Baseball's .300 hitter has nearly gone extinct

[imetsatchelpaige]

I thought this was a worthwhile read. In 2004, which I consider to be the zenith of StL offensive production, we had 4 hitters over .300. How times have changed...

To be considered a great hitter, you previously had to bat above that mark for the season. Only seven could say they did it this year.

Oct. 17, 2025, 3:00 AM PDT
By Andrew Greif
NBC

Before he stepped into the batter’s box in Detroit for his last at-bat on the final day of the 2000 Major League Baseball season, Minnesota Twins infielder Denny Hocking had done the math.

All spring and summer, Hocking’s batting average had hovered above or just below the magical mark of .300, an average he had never reached in his seven previous big-league seasons. It wasn’t some obscure statistic. Baseball is defined by numbers, yet few have resonated quite like the challenge of getting three base hits out of every 10 at-bats.

“From the time baseball began, a .300 average has been the benchmark by which a player’s success at the plate has been judged,” Charley Lau, a longtime MLB hitting coach, wrote in his 1980 book, “The Art of Hitting .300.” It was, Lau said, “the traditionally accepted mark of excellence," so much so that longtime New York Yankees great Don Mattingly wrote a book about hitting .300, too.

In the film “Bull Durham,” the character played by Kevin Costner refers to hitting .300 as the type of feat that could lift a player out of the minor leagues and into Yankee Stadium. Averaging .300 for your career can lift you into the Hall of Fame, in fact; the career average for every enshrined hitter is .303.

And .300 was on Hocking's mind as he entered Oct. 1, 2000, with a .296 average. By the time he stepped to the plate in the top of the ninth inning, he had 111 hits in 372 at-bats and understood that with one more hit, he’d join the 53 other big-leaguers that season who hit .300 or better.

“I freaking lined out,” Hocking said. “I was like, 'That sucks.'”

In the quarter-century since then, fewer and fewer players have gone into the season’s final day anywhere close to a shot at hitting .300 for the season, however, as the allure of reaching the mark has dimmed.

By 2005, the ranks of .300 hitters had dipped to 33. By 2014, when there were only 17, it prompted media coverage asking whether the death of the .300 hitter was close. Not quite — but last rites were being prepared.

This season, and for the second consecutive year, only seven qualified players hit .300 or better, the fewest since there were six in 1968. Philadelphia's Trea Turner led the National League with a .304 average this season — the second lowest ever by a batting champion.

The dip has coincided with a general decrease in overall averages. From 1973 to 2017, the average batting average in MLB never dipped below .250, but in eight seasons since then, it has happened seven times.


"In terms of putting the ball in play, you have a much lower chance than any point in baseball history at getting a base hit than you ever have before," said Jacob Pomrenke, the director of editorial content for the Society for American Baseball Research.

"The idea that hitters are not as good as in the past, I don’t think it’s true. But pitching, we know for a fact it’s just worlds better than it was even 10 years ago."

Teams still value prospects who get on base, don’t strike out and hit with hard contact as much as ever, said a senior executive who oversees scouting for an MLB team who wasn’t permitted to speak publicly. Yet unlike in the past, when using the hit-and-run or bunting were common ways to manufacture runs and prospects who lacked muscle were allowed to grow into their power as they aged, the executive described an increasing emphasis on hitting for power — one that has been pushed downstream on younger prospects, regardless of their frames.

“Now it’s just more walking, hitting home runs and striking out,” the executive said. “The approach to the game and the approach for a lot of the hitters has changed. The guys that are getting paid are the guys that are hitting a lot of the home runs, even though they might be hitting .220.”

Pomrenke called that emphasis a rational response to what hitters are seeing on the mound.

Pitch velocities have sped up by nearly 6% percent since 2002, one analysis found. When San Diego Padres closer Mason Miller threw a pitch 104.5 mph this month, it was the fastest pitch thrown in the postseason since pitch-tracking first started in 2015. Medical advances have also allowed pitchers who injure ligaments in their throwing arms, including those who have the once-feared and career-ending "Tommy John" surgery, to perform often even more effectively after having gone under the knife. Many pitchers have gone on to win the Cy Young Award, given to the league's top pitchers, post-surgery.

