There are more plate appearances in higher scoring years, and more plate appearances for higher scoring teams. The Dodgers had 38.63 plate appearances per game this year while the A's faced only 36.15--a bigger relative difference then 162 v 154.

And that difference is even bigger when you consider that the Dodgers batted in only 8 innings in 52 games compared to just 21 for the A's (home wins that were not WOs). The Dodgers did play in 4 more extra innings, but that's still 27 fewer batting innings for the Dodgers.

Every player has the theoretical opportunity to play in all of his team's games. It's silly to implicitly reward a player for missing games and PAs.

By this logic we should penalize Ruth, who missed 3 games while Maris missed only 1.

ETA: What Aunt Bea and Miserlou said.

As for the claim that 162 is meaningfully more than 154, that would seem to be something to be *shown* not just asserted.

By this logic we should penalize Ruth, who missed 3 games while Maris missed only 1.

Maris missed two. He sat out one game against Hoyt and Game 160 against a lefty. However, Ruth missed four. Both teams had tie games that season.

As for the claim that 162 is meaningfully more than 154, that would seem to be something to be *shown* not just asserted.

Really? The opportunity to play and (get plate appearances) in eight extra games needs to be explained.

Is it possible to get fewer PAs playing 162 games than 154? Sure. It's not going to happen bloody often.

The 1927 Yankees had 6227 PAs in 155 games. The 1922 Yankees have had 6029 in 158 (which is roughly 6220 in 163 games). Team OBP of .384 in 1927. That helps create extra PAs.

Or to bring it back to Ruth/ Judge, Ruth had 691 PAs in 151 games. Judge had 6 fewer in 3 more games. Ruth was lifted early 18 times on top of that. 723 PAs for the number 3 spot (which is the only spot Ruth batted in)

It pretty much all boils down to this: Everyone knows the length of a schedule without having to look it up. The idea of using PA's as an alternative standard for counting stats is crazy. Setting a minimum number of PAs for rate stat leaders is another thing altogether, but of course we do this already.

As for the claim that 162 is meaningfully more than 154, that would seem to be something to be *shown* not just asserted.

But as SoSH and I have both pointed out, the same logic could be used to justify admitting counting stat records from a pre-expansion PCL length season, which in some years ran to over 200 games.

But as SoSH and I have both pointed out, the same logic could be used to justify admitting counting stat records from a pre-expansion PCL length season, which in some years ran to over 200 games.

You're dodging the fact that your previous comment made no sense. At any rate, the definition of "season" is arbitrary. *At some point* the extra games matter. In the specific case of Ruth/Maris (or Ruth/Judge), they don't because the difference in PAs is not substantial.

Both teams had tie games that season.

I know that but didn't mention it because it's irrelevant -- neither homered in the tie game.

In the specific case of Ruth/Maris (or Ruth/Judge), they don't because the difference in PAs is not substantial.

So do you how do you feel about Ichiro and Sisler? Because the extra games sure as hell mattered there.

I know that but didn't mention it because it's irrelevant -- neither homered in the tie game.

That's an odd explanation, but yes, since they both missed games it's a wash.

the definition of "season" is arbitrary. *At some point* the extra games matter. In the specific case of Ruth/Maris (or Ruth/Judge), they don't because the difference in PAs is not substantial

I can sort of see that, particularly if the longer season had fewer PAs per game (as Ron notes; 1927 Yankees had 40, 1961 Yankees had 38.3, 2022 Yankees have 38.2).

Still, more is more. Maris did have seven more PAs than Ruth. When you're hitting a home run every 11 PAs, that's an edge.

Though in practice, more didn't turn out to be much more. I think there was this fear – I dunno, fear is too strong, this faint suspicion anyway :) – back in 1961-62, that numerous records might fall. The first year the AL went to 162, the HR record; the first year the NL did, the stolen-base record. (Which was much less famous, but salient enough within baseball at the time, of course.)

But then it turned out to be nothing to worry much about. If anybody groused about Denny McLain needing 162 games to win 30, I don't remember it (though in fact I do remember him doing it early in 1968, and looking it up, he won #30 in game #151).

After lots of years of batters struggling just to reach 50 HR on rare occasions, the 162/154 thing became a kind of who-cares. Meanwhile it took another 40+ years for the Hits record to fall, and the RBI and Runs records haven't, etc.

@110: When it matters, the difference should be noted. In the case of Ichiro and Sisler that difference would be obvious to anyone who sees that Sisler's 257 hits gained him a BA of .407, whereas Ichiro's 262 hits were good for an average of "only" .372. (Note that there are lots of other differences too and my view is that Ichiro's accomplishment is more impressive, but that's not the issue here.)

Still, more is more. Maris did have seven more PAs than Ruth. When you're hitting a home run every 11 PAs, that's an edge.

Yes Maris had a slight edge, though mostly because Ruth missed games. But that difference was small enough that it was never worth re-defining a "season" over it; nobody thinks we should re-define a season because A got 7 more PAs than B. I get your point about concerns at the time, but those concerns never happened, as you noted, and the "two season" approach to the record book still never got reconsidered. It was all incredibly unfair to Maris.

It was all incredibly unfair to Maris.

