So with all that said, what do you think, blogosphere? Will Chipper hit .400?

No.

Chipper will hit .400, play 160 games, and marry Britney Spears in a Unification Church mass wedding.

No seems like such an obvious answer that I'm surprised anyone takes the opposing viewpoint. I probably shouldn't be though. Should probably just try and get them to place a wager on him hitting .400, but I won't since gambling is illegal.

Larry has been around long enough that we know what he's capable of. At his previous best he's been a .330 hitter or so. For someone to hit .400 in a career year it's going to have to be a player who is familiar with the .360 levels on a regular basis, like Boggs and Gwynn were.

No. Do the questions get harder?

Yes.

Hitting .400 in 2008 is a lot harder than hitting .400 in 1941

Given that it took the greatest hitter in the history of the game to do it in 1941, it wasn't really a walkover back then either. In fact, the only time in the past hundred years when it was not near-impossible to hit .400 was in the early lively-ball era 1920-25, when four different guys did it a total of seven different times. The four other examples come from the proto-lively-ball period in 1911-12 and from the year 1930, when the National League hit .303. Outlook Not So Good.

No seems like such an obvious answer that I'm surprised anyone takes the opposing viewpoint.

When you have to file 5 columns a week, you talk about anything.

I say yes. But injuries keep him 12 plate appearances shy of qualifying for the title.

Take that, Mr. Day-to-Day-For-Two-Months.

I predict that Chipper will hit 450 with 30Hr and 100 Rbi, through midseason, but David F** Wrigth will be the starting 3B in the All Star game

To bat .400, he needs to get over 200 hits and barely qualify for the batting title. 201/502 is .4003. The first one will be tough... playing Price is Right for the second is the fun one.

To bat .400, he needs to get over 200 hits and barely qualify for the batting title. 201/502 is .4003. The first one will be tough... playing Price is Right for the second is the fun one.

160/400 with 101 BBs and a sac fly would get it done.

technically, he could go 163 for 408, which is .39951 [rounded to .400], with 94 other plate appearances. Ya think he'd get walked a lot if he's at .405 in August, wouldntcha?

I'd put his odds at 1 in 100.

In a related note, I saw my first game at Turner Field last night. I thought it was a nice park, but the crowd was a bit on the small side.

Fun with numbers:

If Chipper Jones maintains his current walk and sacrifice fly rates and winds up with exactly 502 plate appearances, he'll need to hit 126/324=.389 for the rest of the season to wind up with a .400 average.

Right now, his walk rate is well below his career norm, so if that increases, he'll have to hit even less. (Though if his walk rate increased substantially, he would wind up hitting less anyway.)

Huh, you'd think the denominator is what you qualify people with. Oh well.

Regardless, the closer he gets to 502 PA, the better the odds, since there's more error. He needs to get lucky with BABIP to pull this off.

Ah, the first sign of May: fans believing that now that April is gone, so are small sample sizes! Good times!

Small sample sizes-I wonder where the "Will Webb win 30 games" articles are? He is on pace for 33-0.

Now that that's settled, will Andruw OPS .400?

Yes, Andruw will ops because he will go through one of his classic hot streaks; you know, where he hits .270 for the month and doesn't strike out every third AB.

Now that that's settled, will Andruw OPS .400?

Unlikely. He's already OPSing .543, and it's hard to see how he could (a) be much worse than he already is and (b) get more playing time. Oh, wait:

Asked when he might reach the point when he wanted to bench Jones, Torre said somewhat emphatically, "I can't. I can't do it. He needs to perform here if we're going to do something special."

Down with the ship, Joe!

Actual question: Will Andruw Jones slug .400? He only slugged .413 last year, and is sitting pretty at .264 right now.

Everytime Chipper gets called a borderline hall of famer my skin crawls. Hell, I might take Chipper over Tony Gwynn, and he got 97% of the vote!

Larry has been around long enough that we know what he's capable of. At his previous best he's been a .330 hitter or so.

