I'm listening to our local ESPN channel here in St Louis and they are having this debate... Which is harder to do... Hit .400 for a season or... Win the Triple Crown (Lead in average, homers, rbi's) Neither of these have happened for a very long time so I'm interested in knowing which you think is harder to do. I did some digging and found some interesting information. The following are individuals who have won the Triple Crown for the entire LEAGUE. When you hear the triple crown these days you only think of winning the NL or AL Triple Crown. These are the only people who have ever won the triple crown by leading the entire league in all three categories: Ty Cobb in 1909 Rogers Hornsby in 1925 Lou Gehrig in 1934 Ted Williams in 1942 Micky Mantle in 1956 That's only 5 players in the history of Major League Baseball. Just something cool to look at. Is it harder to win the Triple Crown because you have to be excellent in THREE categories? Or is it better to be lucky then good? I think there's a ton more luck involved with hitting for the triple crown. If everyone else has a down year then you can win the triple crown without having your best season. To hit .400 you have to, well, hit .400. That's 2 hits for every 5 at bats...that's ridiculous to think of someone doing in this day in age. I think the triple crown is "sexier" to achieve but I think hitting .400 is much much harder to do. There could have been a ton more people to hit the triple crown who just lost by a couple Rbis' or a percentage points in a batting average. If someone asked me if I'd rather Pujols win the Triple Crown or hit .400 I'd tell them I'd rather he hit .400. Why? Because if he's hitting .400 then chances are his power numbers are going to be extremely high as well. The majority of the guys who hit .400 did in the dead-ball era becausae it was a different game. We've seen guys since then hit for the triple crown...it happened in the 60s. I think you'll see guys flirt with the triple crown but .400? I dont see it happening. Thoughts?