Aside from the fact that we baseball fans seem to assign a greater penalty to roid users than fans of other sports, can you explain why?

-Al

I think Bonds has to be in the discussion. Another player that needs to be in the discussion is Nap Lajoie.

In 1901 Lajoie batted .426! Led the league with 232 hits, 145 runs, 48 2Bs, 14 HRs, 125 RBIs. He also had 14 3Bs and 27 SBs.

Just my personal opinion but I think the steroid era was the worst era in baseball and it obviously allowed players like Bonds to put up numbers like he did. It's cheating, and nothing less.

I think the commissioner should expunge all records of people confirmed to have used steroids. You can keep the "statistics" in the books, but they should not count officially for anything as it relates to the player who has been confirmed as a steroid user.

Aaron is the career HR champ, and Maris is the season HR champ as far as I'm concerned.

Well, I can understand that logic, but to me it's next to impossible to separate the users from the non-users, and to quantify the results of using.

Very few players were actually confirmed to have used steroids. 104, right? Lots of names have been implicated. Lots of other names have not - Griffey, as an example. Pujols, as another. Do we know they didn't use? Nope. It wasn't that long ago that people were rooting hard for Alex Rodriguez to break Bonds' record, because at least he was clean. The reality is that all we have is these guys' word - there are, apparently, a million ways to get around these tests.

Pitchers, also, have been implicated. So if a batter on steroids is facing a pitcher on steroids, doesn't that level the playing field? And if 80% of baseball - an estimate I've read multiple times - was using steroids, is it cheating?

And do we know what percentage of home runs were a result of steroids and not improved conditioning, nutrition, smaller parks, better equipment, weaker pitching? No.

And if we're going to expunge everyone who cheated using steroids, then we've got to expunge everyone who cheated using amphetamines. Pete Rose's hit record? Gone. What evidence do we have that Hank Aaron wasn't using amphetamines, besides his word? None.

Do we know Roger Maris wasn't using anything? No. But look at his career stats, and how his career ended - if he played in the 90s with those numbers, we'd automatically assume he was using.

Do we kick out Gaylord Perry's numbers? Or anyone who's used a corked bat? The 19th century guys who used monkey testosterone (or whatever ridiculous thing it was)?

To me, if we're going to disregard the records of guys we suspect of using steroids [I]when we're considering them for our own opinions[I], that's fine. But if we're going to do a pure statistical analysis of the best offensive season ever, then Barry Bonds' 2004 season is the best, period.

-Al

In 2002 Bonds' slugging percentage was .862, the highest ever.:)

I agree with Al that it's going to be really tough to sort this all out. There are guys who definitely were clean, guys who said they were clean but are lying, and guys who admit that they took steroids. How does one assess all these records given this mishmash of information?

Frankly, if you take away 20% of all of Bonds' career totals, assuming that roughly equals the advantage he had while using steroids, he still has enough numbers to make the Hall of Fame.

The whole thing is a mess, and I have no idea how any determination of what counts and what shouldn't will ever be made.

And for the record, Tim Raines was one of the great players of the 1980's and one of the greatest base stealers of all time. He claimed he used to play with a vial of cocaine in the back pocket of his uniform pants. Do we delete all of his records from the record book?

I agree, and I don't think you can do anything about the statistics from that era. Guys like Bonds, McGwire (1998, 1999) and Sosa (1998, 1999, 2001) are guilty in the court of public opinion. You can take their stats with a grain of salt, but unfortunately I believe they have to be considered in the discussion as well.

I would agree, the whole thing is a mess. There is no way to ever quantify and completely rationalize the steroid stats.

We will never know everyone who did it, probably never even half of the guys even if that other list comes out. also each guy used different stuff. Some HGH, some Steroids (of which there are many different kinds), some both, some greenies, herbs, and who knows what else.... Also you have to assume that each different chemical can have a different reaction to each individual who's using it. It is a mess that can't ever be fully sorted out.

I guess the best we can do is seperate all the known users stats for other eras and be leery of other guys numbers from this era.

As for Ruth, like others have stated; I just don't see any way at all to diminish what he accomplished. He was by far the best all time hitter (and heck of a pitcher) imo.

I am still waiting for someone to hit 62 HR in a season. It's gonna be Pujols, Howard or Cabrera (if he can stay sober).

