Unbreakable Records????

[Migrant Redbird]

... Stolen Bases - Ricky Henderson - 1,406

- 20 years at 70 SB's per year, plus 6

- Only 2 players this century have had 70 SB's in a season (Jose Reyes & Scott Posednik).

Short century! And there were several in the last half of the 20th century. To mention just a couple: Lou Brock stole 118 bases in 1974 and Vince Coleman stole over 100 bases 3 straight seasons in 1985-1987! (That's more seasons over 100 than Ricky had.)

Ricky was unique for his combination of power, average, and speed, but if a mediocre hitter like Vince Coleman can put together 3 straight plus-100 seasons, we shouldn't rule out the possibility that for someone else with Vince's speed who's a little better hitter, a little more durable, and a little smarter (the easiest of the 3 to achieve), Ricky's record could be shattered. Coleman ended up with 849 bases in just 13 seasons, with only 109 total plate appearances in the final two, while Ricky played for 25 seasons.

... It is possible that SB's become more important in this post-steroid era, but with the attention that Moneyball has got they are seen as more of a risk.

- Odds of breaking the record - < 1%

Given another century and baseball remaining much the same (unlikely), I'd put the odds at least 50-50. Smarter runners, better techniques, better training, better medical care to keep a base stealer healthy year after year, and it ought to be pretty easy.

I'll skip the others, but I think a lot of your odds are too low.

[waroriole]

Short century! And there were several in the last half of the 20th century. To mention just a couple: Lou Brock stole 118 bases in 1974 and Vince Coleman stole over 100 bases 3 straight seasons in 1985-1987! (That's more seasons over 100 than Ricky had.)

Ricky was unique for his combination of power, average, and speed, but if a mediocre hitter like Vince Coleman can put together 3 straight plus-100 seasons, we shouldn't rule out the possibility that for someone else with Vince's speed who's a little better hitter, a little more durable, and a little smarter (the easiest of the 3 to achieve), Ricky's record could be shattered. Coleman ended up with 849 bases in just 13 seasons, with only 109 total plate appearances in the final two, while Ricky played for 25 seasons.

Given another century and baseball remaining much the same (unlikely), I'd put the odds at least 50-50. Smarter runners, better techniques, better training, better medical care to keep a base stealer healthy year after year, and it ought to be pretty easy.

I'll skip the others, but I think a lot of your odds are too low.

Since 1950 there have been 31 seasons of 75+ SB's. 7 have been by Ricky Henderson. Only Maury Wills, Vince Coleman, Marquis Grissom, Tim Raines and Ron LeFlore did it more than once. Vince Coleman is the only one to do it more than 3 times (he did it 5).

The reason I chose this century as a reference is b/c the game has changed in that time span. That's not to say that it won't change again, but I think baseball is moving away from the SB in general. Another reason to think that Ricky's record won't be broke is that, as you point out, he played 25 years. Not many people play that long. In over 100 years of baseball, nobody ever reached 1,000 SB until Ricky. That's not a short sample size.

FWIW, I'm not saying the percentages are scientific or exact. They're just an estimate that you are free to agree or disagree with.

[Migrant Redbird]

... The reason I chose this century as a reference is b/c the game has changed in that time span.

Not as much as it did in the nineties.

... That's not to say that it won't change again, but I think baseball is moving away from the SB in general.

Baseball "moved away" from the stolen base before. They'll move back, if the right situation exists. Managers like Ozzie Guillen or Joe Maddon. Teams with fewer home run hitters in the #2 and #3 slots. #2 hitters who can handle a bat and take 1 or 2 strikes if they need to.

Stolen bases flourished in St. Louis in the sixties through the eighties because of a combination of factors: artificial turf; a plethora of speedy, light hitting players; and a shortage of home run hitters. Those conditions are likely to recur, except for the artificial turf -- but the base paths were dirt anyhow.

... Another reason to think that Ricky's record won't be broke is that, as you point out, he played 25 years. Not many people play that long.

No, but Coleman could have broken Ricky's record in just 15 or 16 seasons, if he'd maintained the pace he was on in St. Louis. Coleman elected to chase a big free agent payday with the Mets and he got out of his comfort zone; both his hitting and his stolen base opportunities went way down.

Some day, we'll have a player with Coleman's speed who can get on base at a .350 to .400 clip, on a team where the stolen base isn't discouraged, with a training staff who can keep him healthy year end and year out, and we'll see Ricky's single season record of 130 broken. We could even see Ricky's career record eclipsed in 11 or 12 seasons if the right player comes along in the right situation.

Ricky had a career OBP of .401. Coleman's career OBP was only .324 and his best was just .360, only the second time he was over .350. Ricky hit nearly 300 home runs and over 500 doubles -- depriving him of many opportunities to steal bases. My hypothetical record breaker will hit nearly as many doubles as Ricky, but fewer than 100 home runs, giving him a few more opportunities to gather stolen bases.

... In over 100 years of baseball, nobody ever reached 1,000 SB until Ricky. That's not a short sample size.

No, but baseball hopefully will continue to be played under similar conditions for several hundred more years, and players will become marginally faster and develop even better techniques; therefore, your sample size is smaller than mine.

The average pitcher has probably gotten worse at holding base runners on, so there will be more pitchers against whom my hypothetical record breaker can steal virtually at will.

