James.

Another factor is that 1920's baseball had many players who began in the deadball era, when average was king. Today, the home run is king. That certainly has an effect. Also, pitchers dropped by the wayside when they tried to keep pitching as many innings as they had in deadball times after the home run really entered the game, which diluted the pitching pool for a time as well.

I've also seen it suggested that before spitters and other doctored pitches were banned, pitchers didn't perfect other breaking pitches like the curve or screwball as much, and thus the ban on such pitches suddenly meant too many pitchers had poor breaking stuff to supplement their heaters - which would clearly be to the advantage of hitters.

You also forgot George Brett's 1980 (?) flirtation with .400.

Jim Albright

- But Ichiro's record begs a question. This record stood for 84 years. And there hasn't been a batting average over .400 since 1941. Why do you suppose the record lasted so long and what about the demise of the .400 hitter? Artificial turf? Relief pitching? I have wondered over the years why not a single player (Rod Carew flirted with .400 in 1977) has not managed to hit better than .400.

The biggest reason that no one has hit over .400 since 1941 is mainly because of the development of the slider. It's very hard to see the difference in arm motion between that and the fast ball. The forkball, the split finger, the cutter, and others have been able to shut hitters. However, with the watering down of the league, it's very possible that somebody breaking .400 is possible to a contact hitter like Bonds, Ichiro, or Puljos.