Babe Herman's 1930 season has to up there with one of the best single season performances of all time.

393 batting average
241 hits
48 doubles
35 home runs
130 rbi's
slugged .678

I agree that this was a very good season, but not one of the all-time greatest. His numbers look impressive across the board, but he did not even lead the League in a single category.

Everybody did well in 1930. The National League had a cumulative batting average of .303.

Actually, if you read my original post, they absolutely do. The point was how a standout player fared against his peers. Those who we assume did steroids, competed against others who we also presume did steroids. It is all relative. I left Bonds out of my list for several reasons. While he was an amazing hitter, many of his numbers are horribly skewed by the fact that he was never given a chance to swing the bat. Anyone's numbers would improve dramatically with over 100 intetional walks and 230 unintentional (intentional) walks. Just think of how
much that adds to categories like OBP, runs, etc.

It is interesting to see curmudgeons like Ted Z. come in here and think I'm crazy to rank someone over Ruth. Again, these are opinions. There is no RIGHT answer, no matter how long you hold your breath or stomp your feet.

I was looking up some player stats from 1930 and I was blown away.

One in particular, Chuck Klein:

386 BA
40 HR
170 RBI
158 Runs
250 Hits
59 Doubles
687 SLG

Wow!

JP, sure these are opinions, but your opinion when it comes to Ruth is just strange. How do you have him ranked lower than Foxx when they were very similar type players yet Ruth dominated him in every category? Your rationale is faulty and then to come on here and call us curmudgeons when you haven't stated your case is a bit of a low blow. If you think that because you are biased and just leave it at that then fine, but your reasoning is totally off b/c there is just no way to rank Foxx ahead of Ruth (which is what you did).

-Carmudgeon Rhett

Foxx, in the year I listed, dominated his competition more than Ruth did in the year I mentioned. That's my opinion.

And you most definitely cannot compare stats of a player one year to a player of a different year. That defers the whole purpose of this...

Don Newcombe, 1955. Look both ways!

I have no idea how you can make the statement that Foxx dominated his competiton more in 1932 than Ruth in 1921 as that is just blatently wrong based on every statistical analysis there is. However, you are entitled to your opinion (even when it's wrong :D).
-Rhett

Rhett
 

Hey Joe P........
Isn't the title of this thread......"Best Single Season Ever (Statistically) for a Player" ? ?

So, now your changing the game by telling us that we have to compare exact seasons ?
You're a real piece of work !

Anyhow, comparing Ruth's 1921 season with Foxx's 1932....although, they are quite close,
Ruth has the edge. And, Ruth's stats were good enough to lead the Yankees to the AL pennant in 1921.

While Foxx's numbers were great, they did not help the A's win the AL pennant in 1932 (the Yankees won it).

..............Ruth..........Foxx

AB's........540............585
HITs........204...........213
BA......... .378......... .364
BB's.........145...........116
HR's..........59............58
2B's..........44............33
3B's..........16..............9
Runs........177...........151
RBI..........171...........169
SlAvg...... .846........ .749
K's.............81............96

Anyhow, I'm one of those Net54 dinosaur's that grew up when the schools taught us Real World math (i.e. .378
is greater than .364..... .846 is greater than .749, etc., etc.).

Joe P, most likely was taught "new math". Or if numbers aren't preceded by $$, he has a problem with them.


T-Rex TED

Curmudgeon Ted, Joe P. passed away recently. You apparently aren't even aware who you are talking to. Have I ever referred to myself as Joe, Theodore?

You also aren't paying attention at all to the point of this thread. You are NOT supposed to be comparing Foxx's 1932 to Ruth's 1921. You need to compare Foxx's 1932 to everyone else in 1932 and Ruth's 1921 performance to eveyone else in 1921. This thread isn't about the greatest offensive performance ever...the title length is limited to so I explained it thoroughly in my post. This thread is about the single season where a player stood out far above everyone else in that SAME SINGLE SEASON.

1921 Ruth and the only thing close is 1920 Ruth.

From the pitcher's side. Dutch Leonard's 1914 season was pretty incredible.

19-5
0.96 ERA
139 hits allowed in 224 innings
7 k's per 9 innings

Wow! 5.5 hits per 9 innings pitched! Is that an all-time low?

