Don Padgett won a batting title the year he hit .399. He didn’t actually qualify for the title that year with only 233 at bats, but due to an obscure rule (you can add however many hitless at bats it would take to qualify to your total, and if you still would have led the league, you win the batting crown) won the batting title anyway.

What was the requirement for qualifying for a batting title that year, because, by my calculation, if you add 34 hitless at-bats to his record that'd push him below Mize's .349. Would 267 at-bats have really qualified you for a batting title? (by the way, BB-Ref lists Mize as the league leader in batting average that year)

Most AB in a season with a .400 BA (since 1942).

Immediate reaction to seeing this headline: Quinton McCracken couldn't hit .400 in the California Penal League.

Don Padgett won a batting title the year he hit .399. He didn’t actually qualify for the title that year with only 233 at bats, but due to an obscure rule (you can add however many hitless at bats it would take to qualify to your total, and if you still would have led the league, you win the batting crown) won the batting title anyway.



What was the requirement for qualifying for a batting title that year, because, by my calculation, if you add 34 hitless at-bats to his record that'd push him below Mize's .349. Would 267 at-bats have really qualified you for a batting title? (by the way, BB-Ref lists Mize as the league leader in batting average that year)

I don't get this either. In the BJNHBA, James covered a bunch of controversial batting titles from the era: Dale Alexander, Taffy Wright, Ernie Lombardi, Debs Garms, but he never mentioned Padgett. I think he would have.

Anyway, from the James piece, he reports that the requirement at the time was 100 games played, not a specific number of ABs. Padgett had 92

Anyway, from the James piece, he reports that the requirement at the time was 100 games played, not a specific number of ABs. Padgett had 92

Maybe the thinking is, if you gave him 8 full games of, say, 4 at-bats per game, that'd be an extra 32 at bats, which I think would keep him just above Mize (.351 - .349)?

Maybe the thinking is, if you gave him 8 full games of, say, 4 at-bats per game, that'd be an extra 32 at bats, which I think would keep him just above Mize (.351 - .349)?

Possibly, but I've never heard of that possibility, and never heard of Padgett as a controversial batting champion. And disputed batting titles and ERA titles is a bit of a hobby of mine.

edit: To clarify, I don't think there was any possibility of adjustment at the time. Either you qualified, or you didn't. Unless the commish intervened and took away the title from a marginal qualifier, as he did with Tiny Bonham, or ruled an almost qualifier the champion, as he did with Ernie Lombardi in 1942.

Don Padgett won a batting title the year he hit .399. He didn’t actually qualify for the title that year with only 233 at bats, but due to an obscure rule (you can add however many hitless at bats it would take to qualify to your total, and if you still would have led the league, you win the batting crown) won the batting title anyway.

What was the requirement for qualifying for a batting title that year, because, by my calculation, if you add 34 hitless at-bats to his record that'd push him below Mize's .349. Would 267 at-bats have really qualified you for a batting title? (by the way, BB-Ref lists Mize as the league leader in batting average that year)

Voros has this wrong.

While there may well have been different authorities crowning "batting champions," the "official" qualification in 1939 was 100 games played. It was that qualification that gave the official NL crown to Debs Garms in 1940, despite just 385 PAs. And it would have given it to Taffy Wright in the AL in 1938, despite just 281 PAs, but the league decided to impose the "add hitless at-bats" thing to Garms (which I'm pretty sure they made up on the spot) and instead awarded the batting crown to Jimmie Foxx.

No publication from that time of which I'm aware has Padgett as the batting champ, as he played in only 92 games.

Anyway, it was controversies such as the Wright-Foxx thing that subsequently led to the leagues first choosing 400 at-bats (100 games x 4 ABs) as the qualifier. That worked until 1954, when Bobby Avila's .341 beat Ted Williams' .345 because Williams had just 386 ABs, but over 500 PAs. So then they changed it to 3.1 PAs per scheduled game (or 477 PAs in a 154-game schedule, or 502 PAs in a 162-game schedule), which is what it's been ever since.

The leaderboards in bb-ref.com employ the 3.1-PA qualifier for all rate stats, regardless of whether it was in effect at the time.

Most AB in a season with a .400 BA (since 1942).

Luis Tiant?

Bizarre.

Voros has this wrong.

Is that even legal?

*sigh* Yet another blogger just making stuff up.

