Best Single Season Ever (Statistically) for a Player
 

I've often wondered what single season performance should be considered the best ever, keeping in mind the relation to peers' performance and the era in which the numbers were produced. (No, I don't want to hear a bunch of garbage about how Bonds shouldn't be considered because of the doubt around whether he had "help", etc.) Numbers only.

Just off the top of my head (though I had to look up the specific years) I'd rank them:

#1 Ty Cobb - 1911
#2 Jimmie Foxx - 1932
#3 Rogers Hornsby - 1922
#4 Babe Ruth - 1921
#5 Hack Wilson - 1930
#6 Joe DiMaggio - 1937

I'm ignoring things like Ted Williams in 1941 (when he hit .406) because it wasn't THAT impressive in relation to his peers, he had the 5th most hits, 4th most RBIs, 3rd most total bases, etc.

Anyone have a list of their own?

How about George Sisler in 1922.

How about Lefty Grove, 1931?

mantle in 1956
bonds 2001-2004

I don't think that he can be considered at all, not even close. In fact, I've got Hornsby in 1922 already on my list. Sisler had 128 points less in slugging %, 102 less total bases, 47 less RBIs, and on and on.

Hornsby led the majors (both leagues combined) that year in slugging %, OBPS, runs, hits, total bases, home runs, runs created, adj. batting runs, adj. batting wins, extra base hits, times on base, off. win %, and was SECOND in batting average, doubles and RBIs. Sisler is miles behind in most of those categories.

Mantle 1956 is a great one...definitely belongs on the list. Bonds 2001 or 2002 maybe, but not all 4 years...

I agree with JP. Bonds and his personal trainer should be eligible for this thread.

:)

Lou Gehrig in 1934 deserves consideration, and possibly Gehrig, 1931 as well.

edit: Just checked his stats for 1934 and it shows Lou led the league in games,
HR, RBI, BA, OBP, SLG, TB (total bases), and was 2nd in hits with 210. And
he only finished 5th in MVP voting that year!

Ruth
 

Ruth's numbers in 1920 and 1921 are awesome. In 1920 he hit 54 homers, and the 2nd best player had only 19. No other American League Team hit more than 50 homers, so Ruth out-homered every other TEAM.

In 1921, he bumped it up to 59 homers. 2nd place had only 24.

Wow.

Ron

#1 will always be

1920 Babe Ruth ........ Out Homered every other team in baseball except 1.

Where's the love for Ruth beng only #4? How in the world do you have Foxx in '32 ahead of Ruth in any of the following 3 years...1920, 1921, and 1923? Especially when considering the performance of their peers during those same years with the 1930's being known as being especially friendly to hitters.
-Rhett

Some good ones were already mentioned, but how about:

Walter Johnson - 1913
Babe Ruth - 1926-1931
Lou Gehrig - 1927
Joe Medwick - 1937
Hank Greenberg - 1938
Bob Gibson - 1968

Pedro in 1999.

Joe Jackson
 

1911 21 CLE AL 147 641 571 126 233 45 19 7 83 41 56 .408 .468 .590 1.058
Hit .400 in first full season in the big leagues. Best season ever!!!!!!!!!!!

Just a suggestion: list the player's stats for the year, so we don't have to look up what each player did that year. Or if it is non-statistical, briefly make your argument.

Tommy Homes
 

On this topic I just wanted to give a little love to a ball palyer who is mostly forgotten, look at Tommy Holmes 1945 season....

Year Age Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB BB SO BA OBP SLG
1945 28 BSN NL 154 636 125 224 47 6 28 117 15 70 9 .352 .420 .577

9 strike outs in 634 at bats.....WOW! There is alot of talk abot Dimaggio, Ripken, and Aaron's records but 1so per 70ab's that will never happen again!

I don't give a lot of love to Ruth for 1920-1921 because HRs was really the only category where he was destroying people (and teams). At the time it wasn't something people were really going for. Small ball was king.

That's the wierdest rationale I've ever heard, so no love for Ruth in 1920-21 for doing everything better than Foxx did in 1932 because Ruth was doing things nobody else had ever done (and that is a bad thing)?

Year Age Tm Lg G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB
1920 25 NYY AL 142 616 458 158 172 36 9 54 137 14 14 150 80 .376 .532 .847 1.379 255 388
1921 26 NYY AL 152 693 540 177 204 44 16 59 171 17 13 145 81 .378 .512 .846 1.359 239 457
1923 28 NYY AL 152 699 522 151 205 45 13 41 131 17 21 170 93 .393 .545 .764 1.309 239 399
1932 24 PHA AL 154 701 585 151 213 33 9 58 169 3 7 116 96 .364 .469 .749 1.218 205 438

Chris, that AB to K ratio is great! Check out Joe Sewell--he did that essentially for his entire career! Then check out what he did after he "got the hang of Major League pitching" from seasons #6-14!!!
-Rhett

Mn star trib writer La Velle E. Neal refused to vote for him out of spite and cost Pedro the MVP , he was so proud and openly bragged about his vote being the difference I have hated him ever since.

