Should There be Old and New MLB Record Books? What year would you Divide them?

Question

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.

Of all the records I listed, the latest was 1930. Personally, I think baseball started becoming baseball after WWII, which is where I would draw the line between modern and early.

Answer 1

i agree that those records won't ever be broken..but most people that are baseball historians understand that the game was considerably different than then. there were only a handfull of real teams then and most of the teams were minor league-buddy teams..not even legit..HELL I SAY THIS..records shouldn't even count until the 40's..if even then..and yes that would include ruth's numbers as well

simply put-the early players like cobb and ruth and wagner and young ..etc..DIDN'T PLAY ANYONE. so no their numbers shouldn't count..but here's something..ruth IS THE REASON why there is a rule about using corked bats. HE WAS CAUGHT MORE THAN ONCE using a corked bat and so those bats were banned...george sisler WAS CAUGHT USING A BAT WITH NAILS IN THE YEAR HE HIT A THEN RECORED 250 SOMETHING HITS.

point being..even while playing crappy players and opponets..these guys still had to cheat. by the way ruth contiuned using corked bats. EVEN WHEN HE PLAYED ON A FIELD THAT HAD A RIGHT FIELD WALL OF 289 AND A LEFT FIELD WALL OF 290

pathetic.

then there's the issue of not playing against black players. and how the game was scored. so i can't give prop's to anyone who hit 400 hun BEFORE 1945..oh wait that would be NO ONE...and no i don't consider teddy ball games 400 season legit. how many errors were given to him as hits?

Answer 2

There is a divide between old and new. The term is modern baseball. It occurred when they changed the way they scored errors and walks. I think around the turn of the 20th century.

I am not sure what records you would consider old. DiMaggio's 56 game hitting streak occured in 1941. Ted Williams batting over .400 occured in 1941. Just because no one will ever achieve some of those records does not mean we should call a "do over" and start a new record book.

Answer 3

You're crazy if you think none of those records will ever be broken. Do you think that baseball is only going to be around for another 50 years, or something? Don't assume that baseball will always be the same as it is today. It's changed many times over the past 100+ years. Many "unbreakable" records have already been broken. BTW, when you say a record is unbreakable, you can never be proven right, only wrong.

Answer 4

well im going to take a different view on it. I think it needs to be seperated when they changed the most basic rule of baseball. That a player in the field must bat. They changed the essence of the game. two different leagues with different rules, then why not different record books at the sametime. While we are on that subject i got an Idea lets make it 9 yards for a first down in the nfc!

Answer 5

I understand your argument, and I agree with the thought that there should be some kind of separation there. But, how do you divide it up? What constitutes a line of separation? I don't think that it could be divided up according to years, since baseball GRADUALLY changed....not all of a sudden. I'm not sure about any rule changes over the history of the game, but maybe you could separate it according to rule changes. For instance, the "Old Record Book" would be full of records during the time when "old rules" were used.

Answer 6

Yes, there should be a division. Each century should have its own unique list. We are in a new century and I don't know who leads in anything.
If baseball goes on for 1,000 years and we have just the all-time list, then there will be about 2 or 3 thousand people with 500 HRs. Yet in a given century, it will be, still, a milestone. Each century of fans should have an idea of how good their players are as regards their stats.
Wins for pitchers is another example. If things go as they are, 200 wins might be the standard for the Hall of Fame. If the 21st century were unique unto itself, it would be easier for the average fan to judge a current pitcher's value.
There will always be an all-time list. That won't go away. But if each century operated as if it were the century that mattered -- which, for those fans, it is -- then the dinosaur records of early baseball would impose themselves less.

Answer 7

No we should only have one record book because it's the same game. The rules have not changed or anything like that. If Major League Baseball added some new rule that completely changed the game, then they should make a new record book

Answer 8

Sure, divide it at 1947.

Those who prefer the "good" ole days, when all was lily-white, can pick up Ye Olde Reckorde Booke and wallow in their befogged memories of what once was, back when people knew their place.

Reality-based people can refer to the new, modern book and rest secure that they know what's going on.

Answer 9

we need to focus less on records and more on making a fair market for the rest of baseball ....Teams like Pittsburgh are getting crushed under the wieght and pull of bigger cities monster payroll......

Answer 10

We don't need two record books. Leave everything the way it is and let the fans come to their own conclusions. Nothing would be accomplished by a move like that and it would serve no purpose.