JP, Ruth blew away everyone he played against in 1921, even more so than Foxx in 1932--and it isn't even close! So, even by your definition of this thread Ruth wins hands down.

In what statistical category exactly did Foxx dominate his competion in 1932more than Ruth did his in 1921?

I'm really not trying to pick a fight with you or anything. I do love debating baseball statistics though so it is all in good fun here.

-Rhett

Hey JP
 

Regarding your comment in post #69......

"Curmudgeon Ted, Joe P. passed away recently. You apparently aren't even aware
who you are talking to. Have I ever referred to myself as Joe, Theodore?"


Don't insult my intelligence, wise-a$$.....isn't your name.....Joe Pugno (sp) ?

Why do you find it necessary to hide your real name on this forum, mister ? ?


T-Rex TED

What on earth are you talking about? I've been doing deals on the BST for years and years, and at least 50 people here know my birth name. But I don't go by Joe and I certainly don't go by Joe P, so try and be respectful by calling me what I go by. That was Joe Palaez. Keep your head on straight Teddy.

Does he still have a vote every year? If so thats the travesty. Pedro ERA was about 2 FULL RUNS lower then 2nd place in the American League.

Hey look yo-yo, or whatever your name is ? I've known Joe Pelaez since the early 1980's, and I would never confuse you for him.
Why can you show some respect for Joe Pelaez by not bringing him up in your diatribe. Also, the least you can do,is learn to spell
his name correctly.

Man, you are low class !

Ted, obviously everything I'm saying is falling on deaf ears. I don't go by "Joe" and in none of my posts have I ever written Joe. I go by "JP" and so when you call me by another name on purpose, that is disrespectful. Call me what I wish to be called and have been called since I've been here.

Not every Jim wants to be called Jimmy or James.

Joe P. was Joe Pelaez, not me.

C'mon guys we're just talking about stats here so there is no need for the personal stuff. I totally disagree with JP on the stats part but I still like the guy (as long as someday he realizes I was right :D) and Ted is as good as they get when it comes to cardboard so we really have more to like each other about than to dislike each other about!

Yeah pre-war cards!

Rhett, good point, back to cards and stats! In 1932, when everyone was trying to hit HRs (not just Ruth) Foxx outhit everyone including Ruth by 17 more HRs or 40% than the next guy, and he had 30 something more RBIs...

Come on, be serious, Foxx was 25 and Ruth was 37 years old in 1932. You are comparing apples
to oranges......and yet, Ruth led the Yankees to another World Championship that year in 1932.

But, I'll play your ever changing silly game, here is Ruth's stats when he was 25 years old......

AB........458
Hits......172
HR.........54
BA...... .376
SLA..... .847
R..........151
RBI.......137
BB........150


TED Z

As soon as I saw the title of the thread I thought of two things only:

Gibson 1968 1.12 (I'm surprised only one other person has mentioned him)

Bonds 2004 As I watched that season I knew I'd never forget it. He completely changed every game he was in in the same way that Michael Jordan did - he was simply out of everyone else's league. He'd basically see one decent pitch a game and often hit it - out of the park in many cases. No one gave him anything to hit.

I remember seeing the intentional walk stats after the season and being dumbfounded. I don't remember now exactly what it was, but he had more IW's than anyone else had walks, and more walks than any other team. Something like that - something out of this world.

Gibson and Bonds were the only two I thought of.

J

There's really only room for Ruth and Bonds on this list, but in the 1938 Mexican League, Martin Dihigo led the league in pitching AND hitting. He was 18-2 with a 0.92 ERA and won the batting title with a .387 average.

-Ryan

I wonder if Bill James will come out with a new version of his book, last updated in 2003. It will be interesting to see how high Bonds would now rank (I imagine 2nd) and also ARod.

Dihigo wins! Case closed. Thread closed. Thanks for playing everyone!!!

Ruth 1920 & 21, also Foxx in 1932. You have to throw out the 1930 season because of the ball used that year. By 1932 the ball had been tamed down again. Bonds is no longer in any of my record books, Pujols should have a few more MVPs.

Gibson in 1968 is one of my pitching favorites but you have to remember that the mound that year was higher than ever, corrected the next season. The teams kept raising theirs mounds following suit with the Dodgers who tried to help Koufax and Drysdale since they had very little hitting. I don't think any of those three pitchers needed any extra help though!