The average catchers caught stealing percentages seem to have gone down as well, but I think that's more a factor of fewer runners trying to steal, so the ones who do make the attempts have better opportunities.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Oh yeah I guess I should just turn my fan card in.

Yes...yes you should

(I figured it was common knowledge...I knew that before I could write in cursive :laughlol:)

[waroriole]

(I figured it was common knowledge...I knew that before I could write in cursive :laughlol:)

Not sure what that's supposed to tell me. You could have known it 15 years ago, or last week.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Not sure what that's supposed to tell me. You could have known it 15 years ago, or last week.

See, I KNEW you were going to say that, and I almost threw it in as self-deprecation

I did honestly think it was common baseball knowledge, though.

[scOtt]

See, I KNEW you were going to say that, and I almost threw it in as self-deprecation

I did honestly think it was common baseball knowledge, though.

It is, I had just forgotten it.

[NewMarketSean]

I don't think anyone will break Hack Wilson's 190+1 RBI.

[TyCobb]

How is Ripken's record less likely than Cobb's BA?

I think it is possible for someone to break it with the DH around.

[DrungoHazewood]

Cy Young is THE record never to be broken pitcher...

Wins = 511

Losses = 316

Innings = 7354.2

Complete Games = 749

Games Started = 815

Yeah, it really isn't fair to include him in the records list. All of these will never be approached, just a different game now. Still, just think of the work his arm put out and it doesn't even seem possible.

Yeah really! It's why the greatest award in pitching is named after him. What he did is just hard to even fathom today.

Have you ever seen a scouting report on him. I'm interested to know what kind of stuff he had. Did he throw hard, did he have breaking pitches, was he a control guy?

I'll have to look up his stuff in the Neyer/James guide to pitchers, but he was a control guy who threw hard.

Young came along at a time in history that maximized his talents. When he was a rookie it was still common for a team to only use a couple of pitchers all year. So it wasn't uncommon for someone to throw 400+ innings a year. 1892 looks like his best year without taking context into effect: 36-12, 453 innings, 1.93 ERA. But he only tied for the league lead in wins, was 6th in innings, although he did lead the league in ERA. Great numbers, but not mind-blowing.

As he aged, the demands on pitchers fell off quite a bit. So in his 30s he wasn't asked to keep throwing 400 innings a year. Had he been born 10 years earlier his arm would have fallen off, as it did for nearly every good pitcher of the 1880s. Had he been born 10 years later he would never have had those 400 inning season seasons.

Compare him to one of his few direct contemporaries - Kid Nichols. Through the 1890s Nichols was the better pitcher, I think. But Cy was a good pitcher into his 40s, while Nichols career was over by 36. Kid played Pedro to Cy's Roger Clemens.

Basically Young was the Warren Spahn of the 1890-1910 period. He was rarely (figured retroactively) a Cy Young Award Winner, but every year he would have been in the running. To O's fans he was kind of an Eddie Murray - an MVP candidate every year, but never really the best player in baseball.

I think Cy is one of the best 10 starters of all time, but maybe not quite so spectacular as you might think if you looked at his numbers with a modern perspective.

[DrungoHazewood]

Anyway, back to records. Almost all of these supposedly unbreakable records are a matter of the game changing subtly over years, in such a way that makes them unlikely.

But the game often changes in completely unforeseen ways. In 1985 people talked about how Maris' record might stand forever. Within a decade people were making annual runs at it, and of course it eventually fell. Cobb's hit record was considered unbreakable.

Who knows what kind of changes in rules, environment, parks, or equipment we might see that could radically alter the game in the coming decades? If they mandate minimum weights and diameters for bats we may see a revival of high-average contact hitters. Maybe there will be advances in biomechanics that favor pitchers, and allow them to once again throw 400 innings in a season. Maybe the win rule will be changed to better match modern usage patterns.

All I know is that if you set up the conditions and rules to force players to play like it was 1910 or 1894 or 1930, you'd get results that looked a lot like those years. Put Ichiro in a game where the talent level was 75% of today's, with big parks, few Ks, and tiny gloves and he would probably break Hugh Duffy's record .440 batting average.

[waroriole]

How is Ripken's record less likely than Cobb's BA?

That can be your opinion. Like I said, there's nothing scientific about the percentages, just my own estimation.

[sangar]

How is Ripken's record less likely than Cobb's BA?

I think it is possible for someone to break it with the DH around.

If you look at the variance in a series of normal distribution (bell) charts going back to the late 1800's you'll see that the standard deviation has steadily decreased toward the Mean of .272

[Flip217]

I guess it's not really a record, but what about Johnny Vander Meer's back-to-back no hitters?

And now that I'm looking at the Wiki page of MLB individual streaks, there's a few others that just seem unreal.

* Consecutive games without a strikeout :115 - Joe Sewell, Cleveland Indians - May 17 through September 19, 1929

* Consecutive shutouts: 6 - Don Drysdale, Los Angeles Dodgers - May 14 through June 4, 1968

* Consecutive games with a triple: 2 tied with 5 - Harry Davis, Pittsburgh Pirates - July 29 through August 3, 1897, and Chief Wilson, Pittsburgh Pirates - June 17 through 20, 1912

But as a fan I was sitting next to this summer reminded me, "Every time you go to a baseball game you'll see something you've never seen before", so who knows?