 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Off Topic » Best All-Time Offensive Season
| Poll: Best All-Time Offensive Season | |
|---|---|
| Barry Bonds 2001 | 2 |
| Lou Gehrig 1927 | 0 |
| Rogers Hornsby 1922 | 1 |
| Babe Ruth 1921 | 3 |
| George Sisler 1920 | 0 |
| Sammy Sosa 2001 | 0 |
| Larry Walker 1997 | 0 |
| Ted Williams 1941 | 1 |
| Hack Wilson 1930 | 0 |
| Other | 2 |
farfetched
I chose a few record seasons, such as Hack Wilson's 1930 RBI splurge, or Barry Bonds' 2001 homerun barrage, and I chose a few that just seemed to be downright sick when it came to looking at monstrous numbers. I even allowed for an 'other' category, because these aren't necessarily what you think would be the best, be it another year by a player listed or another player with a good offensive season, so allow me an explanation if you choose other.
I know what you're thinkin'... Walker doesn't need to be mentioned with the other guys because he plays in Colorado... But thin air has nothing to do with how well you run the basepaths, and that's about as close as I think anyone will ever come to stealing 30 bases and swatting 50 homeruns in the same season. Yes, I know there are 40/40 players, but every season (Canseco '88/Bonds '96/Rodriguez '98) seemed to be a squeaker in both categories, with the exception of Alex Rodriguez who stole 46... Of course, he only managed 42 homers that year. (Remember, I said 50 homeruns.)
I was going to post the links, but it seemed I screwed up somewhere along the way. Oh well. I might find the time to post an analysis later.
[Edited on 11-29-2003 by farfetched]
Best All-Time Offensive Season
November 29, 2003 at 09:48PM View BBCode
Bored... Want to know what you think is the greatest offensive onslaught by one player since the live ball was introduced in 1920. I don't count Ty Cobb or Nap Lajoie because in some cases they were in a league of their own before WWI.I chose a few record seasons, such as Hack Wilson's 1930 RBI splurge, or Barry Bonds' 2001 homerun barrage, and I chose a few that just seemed to be downright sick when it came to looking at monstrous numbers. I even allowed for an 'other' category, because these aren't necessarily what you think would be the best, be it another year by a player listed or another player with a good offensive season, so allow me an explanation if you choose other.
I know what you're thinkin'... Walker doesn't need to be mentioned with the other guys because he plays in Colorado... But thin air has nothing to do with how well you run the basepaths, and that's about as close as I think anyone will ever come to stealing 30 bases and swatting 50 homeruns in the same season. Yes, I know there are 40/40 players, but every season (Canseco '88/Bonds '96/Rodriguez '98) seemed to be a squeaker in both categories, with the exception of Alex Rodriguez who stole 46... Of course, he only managed 42 homers that year. (Remember, I said 50 homeruns.)
I was going to post the links, but it seemed I screwed up somewhere along the way. Oh well. I might find the time to post an analysis later.
[Edited on 11-29-2003 by farfetched]
ME
Bonds in 2001 had an OPS of 1.378, I voted for that one, since it is the best up there.
November 29, 2003 at 11:28PM View BBCode
Barry Bonds in 2002 set the OPS record, 1.381 (.799SLG/.582OBP) as well as the OBP record, so I would have to say that one, even though it is not on the list.Bonds in 2001 had an OPS of 1.378, I voted for that one, since it is the best up there.
ME
BA-OBP-SLG (SB/CS)
Sisler 1920: .407-.449-.632 (42/17)
Bonds 2001: .328-.515-.863 (13/3)
Ruth 1920: .376-.532-.847 (14/14)
Gehrig 1927: .373-.474-.765 (10/8)
Walker 1997: .366-.452-.720 (33/8)
Sosa 2001: .328-.437-.737 (0/2)
Wilson 1930: .356-.454-.723 (3/0)
Hornsby 1922: .401-.459-.722 (17/12)
Williams 1941: .406-.553-.735 (2/4)
other ones:
Ruth 1921: .378-.512-.846 (17/13)
Ruth 1927: .356-.486-.772 (7/6)
Bonds 2002: .370-.582-.799 (9/2)
Hornsby 1924: .424-.507-.696 (5/12)
Henderson 1983: .292-.414-.421 (108/19)
Henderson 1985: .314-.419-.516 (80/10)
Henderson was caught 42 times his 130 steal season and his OBP was under .800, so I didn't include that one.