Joe Sewell
 

Wow! Joe Sewell's strike out numbers are just awsome. I have heard of him but had no idea of his eye at the plate! Thanks Rhett, I think I will be looking out for a Sewell card in the near future for my collection!

Ruth
 

I'm with you, Rhett. Ruth's numbers are amazing. JP, take a look at Ruth's runs, RBI, walks, slugging avg. and total bases for 1920-21 & 1923. Better than Foxx during a lower scoring decade.

I love the small ball, too, but Ruth's domination is hard to ignore.

Ron

Wow, that is a weird way to look at it. Even if you ignore HRs, he batted over .370 in both seasons, led the League in On Base %, Slugging %, RBIs, Walks and Runs. In 1921 his On Base % was 60 points higher than anyone else, his Slugging % was 240 points higher than #2, he scored 45 more runs than the next guy, knocked in 32 more runs and walked 42 more times! Besides SBs (he was tied for 8th), what category would you have liked him to excel in?

I'd look at all the triple crown winners and start there

Steve Carlton - 1972
27 wins on a lousy team that won only 59 games. Oh...he also led the league in ERA (1.97) and strikeouts (310)! Easily the Cy Young winner.

Yea, I was thinking of Carlton too since he practically won half of his team's games.

1908 for Ed Walsh was a great year. Not saying it was the best, but pretty amazing.

You can't even automatically consider triple crown winners. Most of them beat the next guy by just a couple rbis, hrs, or runs. The greatest statistical performance has to standout above and beyond everyone else by a wide margin. So maybe a pitcher is more likely than a player?

Ruth in 1921- best offensive season ever.

I interviewed Joe Sewell years ago at a Hall of Fame induction ceremony. He said he learned to play by hitting rocks with a broomstick. So hitting baseballs with a bat was a piece of cake.

Take a closer look at what he did against the rest of the league in for examle 1920
http://www.baseball-reference.com/le...-leaders.shtml

His Slugging was 200 points higher than the 2nd place finisher, his On Base % was 50 points higher than anyone else. He scored 21 more runs than anyone else and had 15 more RBIs. He offensively dominated the league.

Babe Ruth......1921
 

Joe P says......

" I don't give a lot of love to Ruth for 1920-1921 because HRs was really the only category where he was des-
troying people (and teams). At the time it wasn't something people were really going for. Small ball was king."

Tell us what you are smoking ?


Ruth combined "Small Ball" with "Big Ball" in 1921. If the opposition hadn't WALKED him 145 times, who knows
what else Ruth would have accomplished in 1921 ?

Check-out these numbers......

AB's........540
HITs........204
BA......... .378
BB's.........145
HR's..........59
2B's..........44
3B's..........16
Runs........177
RBI..........171
SlAvg...... .846

And, he only struck-out 81 times.

Single season STAT's like these are unequalled in the history of BB.


TED Z

I'm with Ted all the way. Just look at the runs and RBI's- it ends right there!

P.S.- Ruth hit .378, not .387.

I agree with Ted and Barry, definitely Ruth.

What about 1963 Buster Narum with 1-1 and a homer (1.000 BA).

Jack Chesbro......1904
 

The best single-season pitching performance has to be Chesbro's 1904 season. Here are the STAT's......

Games.........55

WON...........41
LOST...........12
W/L %..... .774

ERA..........1.82

K's............239
BB's............88


Unfortunately, Chesbro blew the game against Boston on the last day of the 1904 season. This resulted
in no World Series that year, since McGraw and his NY Giants refused to play it vs. Boston.


TED Z

I know stats from this era don't compare apples to apples now, but I will forever be amazed by Ol' Hoss Radbourn's 1884 stat line. Although when did his win total get changed from 60 down to 59?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...adboch01.shtml

Year 5 Age Tm Lg W L W-L% ERA G GS GF CG SHO SV IP H R ER HR BB IBB SO HBP BK WP BF ERA+ WHIP H/9 HR/9 BB/9 SO/9 SO/BB Awards
1884 29 PRO NL 59 12 .831 1.38 75 73 2 73 11 1 678.2 528 216 104 18 98 441 0 34 2672 207 0.922 7.0 0.2 1.3 5.8 4.50

W-L: 59-12
W-L%: .831
ERA: 1.38
Games: 75
Complete Games: 73
Innings: 678.2
Strikeouts: 441

It's hard for me to wrap my brain around what Ruth was doing in 1920/21. It's hard to argue he put up the greatest statistical season ever, but for me.. the seasons that made a more lasting impact on me are the ones I witnessed.. like;
Foster in '77 - 52 HRs
Guidry in '78 - 1.74 ERA, 25-3 win/loss
Brett '80 when he hit .390
Hershiser in '88 with 59 scoreless innings

at the time, watching Big Mac and Sosa in the HR chase in '98 was the greatest baseball event I had witnessed.. :(

Lets not forget Joe Wood's 1912 season

Going old school - how about Ross Barnes in 1876? Led the league in almost all offensive categories and scored 1.91 runs per game. In context of the league and year, he was as dominating as anyone.