I think the notion that Chipper will hit .400 "because he really wants to" is obviously wrong, but Brett was a .330 peak hitter and he hit .390 once.

If Chipper gets injured tomorrow and is out for the season, the answer would be YES.

Shredder, where were you last night? It was a smallish crowd, even by Braves standards

I think the notion that Chipper will hit .400 "because he really wants to" is obviously wrong

I really want to bump my fastball up to 99 MPH, develop some control, sign with the Angels and pitch them to the world series. I really, really want to. But it's not happening.

Brett was a .330 peak hitter and he hit .390 once.

That would make him a peak .390 hitter. Jones has yet to top .330.

Brett was a .330 peak hitter and he hit .390 once.

That would make him a peak .390 hitter. Jones has yet to top .330.

I agree with your semantics, but outside of the .390 year, his highest BA was .335. I mean, I don't think Chipper will do it, but it wouldn't be any bigger of a fluke than if Brett had.

I agree with your semantics, but outside of the .390 year, his highest BA was .335. I mean, I don't think Chipper will do it, but it wouldn't be any bigger of a fluke than if Brett had.

I think it would be because at this point we have a better idea of what Chipper is capable of than what we knew about Brett at the time. JMO.

If he's going to do it, I think he will have to keep his ABs down somehow, by injury or by walking...he's not really the Rod Carew type.

They've already started walking him more, if tuesday night is any gauge.

doc, I agree about how it would look at the time, but overall they'd be about equal flukes. In fact, if Chipper hit .400 this year then .360 next year, then .345 the following year, Brett's .390 would be a far bigger fluke (that's all wild speculation of course, but you seem to be saying Brett's .390 wasn't as big a fluke because of what he might have done after. But, we know what he did after and it looks pretty flukelike given that).

Okay, I tried to clarify that and I can't. It's probably nonsense.

No, I get what you're saying, bunyon, as it already occurred to me, but it didn't fit my point ;-). But wouldn't it be hugely unusual if a career .305 hitter all of a sudden at age 35 did .400 then .360 then .345? Like, way more than Brett's .390?

Small sample sizes-I wonder where the "Will Webb win 30 games" articles are? He is on pace for 33-0.

Brandon Webb is more likely to win 30 games than Chipper is to hit .400. Discuss.

Based on what i've seen of the NLwest, webb is more likely.

Brandon Webb is more likely to win 30 games than Chipper is to hit .400. Discuss.

Nope, winning 30 times out of 33-34 starts is basically impossible. Heck, getting 30 decisions is hard enough.

But wouldn't it be hugely unusual if a career .305 hitter all of a sudden at age 35 did .400 then .360 then .345? Like, way more than Brett's .390?

No more unusual than say a 35 year old whose career high was 49 HR, or about 1 per 10 Abs, suddenly hits 70 and one per 7 Ab...

FWIW last 365 days: .369/.443/.629

Chipper's top 3 by avg: .337, .330, .327
Brett's top 3- not including .390: .335, .333, .329

Brandon Webb is more likely to win 30 games

Wasn't there a thread two years ago where somebody suggested very seriously that Tom Glavine, 8-2 by the end of May, couldn't avoid winning 25 games? He ended up winning 15 ...

No, I get what you're saying, bunyon, as it already occurred to me, but it didn't fit my point ;-). But wouldn't it be hugely unusual if a career .305 hitter all of a sudden at age 35 did .400 then .360 then .345? Like, way more than Brett's .390?

Or it indicates a change in the player. That isn't usually appreciated around here, and I have no evidence that it is happening, but if a guy who hit .330 when swinging for the fences decided to cut down on the swing and take a protection approach with two strikes, etc. etc., maybe it could happen. Or maybe he got LASIK or went on the juice.

For example, here are BAs for a recent hitter:

223, 261, 283, 248, 301, 292, 311, 336, 312, 294, 308, 291, 303, 262, 306, 328, 370, 341, 362, 286, 270, 276

Is the bolded section fluke or indication of something in the player changing?