Given how incredibly dominant Gibson was in 1968, how did he lose nine games?

Gibson gave up 27 total runs in his nine losses.

Run Totals for Gibson's Nine Loses

5-1, 3-2, 1-0, 2-0, 3-1, 6-4, 3-2, 1-0, 3-2

Still tough to lose nine times when your era is 1.12.

And I do remember that at one point in the first week of September his ERA was 0.99! A few bad starts near the end of the season brought it up a bit.

Although I asked the same question earlier, the answer is probably a combination of low scoring games and unearned runs.

Peter you are right, remember Yaz led the AL that season with a .301 average which is probably always going to be the record for lowest to lead a league in the modern era. Also, I agree with Barry, how did Gibson lose ANY games. The St. Louis attack was solid for such a weak season. That is until they ran into Lolich in October!

JP,

You were kidding when you said that Ted Williams numbers aren't that impressive when compared to his peers in 1941, weren't you? His numbers are off the charts compared to the other guys.

Williams walked 145 times that year! 145 times.

Take that into consideration when comparing.

In RBIs, Williams was 4th. DiMaggio led with 5 more RBIs than Williams. DiMaggio had 85 more at bats that year!

In hits, Williams was 5th. He was 33 hits behind Cecil Travis. Travis had 153 more at bats. DiMaggio had 8 more hits than Williams with 85 more at bats.

In total bases, Williams was 3rd. DiMaggio led with 13 more total bases, but had 85 more at bats.

Oh yea and Williams batted .406 compared to the next best, .359.

Williams demolished his peers that year. He was head and shoulders above the rest of the players. And by the way, Williams batted higher for the entire year than DiMaggio did in his 56 game streak!

Cy

I am 60 years old and during that time, there is one season which sticks out in which one player had the greatest season of any player in the last 60 years and that is Yaz' 1967 Miracle Season. Maybe the stats are skewed and you ignore it statistically because the pitchers were so dominant but never, ever have I seen one player play so incredibly and heroically both at the bat and in the field. I am not a Bosox fan by the way, in fact I died with my Twins when they lost on the last day of the season, but Yaz was incredible, simply awesome. It is a well-worn cliche that a player "carried" his team but this is the one example where a player literally lifted a team on his shoulders and took them to the promised land. Yaz made unbelievable catches, threw laser like throws, hit game winning home runs, made clutch hit after clutch hit, etc.
And oh by the way, he won the Triple Crown (last player to do so) and his stats that year, even with the big mounds and low ERAS: .326, 44 HR, 121 RBI.
For one year, Yaz was the natural.

Cy,

Your entire argument is based on what "might have been" had Ted played more games and not been walked as often. But the reality is that other than batting average, Ted didn't lead many offensive categories. The stats are as they are -- you can't presume had he had the extra at bats that he wouldve dominated. If that were the case, then give Bonds 230 more plate appearances and he crushes every offensive stat ever achieved in 2001-2004.

The best statistical season, as I started this thread, is about thoroughly dominating all of the competition in a particular single season. Ted Z. Is confusing things by comparing one season to another and one player to another at a particular age. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with standing out one year, head and shoulders above all else. The more I look at it, it seems as though pitchers far exceed players in standout seasons.

[QUOTE=JP;815137]Cy,

Your entire argument is based on what "might have been" had Ted played more games and not been walked as often. But the reality is that other than batting average, Ted didn't lead many offensive categories. The stats are as they are -- you can't presume had he had the extra at bats that he wouldve dominated. If that were the case, then give Bonds 230 more plate appearances and he crushes every offensive stat ever achieved in 2001-2004.

QUOTE]

The walks are a big part of the story.

Well said Bob. And might I add these stats during the heat of a great pennant race:

Final 15 games: .491 (27 for 55)
Final 10 games: .541 (20 for 37)
Final 6 games: .619 (13 for 21)
Final 2 games: . 875 (7-8)

That's getting er done. Besides the Triple Crown, he led the league in On base (.418), Slugging (.622), Runs scored (112), Hits (189) and total bases (360). Also, he grounded into 5 DP's the entire year!

And he hit .400 (10-25) in the World Series. For a 7 year old at the time, that season made a pretty good impression on me.