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.