My guess is that Chipper ends the season between 350 and 375 and that he maintains a higher than previously established level of BA for a couple of years. I think he's changed his approach after his spate of injuries in 2005/6 and that he is now a "true .340ish" hitter. And, it seems to me, if you'll grant that, that a true .340 hitter has a chance at a fluky .400 season.

EDIT: and, of course, something changing in the player could be external: more walks, different park, etc. This goes back to the Cliff Lee discussion - is the increase in performance random or truly an indication something is different? My take is you can't tell until the rest of the performance comes in. If Chipper ends up hitting .340 again and is back in the low 300s next year, it's probably random. If he hits high 300s and keeps it there a bit, it's real. Brett's, as we know now, wasn't real. While Chipper's probably is, we don't, and can't, know for awhile.

Who is the hitter in 38?

My guess is that Chipper ends the season between 350 and 375 and that he maintains a higher than previously established level of BA for a couple of years.

So you think Chipper went on steroids this year?

Brett's, as we know now, wasn't real.

We don't actually know that. An explanation for Brett's performance, given in the early 1980's, is that pitchers started pitching him differently around 1981. According to Bill James among others, after 1980, pitchers simply stopped throwing him fastballs after 1980, and it took him a while to adopt - about five years. I didn't watch a lot of Royals games at the time, so I don't really have an opinion whether its true or not, but its at least possible.

In the late 1970's and going into 1980, Brett was changing as a hitter - gaining power, etc, and he was at the age where its possible to develop, which further suggests that 1980 wasn't a complete fluke. Chipper is much older, and its hard to come up with players who developed as hitters in their mid 30's or beyond who weren't on some artificial substance.

Who is the hitter in 38?

This guy.

but the crowd was a bit on the small side.

It was a playoff game?

and its hard to come up with players who developed as hitters in their mid 30's or beyond who haven't been accused of having been on some artificial substance.

Fixed.

So you think Chipper went on steroids this year?

He's a contrarian. (Seriously, no. I think his run of injuries have him cutting down a bit on the swing - I haven't studied it closely, but he seems more controlled at the plate than he did pre-2005.)

Brett's, as we know now, wasn't real.

We don't actually know that. An explanation for Brett's performance, given in the early 1980's, is that pitchers started pitching him differently around 1981. According to Bill James among others, after 1980, pitchers simply stopped throwing him fastballs after 1980, and it took him a while to adopt - about five years. I didn't watch a lot of Royals games at the time, so I don't really have an opinion whether its true or not, but its at least possible.

Hmm, hadn't read that. Thanks. ANd I didn't mean not real in a not real sense. The guy did hit .390. Can't take it away from him.

Who is the hitter in 38?

Bonds. Not sure how relevant he is for comparisons.

technically, he could go 163 for 408, which is .39951 [rounded to .400], with 94 other plate appearances. Ya think he'd get walked a lot if he's at .405 in August, wouldntcha?

I'm not sure that's right. To hit .400, I think you have to hit .400 or above. I don't think rounding is done (or at least I read one report of Williams pursuit that said sitting out that DH wasn't actually an option).

Personally, I don't think rounding should be done when it comes to hitting .400.

If he's at 405 and has enough PA, he'll tweak a quad.

I agree with bunyon. I think by making adjustments in his approach due to injury Chipper has improved his batting style. He was hurting himself by just swinging and missing a while back, and being a good hitter with an ounce of brains he tinkered to see what he could to avoid that circumstance and still be effective. Well, the results so far are more than anyone could have imagined.

What are his swing and miss numbers over the last few years? I would wager they have gone down.

I would compare this to Phil Garner in 1979 when Garner hurt his hand and couldn't take his usual big swing and ended up having his best offensive season.

To hit .400, I think you have to hit .400 or above. I don't think rounding is done

Yes it is. All rate stats are rounded rather than truncated. But to avoid the hyper-annoying crunch of "Yeah but he didn't actually hit .400, it was just rounded up" rhetoric, everyone would want that .400 to be "legit."

