Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Major League Baseball players with a career .330 batting average/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 not promoted by 08:57, 7 February 2013.

List of Major League Baseball players with a career .330 batting average

 * Nominator(s): PM800 (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because batting average has, at least historically, been regarded as the most important baseball statistic. Many of the greatest hitters in MLB history are included here. - PM800 (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The 0.330 part seems artificial. Why not 0.300 or 0.333??? Nergaal (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As stated in the lead, "Baseball historians have considered .330 to be an outstanding batting average." There are 207 players who have batted .300, so that is not a particularly rare accomplishment. - PM800 (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Then can you put that information in the intro so it becomes clear to the casual reader too? Nergaal (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. - PM800 (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support – Great work. A fine addition to the baseball-related FLs on WP. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment – Like Nergaal, I too mind myself questioning the inclusion criteria. About the only sources supporting it as a significant milestone are a 50-year-old Baseball Digest article, and a juvenile biography of A-Rod that says "A batting average higher than .330 is considered outstanding." I don't think the second source is a great one, and don't believe that the author should be considered a historian in that sense. While it would bloat the list considerably, .300 is a much more important number in baseball circles than .330 is. To me, the inclusion criteria is arbitrary, perhaps due to the desire to avoid a long list. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 02:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm neither an expert nor am I particularly interested in MLB. This .330 thing is perplexing to me as well.  Why not .32?  Why not .34?  If there are definitive independent third-party sources which declare that .330 is somehow a milestone, somehow more significant than .340, then please let me know.  Right now it does seem somewhat arbitrary.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone? Nomination appears to have stalled... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW, when I see a .330 batting average, I immediately think elite in terms of hitting, not unlike seeing 3,500 hits. a .300 average, conversely, is very good, but there have been hitters with that average who weren't all that great. It's more arbitrary than .300, sure, but I've at least heard .330 bounced around once in a while, unlike .320 or .340. Unfortunately I don't have anything to cite as proof on that, I'm just going by my knowledge. Wizardman  02:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


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