Do you think there should be official "Modern" and "Early" MLB record books? I was just looking at some of the records and so many of them are so far out of reach. For instance, here are a few of the records that will NEVER be broken: Nap Lajoie .426 batting average (1901), Hack Wilson 191 Rbis (1930), William Hamilton 196 runs (1894), Jack Chesbro 41 wins in a season (1904), Dutch Leonard .96 career Era (1914), Mathew Killroy 513 Ks, 1886, Cy Young, 511 wins, 16 years with 20 or more wins and 749(?) complete games, etc etc etc. These records will stand forever, because no one has even come close to them recently. I have all the respect in the world for these players, but baseball wasn't what it is today back then, which is why the record books should be seperate. If a player today hit .400 or drove in 175 runs, it would be an incredible feat that wouldn't mean jack in terms of records because someone did better back when the game was new and the overall talent wasn't that good.
2007-07-23
09:32:49
·
11 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Baseball