Indeed. Both are correct. To be officially listed as a .400 hitter, one only needs top .3995. But 39.95% is not 40%. I think it would be perfectly fine to say that someone who hit .3999 wasn't a .400 hitter.

technically, he could go 163 for 408, which is .39951 [rounded to .400]

That may show up as .400 in the Baseball Encyclopedia (or B-R.com), but it is not hitting .400.


...and never mind, as my point has been made already, multiple times

My guess is that Chipper ends the season between 350 and 375 and that he maintains a higher than previously established level of BA for a couple of years.

My Guess is Chipper's 2008 will be a lot like Posada's or Magglio Ordonez's 2007- or Brett's 1980...

His career BABIP is .316, right now it's .406
HIs start is not much different that the start this guy had in 1985.

Re: bonds

Weird, i hadn't realized that his batting average dipped that much the last three years. I guess that's what comes from ignoring his presence altogether.

I would compare this to Phil Garner in 1979 when Garner hurt his hand and couldn't take his usual big swing and ended up having his best offensive season.

Some said the same about beltre his last year with the dodgers.

Two of my favorite accepted theories among sportswriters:

Players are capable of doing whatever they want. For example, if Chipper wants to get into the Hall of Fame and knows he needs to bat .400 to do it, he will. Or if, say, Ichiro comes up to bat knowing his team needs a home run instead of an infield single, he'll hit a home run.

Second, players would have done something if they hadn't not done it. For example, "If David Ortiz hadn't had the occasional slump, he would have hit 50 home runs." "If Ichiro hadn't hit .200 in April, he would have hit .400."

Murphy was interesting in that he would go through stretches where he consistently hit the ball to RF. His BA and power went up significantly during these stretches. Much of the rest of the time he tried to pull everything and wasn't nearly as good a hitter. Not unlike A. Jones.

I'm not suggesting Chipper can stay in his new form - I appreciate he's an older player. But I don't think he's just out there swinging the same as he always has.

What's the over/under on his BA assuming he qualifies for the batting title? I'd say .350.

What's the over/under on his BA assuming he qualifies for the batting title? I'd say .350.

Bang on.

If, today, he reverts to career norms in BB rate and SF rate here is how his BA comes out if he reverts to the BA shown on the left:


reverts to ----- H rest of 08 ----- 2008 BA
career BA (.309) --- 97 ----------- .341
2005-07 BA (.322) -- 101 --------- .350
2007 BA (.337) ----- 106 ---------- .361

That is all projected assuming he gets to exactly 502 PA. That would give him 434 AB. He needs 174 hits to be above .40000, which means he needs to go 123/315 the rest of the way (I've calculated 49 BB and 3 SF - no HBP or SH). That would be a .390 clip the rest of the way, which, as many have said, is unlikely.

BTW, if he falls off today to his worst season BA (.248 in 137 G in 2004), he'd end up with a 2008 BA of .297.

David Newhan hit .430/.476/.667 for his first ~140 PA of 2004. I realize the talent gap between he and Chipper is, uh, significant, but I'll still take the under on that .350.

That is all projected assuming he gets to exactly 502 PA.

This is a key sentence. The chances that he gets exactly 502 PA in 2008 are very slim, to say the least.

Well, at least someone with the "guts" to predict he will do it.

But how come there are no articles asking if Howie Kendrick is gonna hit 500 for the year?

No.

Do the rest of the questions on the test get harder?

If you neutralize Chipper's stats to 2000 Coors, he'll hit .484 with 63 HR and 205 RBI this year. He'd still be behind three real-life Bonds seasons and one real-life Ruth season in OPS.

Seriously, the only two active players I'd give a chance at .400 are Ichiro and Albert Pujols if he starts getting walked 200 times a year.

That’s why I think Chipper’s going to be the first player since Ted Williams to bat .400. Because I don’t think his hot start is an anomaly. I think he has elevated his game. This isn’t a streak. This is a state of being.

So Ted Williams was the last player to want to hit .400. Hmmm. So is the author suggesting that Tony Gwynn toyed with the notion in 94, but then decided against it and it just hasn't occurred to anyone else in 60 years to elevate his game? I guess I have some concerns about this hypothesis.