“It’s become an expected thing that they come back from it,” Dr. Neal ElAttrache, one of the most in-demand surgeons in professional sports, told the Los Angeles Times in January. “I think it would be a bigger story now if one of these guys, a big-time athlete, has an operation and doesn’t make it back. That would be big news.”

That has given pitchers incentives to throw harder by lowering the consequences of doing so. Hitters "correctly understand that trying to get three hits in a row is very, very difficult against most pitchers,” Pomrenke said. “So they’d rather swing for the fences. They’d rather try to hit a home run because that’s the way they can succeed best. Their odds are greater.”

Where hitting finds itself isn't solely a modern issue. Hitters and pitchers have ebbed and flowed before; after it hit historic offensive lows in 1968, MLB took the step of lowering the pitching mound and adjusting the strike zone. Babe Ruth is considered the first player to recognize the damage that can be done with one swing; he also struck out at a legendary rate. The legendary hitter Ted Williams, the last to hit. 400, wrote in his 1971 book, “The Science of Hitting,” that batters could increase their chances of contact by swinging at an upward angle.

Yet the ranks of the .300 hitters aren't expected to grow in coming years. A technology boom allows high-speed cameras to instantly track and communicate information about a batter’s swing plane and the launch angle and velocity of a batted ball. The importance of the .300 threshold came out of an era when calculating power was limited, Pomrenke said; now, advanced statistics popularized by the early 2000s Oakland A's of "Moneyball" fame have placed an emphasis on better, more specific measurements.

Even Lau, in his 1980 book, acknowledged that batting average alone was limited in capturing the scope of a hitter's value, proposing a statistic that would "recognize the value of consistency by pegging it to its major result: advancing the runner."

Yet when Lau opined that “if you [try for home runs] every at-bat, you’re almost sure to ruin your average and destroy your chances for hitting consistency, which can significantly reduce your value to the team," he was only half right. It will drive down your batting average but also drive up your value.

When free agency begins this winter, Luis Arráez, the San Diego infielder who hit .314 or better in 2022, 2023 and 2024, is expected to command far less than Kyle Schwarber, the Philadelphia slugger who hit .240 but led the National League with 56 home runs.

Schwarber left college in 2014 with batting averages regularly above .350, but he has remade himself to fit the modern boom-or-bust mold; his 197 strikeouts were third most in all of baseball this season. The executive who helped oversee a team's scouting said scouts would have a much tougher time advocating for a team to draft high school prospects Shawn Green or Cody Bellinger, who rarely hit home runs in high school, only to gradually work up their power.

One poster child for baseball's hitting evolution over the past quarter-century is Justin Turner. A seventh-round pick in 2006, he had had eight career home runs and had become a journeyman by the summer of 2013.

That year, Turner began to rebuild his swing under the advice of a teammate, Marlon Byrd, and a hitting coach in Southern California, Doug Latta. Since 2015, including an injury-shortened season, he has become a lineup mainstay while averaging nearly 17 home runs per season.

“I was getting base hits but not slugging — and in this game you’ve got to slug to stick around,” Turner said in 2018.

A .300 batting average still holds currency for some as a generally accepted mark of a good hitter.

"I like average. I know that stat has gone away, but I'm like, if you play every day and you hit .300, that's probably meaning you're getting about 170 to 175 hits, plus you're walking, so you're on base quite a bit," Dodgers first baseman Freddie Freeman said this spring.

Freeman might be an outlier, however.

After Hocking retired in 2005, he operated a hitting academy and eventually managed in Seattle's minor-league system, and he helped catcher Cal Raleigh develop the power that this season produced an MLB-leading 60 home runs. Top Mariners brass considered batting average a "luck stat," he said. Instead, the team created an organization-wide, March Madness-style bracket in which hitters from both the majors and the minors could advance by who made the better "swing decisions" — how much a hitter swung when a ball was in the strike zone, versus out.