I still don't think Walter Johnson's 1913 season is getting enough recognition in this discussion:

W L W-L% ERA G GS GF CG SHO SV IP H R ER HR BB IBB SO
36 7 .837 1.14 48 36 10 29 11 2 346.0 232 56 44 9 38 243

36 Wins, 1.14 ERA and 124 less hits than IP. Definitely has to be in the discussion.

While I think it's romantic to discuss the people in this thread, and that it shows adequate respect for the history of the game that we all love, I honestly don't think there's a question that Barry Bonds' 2004 season is the best statistical season of all time for a hitter.

Bonds' OPS that season was 1.4217 - the highest of all time (Bonds actually had three of the top five and four of the top 10 of all time). His on base percentage that year was .609 - the only time in any season in the history of baseball that a player got on base more than 60% of the time.

Think about that. 60% of the times Bonds got up to bat, he got on base.

Bonds hit a whopping .362 that season, with a slugging percentage of .821 - fourth best of all time. He drew a ridiculous 232 walks that year - the only time a player has ever drawn more than 200 walks in a season. Of those 232 walks, 120 of them were intentional. ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY INTENTIONAL WALKS. As far as single seasons go, that's 75 more walks than anyone not named Bonds ever received in a season. That should speak to the utter dominance of the man, and how feared he was as a hitter - one hundred and twenty times, opposing managers decided it would be less damaging to give him a free pass and put him on base than to take the risk of having him swing the bat.

Bonds racked up 303 total bases that year, hitting 45 home runs and driving in 101. He scored 129 runs, and only struck out 41 times in 617 plate appearances.

I'd go as far as to say that Bonds' 2002 season is probably the second-best statistical season ever, his 2001 season and 1993 seasons were also outstanding.

Is he my favorite player? No. Did he use steroids? Sure, but so did all the rest of the competition he faced. He's impossible to like, and acknowledging his greatness flies in the face of everything that vintage baseball fans love about the game, but his 2004 season was magic.

-Al

I agree with Al -- if we are talking pure statistics, especially from the Bill James school, Bonds' two seasons are unrivaled.

There are lots of candidates for pitching, but for me it's hard to top Gibby's 1.12. How the hell did he lose 9 games?

I think Hack Wilson must have been on more than just alcohol in 1930. 191 RBI's with 56 Home Runs, 208 hits, 105 walks with a .723 slugging percentage. That was a good year.

I also thought of Bonds' prime seasons but the asterisk next to his name is too large. But if he is in contention, I would have gone with 2002 as his best season, with 2001 and 2004 a close second.

Clearly he had a string of seasons that were statistically unrivalled, although the king for a five year stretch is probably Hornsby from 1921-25, when he averaged .403 for half a decade!

And a few people, including the OP, didn't even have that season in their top-6. I know this is a vintage forum, but come on.

I agree with Bonds, but he was my fav player, so didnt bring it up :)



Pitchers
Gibson 1968 season, 13 shutouts, 1.12 ERA
Koufax 1963-66 seasons, hard to pick one

While Ruth had the two greatest offensive seasons ever, Rogers Hornsby was just a lick behind. In 1922 Hornsby hit .401, 250 hits, 46 doubles, and scored 141 runs with 152 RBI, and put up similar numbers in 1925. Talk about your forgotten greats...

What about Satchell
 

I know there are no official stats, but:

Satchell Paige must have had some year that was off the chart.

And in 1973, Nolan Ryan had not one, but TWO no-hitters, AND broke Koufax's single season strikeout record with 383. Heaven forbid if Ryan played on a winning team - can you say 30 wins to boot?

Sorry, 'roid fueled stats don't count.

Ruth - 1921
 

Babe Ruth, 1921:

In addition to his 59 home-runs in '21, Ruth hit the following home-runs:
4 barnstorming,
5 exhibition,
1 spring tour
7 spring training

At the Polo Grounds in '21, Ruth smacked many (probably more than 20) balls to the monstrous portions of the field that resulted in long fly-outs instead of home-runs. 12 or more dingers were right center to opposite field.

During away games, Ruth bombed 15 or more home-runs ranging from opposite field to right center.

Also, the foul rules were different back then, which eliminated some of his possible home-runs to the short porches...

And don't forget, Ruth was a heck of a bunter during his career, with seven bunt hits in 1921, and nearly 50 in his career. Remember pitchers pitching around Bonds? Imagine what they did with Ruth. I've read that he belted several HR while swinging at pitches well out of the strike zone.

He stole 17 bases in '21, with 59 HR and an .846 slugging %! Babe was a fast runner early in his career and a fine fielder as well. Oh, and one of the best left-handed pitchers during that era.

For this mid-20s, photo, The Babe snatched a tree out of the ground to take his hack! Even with the flaws, it's one of my favorite cards:

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...924Ruth1-2.jpg

Considering the totality of the circumstances, IMO Ruth's '21 season was the best ever for any player, and his career was the best ever for any player. There's a reason anybody and everybody, baseball fan or not, even today, recognizes the name Babe Ruth. It is what it is.

Try this book: The year babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs, by Bill Jenkinson
It's a great book with HR charts, field dimensions, spray charts, HR lists, season narratives, generation to generation comparisons, etc.

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...