No.

Do the rest of the questions on the test get harder?

You owe me a coke. In fact it should be a 12 pack for being 5 hours late.

I don't think you were paying proper attention to the phrase, "state of being." It's more than a simple game elevation, or staircase, or escalation, or whatever. It just is. And don't ask me what the definition of is is.

You owe me a coke. In fact it should be a 12 pack for being 5 hours late.

5 hours ago? Sorry, drank them all already.

Didn't Olerud give it some thought back in what, '98? But then he must have had second thoughts and maybe figured all the attention of hitting .400 would be too much of a headache.

Larry is 0-4 today.

re: Olerud

Didn't Tony Fernandez think about it? And Helton? and a bunch of other scrubs.

Larry is 0-4 today.

Larry might have known yesterday that hitting .400 would get him in the Hall, but I think he forgot before today's game. A few more 0-4 games, and we'll know that Chipper just doesn't want to hit .400.

You owe me a coke. In fact it should be a 12 pack for being 5 hours late.

Seriously. That's Kevin territory.

It briefly crossed his mind during the 9th inning.

But then he must have had second thoughts and maybe figured all the attention of hitting .400 would be too much of a headache.

I actually physically winced at this pun. Well played, sir.

Hey, I know it's a long shot. I know it's likely that Chipper will fall short of .400. But let me address some criticisms, just because I don't really feel like doing work right now.
1.

I really want to bump my fastball up to 99 MPH, develop some control, sign with the Angels and pitch them to the world series. I really, really want to. But it's not happening.

Of course, it's not enough to just want to hit .400. But let's not minimize the impact of proper motivation. After all, we've seen pretty conclusive proof that players play better in contract years, right?

2.

Larry is 0-4 today.

Of course he is.

UPDATE: Larry got a hit in the bottom of the ninth. He ended up 1 for 5. Average down to .419.

3. Ted Williams was the last person to hit .400. He did it in 1941, the same year Joe Dimaggio recorded his 56-game hitting streak. Cornell grad student Samuel Arbesman recently penned a piece for the New York Times where he demonstrated that 1941 was one of the least likely years for a player to record a record hitting streak. Sometimes great players make history despite the odds.

Sometimes great players make history despite the odds.

agreed, but you are talking about an inner circle hof'er and a guy that is just a "hof'er".

I doubt Chipper even wins the batting title this year.

But how come there are no articles asking if Howie Kendrick is gonna hit 500 for the year?

Hey, when he was in the minors, more than a few people pegged him as the guy who would eventually break .400 (myself included).

But the easy answer to the question is that Kendrick has had 38 PAs, Chipper has had 135.

After all, we've seen pretty conclusive proof that players play better in contract years, right?

No, we haven't.

Cornell grad student Samuel Arbesman recently penned a piece for the New York Times where he demonstrated that 1941 was one of the least likely years for a player to record a record hitting streak. Sometimes great players make history despite the odds.

Not having read the piece, I assume the generic odds of having a lengthy hitting streak is contingent on league batting average (and PAs- which are heavily contingent on batting average)
The higher the averages, the more PAs per game, the greater the odds a of a player getting a hit in any given game.
By my half-assed quick calc the easiest years in the AL (pre dH) to have a long hitting streak were:

1936
1925
1921
1930
1924
1935
1938
1937
1934
1932

1941 was 24th out of 72 years

Post DH the ten easiest years:
1996
2000
1999
1994
2006
1997
1995
1998
2004
2007

A high league batting average seems like it would enhance the opportunity simply because the offensive environment was better that year, making it easier to hit .400. But otherwise, it seems that lower league BA would be of help because with fewer plate appearances, there's less time for your BA to regress.

