Best Single Season Ever (Statistically) for a Player

[Al C.risafulli]

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

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?

[insidethewrapper]

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.

[barrysloate]

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!

[fkw]

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

[drdduet]

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...

[Touch'EmAll]

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?

[Clutch-Hitter]

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:



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.

[Al C.risafulli]

Sorry, 'roid fueled stats don't count.

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

[Tony Gordon]

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.

[PolarBear]

Originally Posted by Al C.risafulli

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

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.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by Al C.risafulli

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

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.

[PolarBear]

Originally Posted by Al C.risafulli

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

Sorry, 'roid fueled stats don't count.

[JP]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

Sorry, 'roid fueled stats don't count.

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.