Quote:
Originally Posted by Cy2009
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
|
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.