But yeah, it's good to know that this one did apparently come straight out of never-never land ... simply because otherwise, it would mean I'd never heard of a guy who was a batting champion. I'm not sure my ego could take that.

While there may well have been different authorities crowning "batting champions," the "official" qualification in 1939 was 100 games played. It was that qualification that gave the official NL crown to Debs Garms in 1940, despite just 385 PAs. And it would have given it to Taffy Wright in the AL in 1938, despite just 281 PAs, but the league decided to impose the "add hitless at-bats" thing to Garms (which I'm pretty sure they made up on the spot) and instead awarded the batting crown to Jimmie Foxx.

Another note. After the Garms title (he beat out Ernie Lombardi), the rule was modified to say 100 games in the field. Garms had only 83 (or possibly fewer) in the field. The rest of his 103 games were PH appearances, so he was perceived, much like Taffy Wright, to be illegitimate. So, 2 years later, Ernie Lombardi hit .330 in 105 games (but only 85 in the field) to Enos Slaughter's .318. The rule change which came about because Lombardi was screwed in 1940 was about to screw him. The commish overruled and awarded the 1942 title to Lombardi.

The hidden .400: Wade Boggs and Tony Gwynn

I love it when guys hit .400 in rookie ball, like Hernan Iribarren in 2004, or (the king of all rookie ball seasons) Gary Redus in 1978.

PI goes back to '42 now?

So, 3.1 PA per scheduled game. Does this mean you still need 502 if you have a bunch of games rained out and not made up? I mean, it's nit-picky, but I could imagine a guy with 499 PA have the last game of the year rained out and not made up. The game was scheduled? Or is it not "scheduled" because it wasn't made up?

So, 3.1 PA per scheduled game. Does this mean you still need 502 if you have a bunch of games rained out and not made up? I mean, it's nit-picky, but I could imagine a guy with 499 PA have the last game of the year rained out and not made up. The game was scheduled? Or is it not "scheduled" because it wasn't made up?

I'm pretty sure they use the number of games a team is actually credited with playing.

That's cool, Steve. It's what I thought, too, but when I read it it struck me wrong. I'm editing papers today, so I'm probably mired in minutiae.

I realize that I think I got this wrong and got things confused. The source for this was here:

Usenet

But re-reading I see that I misinterpreted what he was saying, my apologies.

I love this freaky Craig Wilson line from 1998 (not that Craig Wilson. No, not that one either. The other one.) Just an entirely freaky batting line by a guy who wasn't good hitter at all.

I love this freaky Craig Wilson line from 1998 (not that Craig Wilson. No, not that one either. The other one.) Just an entirely freaky batting line by a guy who wasn't good hitter at all.

Looking at that page, the great thing is that his 1998 was so good in such a short time that his career OPS+ (79) is actually HIGHER than what's listed as his career high (60).

Don Padgett, 1939 - .399

Respek.

Roger Freed, a .245 career hitter, got his average up to .398 in 95 plate appearances one season with the Cardinals.

And, if you move the standard used in reply #2 back one year to 1941, you have Musial in the top 10 at .426 in 47 AB/49 PA.

I love this freaky Craig Wilson line from 1998 (not that Craig Wilson. No, not that one either. The other one.) Just an entirely freaky batting line by a guy who wasn't good hitter at all.

Man, I remember that. I thought, holy, we need to have this guy for a whole season.

Jeremy Reed hit .400 in AA and zoomed up prospect lists as a result a few years back.

PI goes back to '42 now?

Goes back to '71.

Depends what you're looking for, though.

Jeremy Reed hit .400 in AA and zoomed up prospect lists as a result a few years back.

Reed has always been an enigma to me. His minor league numbers were/are (he's hitting .350 this year in Tacoma with a 985 OPS) impeccable. In fact, he's a career .321 minor league hitter. But this somehow didn't translate to the majors ( only .253 with a 680 OPS - which looks even worse when one considers he hit .397 in his 2004 audition with the Mariners). He's not yet 27, so there's still part of me that thinks some team should take a flier on him.

Most AB in a season with a .400 BA (since 1942).

Todd Haney
1995: 411/463/603 in 72 ABs
1996: 134/200/146 in 83 ABs

wonder if there's ever been a greater season-to-next discrepancy

(with virtually the same number of PAs, I mean)

Most AB in a season with a .400 BA (since 1942).

Anything that reminds me of Terrell Lowery makes me smile. Thanks.