And this is what I think gets to the heart of the objections. Because the idea was founded in this attempt to discredit Maris, a loathsome pursuit, any kind of subsequent and benign acknowledgement of the different season lengths must be forever sidelined.

For half of baseball history (by now), you had seasons of 154 games scheduled. Then you expanded to 162 scheduled. When you're looking at seasonal counting stats, that matters. Now obviously, you can rack up as many or more PAs in a 154-game season than a 162*. But on average, the guy playing the 162-game schedule is going to get about an extra 35 trips to the plate. I see no real harm in acknowledging that in the record book. Because as unfair as it would have been to Maris to recognize that he hit 61 in 162 while Babe hit 60 in 154, it seems a lot more unfair to Sisler to just note that Ichiro has 262. But that's where we are.

I don't know how football handles it, but OJ's 2003 yards in a 14-game schedule should be at least recognized alongside Dickerson's 2,1something in 16. Also, if you want to put an asterisk next to Juice's line in the record book that he was a murderer, that's quite all right.

*FWIW, the real opportunity difference is probably greater than 7. Both Maris and Ruth are credited with zero IBBs in 1961. But they didn't begin counting them until 1928, so Ruth likely was given four wide ones on a few occasions which aren't included. And for the sake of this discussion, an IBB is not a legit opportunity to homer.

So whose opinion about "the 'real' home run record" does matter?

Goose Gossage. Has he weighed in yet?

Because the idea was founded in this attempt to discredit Maris, a loathsome pursuit, any kind of subsequent and benign acknowledgement of the different season lengths must be forever sidelined.

I don't have any problem with acknowledging the different season lengths *when it matters*. I just think it didn't matter in the specific case which originated the practice (and for bad reasons at that, as you say).

But they didn't begin counting them until 1928, so Ruth likely was given four wide ones on a few occasions which aren't included. And for the sake of this discussion, an IBB is not a legit opportunity to homer.

That's fair, though most pitchers probably weren't thrilled by the "opportunity" to face Gehrig with an additional runner on base.

At any rate, the definition of "season" is arbitrary.

A season is a season, but a 140 game season and a 154 game season and a 162 game season afford different levels of difficulties for accumulating counting stats. Introducing PAs into the mix just complicates a straightforward standard that's been used forever, whether or not you choose to differentiate between 154 and 162 game seasons. (I would, but that distinction is no longer officially recognized.)

You still haven't indicated how a PA standard would be expressed in the record books without cluttering up the page. I'd like to see your ranked list of home run champions where the raw home run totals are combined with a varying number of HR / PA percentages. Just to take a simple example, who would be the home run champion if Player A had 62 home runs in 600 PAs while Player B had 61 home runs in 550 PAs, and Player C had 59 home runs in only 500 PAs?

And so on. How many lines in the record book would you need to have for that, and how many asterisks? Or would you just have one ranking for total home runs, and a separate ranking for HR / PAs, presumably with a minimum number of PAs required for inclusion? That would be like the AB per HR lists on BB-Reference, where FTR Judge now ranks third on a career basis behind McGwire and Ruth.

So whose opinion about "the 'real' home run record" does matter?

Goose Gossage. Has he weighed in yet?

Gossage's only quoted opinion is that George Brett should be permanently disqualified for all batting titles for using pine tar on his bat.

#116 And Ruth walked a lot even playing in a nearly impossible HR park during dead ball -- and before he'd established himself as a major offensive threat. Still, 1927 was the first time Gehrig had established himself as an elite offensive player. Yeah he had a really good 1926 but nothing that's change the other team's decisions. Bob Meusel would have been regarded as the number 2 power hitter for most of 1926. If I had to guess in 1927 Ruth got around 10-15 IBBs.

If you read accounts in 1923 you'll see a lot of pitchers were giving Ruth the same kind of approach prime Bonds got. Hell, he had an OBP of about .715 with a base open in 1923. By 1927 his OBP with a runner on second (only) his OBP was "only" .491 and only .436 with a runner on third. Second and third it was .722 and you only get that kind of OBP with a fair number of IBB.

a 140 game season and a 154 game season and a 162 game season afford different levels of difficulties for accumulating counting stats.

I guess you should therefore define "season" a different way each time: 140 games; 143 games; 154 games; 162 games; and I suppose every 1 game interval in between.

I don't know how football handles it, but OJ's 2003 yards in a 14-game schedule should be at least recognized alongside Dickerson's 2,1something in 16

That's an interesting issue. I don't know that the NFL cares very much about its own history, or tries to manage it in that way officially. F-Ref throws all single-season records together, so Dickerson is 1st, OJ is 8th, and Jim Brown is 76th for the best 12-game season: 1,527 yards in 12 games is still pretty jaw-dropping. And now the season is 17 games and might be 18 before long …

I was mentioning this on Discord because I didn't know without looking it up: Dickerson holds the NFL and NFC single-season rushing-yards records. Who holds the AFC record? Basically, again, it's kind of who-cares unless you are a fairly clued-in or local fan. At least with Judge / Maris /Ruth we are unlikely to forget the AL leaderboard for a while yet. Though I suspect "league" baseball records will decline in interest going forward.

I'll guess that guy from the Titans. Not the current guy, but the really fast guy before him.

Edit: Turns out he's fourth, behind the Broncos' undeserving Hall of Famer, the Titans current guy and the guy I never would have remembered.