@ Le Samouri

Here's an excerpt from "Baseball Between the Numbers" that looks at whether or not players play better in contract years.

http://books.google.com/books?id=uxdvwQdXbboC&pg=PA199&lpg=PA199&dq=dayn+perry+better+in+contract+years&source=web&ots=JAr82h0K65&sig=XD2qQfvXQ1FfHxaj2XcuUL4zGaE&hl=en

The conclusion: "The walk year performance spike is often a genuine phenomenon."

"The likeliest time for the longest (consecutive game hitting) streak to have occurred was in the 19th century, back in the misty beginnings of baseball. Or maybe in the 1920s or ’30s."

So is the author suggesting that Tony Gwynn toyed with the notion in 94, but then decided against it

No, Tony was RIGHT THERE ... but then McDonald's introduced the Ribwich and he got distracted.

The conclusion: "The walk year performance spike is often a genuine phenomenon."

Except that it looks like the increase in performance is nearly all just an increase in playing time.

Does a player need 502 or 503 Plate Appearances? I know he needs 3.1 per game his team played. 502 rounds to 3.1 but is actually a little below 3.1.

Danny, players do tend to play more games during a walk year. But the bump in playing time is not enough to nullify the trend of increased WARP.

Playing time won't "nullify" increased WARP, it will help increase WARP.

Also, your link length in #82 is a crime against humanity.

Of course it's easiest to say no, and seems deluded or whimsical to say yes, because nobody's done it since 1941. Though I don't think there's any real indication right now that Chipper will be the one to do it, someone will hit .400 again, and when they do it will likely be like this.

You can argue that there's no precedence in Chipper's career for .400, but there's no precedence for it in anybody's career. It sounds pedestrian, but you don't hit .400 before you hit .400. Especially when it hasn't been done for almost 70 years.

Barry, I didn't say playing time nullified WARP, though I probably could have been more clear. I said that just because players in walk years get more minutes, that isn't enough to nullify the trend of increased WARP. I chose the word nullify because that's the word the author of "Baseball Between the Numbers" used when discussing contract year performances.

Here's what the author, Dayn Perry, wrote exactly:

The bump in playing time explains away part of the walk year WARP advantage, but, in light of what we learned about average age and the degree of WARP edge, it's not enough to nullify the trend completely.

Of course, Chipper isn't in a walk year. But I think he's treating this season like a walk year. I think he knows what's at stake and he's got something to prove. Maybe that sounds like a bunch of sports cliches strung together. But in this case, I think it's true.

Does a player need 502 or 503 Plate Appearances?

502.

You can argue that there's no precedence in Chipper's career for .400, but there's no precedence for it in anybody's career. It sounds pedestrian, but you don't hit .400 before you hit .400.

But as we said upthread, he's never even hit .340.

Does a player need 502 or 503 Plate Appearances?

502.

Is it dependent on how many games the team actually plays, or is it the same for everyone?

So could Chipper get 504 PA, be injured and out for the year, then not qualify because the Braves need a one game playoff?

But how come there are no articles asking if Howie Kendrick is gonna hit 500 for the year?

That's a scary thought. For Howie to hit .500 on the season it means that his injuries are much worse than the Angels are telling us. Here's hoping he comes back, gets in a groove, and raises his average up to the .600 level.

Is it dependent on how many games the team actually plays, or is it the same for everyone?

So could Chipper get 504 PA, be injured and out for the year, then not qualify because the Braves need a one game playoff?

Correct, it is dependent on team games. Players on teams that get a game rained out and not re-played only need 499 plate appearances.

The confusing scenario is this (example):

Player A plays for the Braves, who have played 80 games this year. He regrettably gets traded to the Mets, who have played 83 games so far this year. (And naturally have lost over 50 of those.) At the end of the season, he only has 159 "team games." I believe that the plate appearance qualifiers account for this, but I might be wrong.

then McDonald's introduced the Ribwich and he got distracted.

Was the Ribwich from the same episode as Lisa's spelling bee?

Correct, it is dependent on team games. Players on teams that get a game rained out and not re-played only need 499 plate appearances.

This is not actually true. The qualifier based on the scheduled or average number of games for the league. A player whose team had a game rained out and not replayed would still need 502 PAs to qualify.