Why didn't Art Shamsky bat .303 in 1969?

[roger_that]

He's credited in the record books with an even .300 BA in 1969 https://www.baseball-reference.com/play ... ar01.shtml

But he's also credited with 91 hits and 303 ABs, which I get working out to a .303 BA.

What am I not getting?

[batmagadanleadoff]

He's credited in the record books with an even .300 BA in 1969 https://www.baseball-reference.com/play ... ar01.shtml

But he's also credited with 91 hits and 303 ABs, which I get working out to a .303 BA.

What am I not getting?

Maybe your calculator is broken. Or your head if you worked it out in your head.

Go ask Brian Ostrosser. Maybe he knows.

[kcmets]

91/303=.300330033 according to my TI30Xa lol...

[roger_that]

Oh, you're right, KC. I divided by 300, not 303. Still, it seems strange to me. If he was batting exactly .300 (90 for 300) and then he went 1-for-3, you'd imagine he would get a 1 point bump at least, but apparently no.

This curiosity came about, 55 years after the fact, when I copped a Shamsky autograph last weekend, and asked him a wiseass question in the Q-and-A. Nice guy, very modest, speaking to a bunch of old fogies (about 200 of us), mostly reminiscing about 1969 and saying mild disparagements of the current game. No big surprise, exactly what you'd expect, running down the obsession with HR hitters, stats, strikeouts etc, but approving of the pitch clock.

My wiseass question (for those of you who care) was how he felt when the Mets retired his uniform number.

[batmagadanleadoff]

If Shamsky was 0 for one and then got a hit, he'd get a 500 point (.500) bump in his batting average. But no, by the time a player has 300 AB's, he doesn't get a three point bump in his BA from just one more hit. It's the law of large numbers. But that's not what happened here. You just looked at your calculator all wrong and cockeyed.

[roger_that]

He took me seriously at first, said "No, it was Willie Mays who they retired 24 for..." and then got it that I was joking, and said that it was sort of an honor to be classified in any way with Mays and told an anecdote about dressing up in his uniform for an Old-Timers event and being kidded that the uni # was retired so he couldn't wear it anymore...

Very nice guy. Still skinny as hell. I bought a copy of his book about the 69 Mets, which is excellent, full of details and insights, especially his visit to Seaver about 6 months before he died.

[whippoorwill]

I have that book; it’s great

[roger_that]

He's about to release a new book, called something like "Stories I tell only to Mets fans" or "Mets Stories I tell only to Friends" or something like that. I would have thought that he'd already told his best Mets stories, but obviously what I would have thought is immaterial where Shamsky is concerned. (See title, above.)

[whippoorwill]

I’ll bet he has lots of good stories 🙂