Things could be worse for Dansby
But not much
Dansby Swanson is batting .176 this season. That's almost too terrible to be believed.
It's not just bad, it's historically bad. He homered in his first at bat last night (seriously, he did, I mean it was a pop up that found one of the shortest parts of the Wrigley outfield, but it counts) and his average surged all the way to .178 for just a few minutes. In his second at bat, Rockies right fielder Tyler Freeman dove and trapped Dansby's liner, but the umpires called Dansby out and the Cubs were like, "What are the odds Dansby would get two hits tonight?" and didn't bother to challenge it. Compare that to Petecrow hitting a homer off the right field foul pole later in the game that most likely didn't actually hit the pole and was foul. Petecrow sheepishly rounded the bases and stood at home plate with his bat during the review because he was so sure it was foul.
Some guys have all the luck.
Some guys are Dansby Swanson.
The current worst batting average for any player in big league history with 400 or more at bats in a season is a Cub. Of course it is. Well it's sort of a Cub, but it's not one you've ever heard of, because he was born in, and played in, the 19th century. Jim Canavan hit .166 for the 1892 Chicago National League ball club, but they were the Chicago Colts and wouldn't be known as the Cubs for another 12 seasons.
Canavan was the Colts' second baseman and in his defense it was a terrible year for offense in the National League. The ball was made out of anything round they could find. They used fruit for a while, wadded up horse dung in a few games, and the Colts and Reds played an entire series that August using a tractor tire as the ball.
OK, I might have made that up. But in the pre-gloves with any hinges at all era of baseball, the fact that nobody on the Colts, Cap Anson included, hit .300 and only nine players in the entire league hit .300 proves it was a rough hitting environment.
Canavan was mostly a bad hitter in his career. His lifetime average was .224, though just two years after he set the all-time low he managed to slash .274/.383/.481 in 103 games for the Reds with 13 homers and 74 RBI. What are the odds Dansby will be able to do any of that in two years?
But how does Dansby's ineptness stack up with hitters born in the last century or two?
