Best Single Season Ever (Statistically) for a Player

[barrysloate]

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?

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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?

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.

[yanksfan09]

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.

[hunterdutchess]

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).

[packs]

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

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

[barrysloate]

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

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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

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!

[rhettyeakley]

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