The prize for the bracket's winner, Hocking said, was considerable — an invitation to next season's spring training.

[C-Unit]

Such a long (and good article). Yet, it's hard to pin down what the meat of the story is.

Is it the pitching velocities?
Is it the next-man-up philosophy for the pitchers(because of less fear of TJ)?
Is it the offensive approach?
Is it the lack of strategy (due to DH baseball maybe?)
Is it a confusion between how we value production/efficiency vs entertainment?


It's not the articles fault. It's simply hard to tell which story to read and where the game goes from here. I think everyone thought the shift-ban would help. Now what?

On the last question, we know our Cardinals have a certain balance between the two. It seems every franchise is going to have their specific constraints, and in some cases advantages (in the case of the Cardinals' front office, it is the fanbase that their history affords them) that might play into this.

And yes, even in the modern game, teams that have a lower overall team strikeout rate seem to fair better in the playoffs. The correct emphasis seems to be a low strikeout rate, with no real preference whether the outcome instead ends up being a HR, Walk, or a Hit.

What's the solution. What about moving fences back? Increasing the likelihood of balls to the outfield falling in for a single or double. Maybe that would increase entertainment value.

[imetsatchelpaige]

Such a long (and good article). Yet, it's hard to pin down what the meat of the story is.

Is it the pitching velocities?
Is it the next-man-up philosophy for the pitchers(because of less fear of TJ)?
Is it the offensive approach?
Is it the lack of strategy (due to DH baseball maybe?)
Is it a confusion between how we value production/efficiency vs entertainment?


It's not the articles fault. It's simply hard to tell which story to read and where the game goes from here. I think everyone thought the shift-ban would help. Now what?

On the last question, we know our Cardinals have a certain balance between the two. It seems every franchise is going to have their specific constraints, and in some cases advantages (in the case of the Cardinals' front office, it is the fanbase that their history affords them) that might play into this.

And yes, even in the modern game, teams that have a lower overall team strikeout rate seem to fair better in the playoffs. The correct emphasis seems to be a low strikeout rate, with no real preference whether the outcome instead ends up being a HR, Walk, or a Hit.

What's the solution. What about moving fences back? Increasing the likelihood of balls to the outfield falling in for a single or double. Maybe that would increase entertainment value.

Good post and better questions.
I have thought about the moving out the fences concept. That could work-but then baseball has been actively moving towards the "give me homers or give me death" mindset, with the assumption being that that is what fans want. But do they?
A good question for this off-season.
Thoughts, folks?

[mattmitchl44]

It's this:

That has given pitchers incentives to throw harder [and with more spin/movement] by lowering the consequences of doing so. Hitters "correctly understand that trying to get three hits in a row is very, very difficult against most pitchers,” Pomrenke said. “So they’d rather swing for the fences. They’d rather try to hit a home run because that’s the way they can succeed best. Their odds are greater.”

If MLB wants to make something other than three true outcome (HR, walk, strikeout) the approach that winning teams pursue, they need to make some significant changes:

(1) They need to move the mound back just a little over 3 feet (with the rubber at 63 feet, 7 inches) and put it in the middle of the diamond. A distance increase of ~5% would make 100 mph fastballs play like 95 mph fastballs today. And before people lose their minds about what this would do to pitchers, in terms of the change in angle the pitchers would have to adjust to, this would be less significant (~ a 0.31 degree change) than the lowering of the mound by 5 inches between 1968 and 1969 (~ a 0.39 degree change). Pitchers adjusted from 1968 to 1969, they can adjust to moving the mound back.

(2) They need to re-engineer the baseball. They need to look at some advanced materials which could (1) somewhat deaden the baseball and (2) increase the moment of inertia of the baseball to reduce the ability of pitchers to spin it excessively without changing its weight. You don't want to reduce spin by making the surface of the baseball less gripy because that will increase walks and HBPs. You want pitchers to have control but less spin.

(3) They need to optimize the strike zone. Give the pitchers a strike zone that will encourage them to attack hitters from the first pitch (in part because the ball will be deadened) and make the hitters have to be aggressive from the first pitch in looking for something to swing at.

