Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Major League Baseball players with a .400 batting average in a season/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC).

List of Major League Baseball players with a .400 batting average in a season

 * Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly from the original list and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I quickly went through the prose, which has the boilerplate text (e.g. HOF inductees, handedness, etc) that other baseball FLs possess. I'd like to see more a bit more text that uniquely puts .400 into context: Not sure if/when I'll be able to do a complete review, but do want to at least see these addressed. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments by Bagumba
 * Add that .300 is considered a fairly good season already.
 * Added at the end of the 2nd sentence (supported by 2 refs). —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * To appreciate The Washington Post's comment about it being "unattainable", mention modern day players that came closest: Brett (.390), Gwynn (.394).
 * Done. Hope the wording of the additional sentence is okay and non-weasely. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In the opening paragraph should state unconditionally that .400 is considered a rare feat. Attributing the quote by SABR makes it sound like .400 is not generally revered. Per WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. "—Bagumba (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed, but still left the exact wording in quotations (if that's alright). —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Quotations should always be attributed in text, not merely with a citation. That being said, I don't see why this specific quote is needed.  It's probably more common place to say that it is currently considered unlikely to be reachable.—Bagumba (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not inclined to use the word "considered" – it's a weasel word in this situation. Not to mention that this article was AFD'd three times in just over a year because of that word in its title. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to suggest an alternative. Note WP:WEASEL says "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." How do you otherwise propose avoiding use of the specific quote from: "The achievement of a .400 batting average in a season is recognized as 'the standard of hitting excellence'"?—Bagumba (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This issue is still unresolved. Similar point on "a writer for The Washington Post called the mark 'both mystical and unattainable'".  The opinion is not limited to the Washington Post, and a paraphrase is sufficient as opposed to a verbatim quote.—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post quote has been resolved below with the comment from Giants2008. I also agree that with him that it should be attributed, since those are not common words used together by other sources to generically describe the .400 'club'.  And those words are, in my opinion, the most fitting words to describe the club – can't think of any paraphrase that captures the same essence.  I know I can't satisfy everyone, and have no inclination to act as a middle man between two editors who have differing views on wording or use of direct quotes from sources. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As for "the standard of hitting excellence" quote, I again can't think of any other phrase that more appropriately captures the feat achieved by this group of players. I'm not trying to water down the achievement by quoting only one source.  But I do think SABR is a source universally respected across the baseball world that it is capable of speaking not just for itself, but for the overwhelming baseball community —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I also added a sentence (2nd last one in para. 2) about Shoeless Joe Jackson's .408 mark being a rookie record – hope that checks out as well. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @ – I've addressed all the comments you've made so far. Is there anything else that needs to be improved? —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I did a Google search on "bat .400", and seems there should be more discussion on .400 being common before Williams, and why it is now considered out of reach. —Bagumba (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Oppose Biggest stylistic concern is unnecessary use of quotes and inline attribution on uncontested opinions reagrding hitting .400. Per WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." As stated at MOS:QUOTE, "It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words ... Consider minimizing the use of quotations by paraphrasing, as quotations should not replace free text (including one that the editor writes)." As far as content, it does not meet FL expectation to educate a non-baseball fan on the history and later significance of hitting .400. It is not "trivia" to use facts from multiple reliable sources to explain that .400 was a semi-regular occurrence until Williams, and it has rarely been approached since. Do not confuse this with a Wikipedia writer cherry-picking random facts from a stats site. Williams, who in 1941 was the last person to achieve .400, himself stated, “If I had known hitting .400 was going to be such a big deal, I would have done it again.”.—Bagumba (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Impact of relief pitchers.
 * The use of relief pitchers doesn't specifically affect batting .400. They also affect consecutive hit streaks, the reduction in 200 hit seasons today, and the overall decline in offence.  The more appropriate place for this info is the general batting average article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Mentioning relief pitchers here doesn't imply their impact is limited to .400 hitters. At any rate, there should be some explanation given in an FL as to reasons why the feat hasn't been duplicated in 70+ years.—Bagumba (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You win on this point – added a short note in the first sentence of the last paragraph. But I won't bog this list down with the "stats in subsequent comments that are borderline trivia". —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 5 players combined to hit .400 seven times in 20 years before Williams.
 * Unresolved.—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Part of the "stats in subsequent comments that are borderline trivia" quote above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3 players hit .400 in 1922
 * Unresolved.—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Part of the "stats in subsequent comments that are borderline trivia" quote above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Aside from Brett, only Williams and Carew have batted .388 in a full season since
 * Trivia – why the artificial delineation of .388? Could've used a rounded whole number like .390 or .375 … —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The NY Times also mentioned Carew. Multiple experts in reliable sources mention Carew; it's not for us to do OR and create our own threshold of a round number.—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not in favour of creating my own threshold. But there is a longstanding norm for baseball FLs to only include players who have successfully attained the milestone, not the 'almost made it' players. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Bob Hazle hit .403 in 1957. His 134 at-bats were most by .400 hitter since Williams.
 * Irrelevant, in my opinion, since he couldn't even qualify for the batting title. If they were instead discussing the most plate appearances, then that would be a different story. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I interpreted it that the feat is so difficult that only a player with 1/3 or fewer of the reqd plate appearances has hit .400.—Bagumba (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Like the other baseball stats/stat club FLs, the lead and the tables should only focus on those who joined/are in the club and not mention those who 'almost made it' (also applies to the .388 comment). Notwithstanding the fact that Hazle wasn't even close – again, trivia. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * current drought of .350 hitters longest since 1962–66
 * 1968 year of the pitcher, steroid era, specialised RP era – historical trends which are already covered in the MLB GA. If readers want to find out more, they can simply click on the link in this list, which is not the place for me to regurgitate this info (which no other baseball FL does).  And once again, .350 is 'almost made it'. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @ – I've responded to all the latest comments above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've marked the old comments that are still outstanding, and left a comment or two above.—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * – Responded to the latest comments. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment – The one thing that stuck out at me in a negative way was saying that the Washington Post itself was responsible for the "both mystical and unattainable" quote. Since there is an author provided in the piece, this should be worded "The Washington Post's Barry Svrluga" or similar. Other that that, this is a nice-looking list, and I didn't spot anything else to complain about. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @ – I've changed it to "a writer for The Washington Post called the mark …". Is that alright, or would it be better to identify the writer in question by name? —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @ – I think I've addressed your comment satisfactorily. Any follow-up vote? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – Sorry for the delay, but I've been so busy that I've barely been able to edit here lately. As I said, that was my only concern with an otherwise solid list. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 23:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think it'd look better if at bat was just written out rather than (AB) on the one extra mention. That's the only nitpick I saw, and am willing to support once fixed. Wizardman  16:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Wizardman  17:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment This is great work. The only thing I noticed was that in the second paragraph (fourth sentence), you have a fragment after a semicolon ("all of whom attained a batting average over .400 during the 1894 season."). I would either change the semicolon to a comma or replace "whom" with "them".) EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Changed to a comma. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

A solid and compact list; I was expecting longer from the oldest nomination on the page. Promoted. -- Pres N  19:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.