You can measure the success of MLB in bringing back "action" to the game by one, simple parameter - pitches per plate appearance. The lower MLB could push pitches per plate appearance, the more "action" you are going to have, and the shorter and crisper games are going to be.

[dugoutrex]

baseball will get it right - pretty much every new thing put into place has been a positive in my book!

[imetsatchelpaige]

It's this:

That has given pitchers incentives to throw harder [and with more spin/movement] by lowering the consequences of doing so. Hitters "correctly understand that trying to get three hits in a row is very, very difficult against most pitchers,” Pomrenke said. “So they’d rather swing for the fences. They’d rather try to hit a home run because that’s the way they can succeed best. Their odds are greater.”

If MLB wants to make something other than three true outcome (HR, walk, strikeout) the approach that winning teams pursue, they need to make some significant changes:

(1) They need to move the mound back just a little over 3 feet (with the rubber at 63 feet, 7 inches) and put it in the middle of the diamond. A distance increase of ~5% would make 100 mph fastballs play like 95 mph fastballs today. And before people lose their minds about what this would do to pitchers, in terms of the change in angle the pitchers would have to adjust to, this would be less significant (~ a 0.31 degree change) than the lowering of the mound by 5 inches between 1968 and 1969 (~ a 0.39 degree change). Pitchers adjusted from 1968 to 1969, they can adjust to moving the mound back.

(2) They need to re-engineer the baseball. They need to look at some advanced materials which could (1) somewhat deaden the baseball and (2) increase the moment of inertia of the baseball to reduce the ability of pitchers to spin it excessively without changing its weight. You don't want to reduce spin by making the surface of the baseball less gripy because that will increase walks and HBPs. You want pitchers to have control but less spin.

(3) They need to optimize the strike zone. Give the pitchers a strike zone that will encourage them to attack hitters from the first pitch (in part because the ball will be deadened) and make the hitters have to be aggressive from the first pitch in looking for something to swing at.

You can measure the success of MLB in bringing back "action" to the game by one, simple parameter - pitches per plate appearance. The lower MLB could push pitches per plate appearance, the more "action" you are going to have, and the shorter and crisper games are going to be.

Really interesting post, Matt. I read it twice.
Your point about the mound is intriguing, in part because it was a StL Cardinal pitcher who forced the issue in the 1968.
A question: would not putting the ball in play more lengthen the game, which they have just started figuring out how to shorten? Do fans want more action on the base pads or a 2:38 game?
Looking forward to what the other bright porch lights on the block think.

[mattmitchl44]

A question: would not putting the ball in play more lengthen the game, which they have just started figuring out how to shorten? Do fans want more action on the base pads or a 2:38 game?

Reducing pitches per PA - hence having the ball put in play more frequently - would shorten the game overall.

In a hypothetical ideal, if every PA were exactly one pitch, consider how "action packed" that would be - every pitch resulting in a hit or an out. At that point, no one would care how long the game was overall because the quality would be so high.

[ScotchMIrish]

I think it's partly the urge to change the swing of players at a young age to match what the analytics want to see. Both Musial and Brock had unusual batting stances. Both had 3,000 hits. In today's game their stance and swing would have been changed to get the proper launch angle or whatever the latest fad is among the self professed swing mechanics experts.

[The Nard]

It's this:

That has given pitchers incentives to throw harder [and with more spin/movement] by lowering the consequences of doing so. Hitters "correctly understand that trying to get three hits in a row is very, very difficult against most pitchers,” Pomrenke said. “So they’d rather swing for the fences. They’d rather try to hit a home run because that’s the way they can succeed best. Their odds are greater.”

If MLB wants to make something other than three true outcome (HR, walk, strikeout) the approach that winning teams pursue, they need to make some significant changes:

(1) They need to move the mound back just a little over 3 feet (with the rubber at 63 feet, 7 inches) and put it in the middle of the diamond. A distance increase of ~5% would make 100 mph fastballs play like 95 mph fastballs today. And before people lose their minds about what this would do to pitchers, in terms of the change in angle the pitchers would have to adjust to, this would be less significant (~ a 0.31 degree change) than the lowering of the mound by 5 inches between 1968 and 1969 (~ a 0.39 degree change). Pitchers adjusted from 1968 to 1969, they can adjust to moving the mound back.

(2) They need to re-engineer the baseball. They need to look at some advanced materials which could (1) somewhat deaden the baseball and (2) increase the moment of inertia of the baseball to reduce the ability of pitchers to spin it excessively without changing its weight. You don't want to reduce spin by making the surface of the baseball less gripy because that will increase walks and HBPs. You want pitchers to have control but less spin.

(3) They need to optimize the strike zone. Give the pitchers a strike zone that will encourage them to attack hitters from the first pitch (in part because the ball will be deadened) and make the hitters have to be aggressive from the first pitch in looking for something to swing at.

You can measure the success of MLB in bringing back "action" to the game by one, simple parameter - pitches per plate appearance. The lower MLB could push pitches per plate appearance, the more "action" you are going to have, and the shorter and crisper games are going to be.

No, no, and no.
1. Most of these high-velo power pitchers already have a tough time throwing strikes with the present 60-6 distance. Moving it back roughly 5 pct would just exacerbate that
2. Most breaks in spin-pitches are late in the flight of the ball. Traveling 3more feet would likewise make control more difficult
3 I don’t know about you, but the action of trying to control the flight of the ball over another 5percent distance MAY contribute to yet more arm injuries

Batters and their coaches need to teach how to make better contact by flattening the swings. Baseball has fallen in love with upper-cut swings and launch angles, which shorten the amount of swing that meets the plane of the thrown ball. Just check old films of Hornsby, Cobb, and all the way up to Wade Boggs and Tony Gwynn.
, There’s a place for power hitters in this game, but you have better results when men get on base in front of you.

[mattmitchl44]

No, no, and no.
1. Most of these high-velo power pitchers already have a tough time throwing strikes with the present 60-6 distance. Moving it back roughly 5 pct would just exacerbate that

Not really true.

Since 1969, the MLB average for BB/9 has only ranged from 2.89 (2014) to 3.80 (2000). The three lowest years were 2014, 2015 (2.92), and 2013 (3.02). The three highest were 2000, 1999 (3.73), and 1996 (3.57). The last three years have been 3.21, 3.12, and 3.30.

MLB average for K/9, however, has steadily increased from below 6.0 K/9 from 1969 to 1993, between 6.0 and 7.0 from 1994 to 2009, between 7.0 and 8.0 from 2010 to 2015, and above 8.0 from 2016 to 2025.

So there is no trend in increasing BBs with increasing Ks.

2. Most breaks in spin-pitches are late in the flight of the ball. Traveling 3more feet would likewise make control more difficult

If you re-engineer the baseball to spin less, it will move less, making it easier to control (but also easier to hit).

3 I don’t know about you, but the action of trying to control the flight of the ball over another 5percent distance MAY contribute to yet more arm injuries

The pitcher is basically throwing the ball "through" the catcher anyway. The only difference with moving the mound back is it would slightly change the angle it need to be thrown at to be a strike. But the change from 1968-1969 presumably didn't cause an epidemic of injuries.

[Melville]

There are few universal truths in life.
But here is one.
What is fed, grows - and what is starved, dies.
MLB will have more .300 hitters when it pays players to hit.300.
It is that simple.
Case in point.
Luis Arraez has played 4 full MLB seasons and has reached base 200+ times in every one of them (twice reaching 225+), produced 30 or more doubles each of those seasons, and won 3 batting titles (finishing 4th the only season he did not win it).
Few hitters will match in 15 or 20 years what he has accomplished in the past 4.
He is a FA at just 28 - the prime of his career.
He will probably get a contract for no more than 5 years with an AAV at 15M or below, for a total somewhere in the neighborhood of 75M - while some other FA position players will get double that total amount, and more.
Which is why guys will try for 25-30 HR a year, rather than a .300 BA.