[Edited on 11-29-2003 by ME]
November 29, 2003 at 11:49PM View BBCode
Here is everyone's numbers for those years:BA-OBP-SLG (SB/CS)
Sisler 1920: .407-.449-.632 (42/17)
Bonds 2001: .328-.515-.863 (13/3)
Ruth 1920: .376-.532-.847 (14/14)
Gehrig 1927: .373-.474-.765 (10/8)
Walker 1997: .366-.452-.720 (33/8)
Sosa 2001: .328-.437-.737 (0/2)
Wilson 1930: .356-.454-.723 (3/0)
Hornsby 1922: .401-.459-.722 (17/12)
Williams 1941: .406-.553-.735 (2/4)
other ones:
Ruth 1921: .378-.512-.846 (17/13)
Ruth 1927: .356-.486-.772 (7/6)
Bonds 2002: .370-.582-.799 (9/2)
Hornsby 1924: .424-.507-.696 (5/12)
Henderson 1983: .292-.414-.421 (108/19)
Henderson 1985: .314-.419-.516 (80/10)
Henderson was caught 42 times his 130 steal season and his OBP was under .800, so I didn't include that one.
[Edited on 11-29-2003 by ME]
skierdude44
November 30, 2003 at 01:29AM View BBCode
its a tough call. i prolly wouldnt give it to hack wilson bcuz those rbi numbers r mostly team dependent although it is still impressive. im leaning toward bonds just bcuz i saw him play and bcuz he broke a few records that year. but its a tough call.
farfetched
In 1922, the NL of course had only 8 teams, but that was enough for the Rajah to be the only regular among 200+ players in the NL to have 250 hits, 30 homeruns (he had 42, and no other player had higher than 27), 140 RBI, and a .600 slugging percentage. Hornsby was to the NL what Babe Ruth was to the AL, as far as numbers were concerned, and though the field out there is twice as large, I'd still say there are doubts as to whether Bonds is as dominant as people like to say he is, especially as far as numbers are concerned (if he was pitched to on a regular basis, I doubt he'd have as good a numbers as he does, but I guess we'll never know.) but in the roaring 20s, there was a clear top tier among power hitters, which included the likes of Ruth, Hornsby, Gehrig, and Al Simmons, and they stood head and shoulders above the rest. Nowadays, the distribution of power is a good bit more diverse, with the number of homeruns increasing by the year, and they're not monopolized by single players anymore.
November 30, 2003 at 02:04AM View BBCode
I voted Hornsby because he's the only player in history to hit .400 AND win the Triple Crown in the same season. I'd have put his .424 season on the list, but I felt that his triple crown season was just that much more dominant for his day.In 1922, the NL of course had only 8 teams, but that was enough for the Rajah to be the only regular among 200+ players in the NL to have 250 hits, 30 homeruns (he had 42, and no other player had higher than 27), 140 RBI, and a .600 slugging percentage. Hornsby was to the NL what Babe Ruth was to the AL, as far as numbers were concerned, and though the field out there is twice as large, I'd still say there are doubts as to whether Bonds is as dominant as people like to say he is, especially as far as numbers are concerned (if he was pitched to on a regular basis, I doubt he'd have as good a numbers as he does, but I guess we'll never know.) but in the roaring 20s, there was a clear top tier among power hitters, which included the likes of Ruth, Hornsby, Gehrig, and Al Simmons, and they stood head and shoulders above the rest. Nowadays, the distribution of power is a good bit more diverse, with the number of homeruns increasing by the year, and they're not monopolized by single players anymore.
FuriousGiorge
November 30, 2003 at 03:41AM View BBCode
Interesting debate. I'd probably give it to Bonds for his 2001 season: it may not have been QUITE as good as 2002 in terms of quality (although they're awfully close) but he managed to play in 10 more games in 2001. I pick that over Ruth's 1920 season only because it's tougher to dominate a league now than it was then (Ruth didn't play against blacks, a lot of good players back then either got stuck in the minors or never got discovered at all, and pitchers then probably didn't throw as hard on every pitch as they do now, although they probably threw pretty damn hard to Ruth). Of course, some things are easier now: personal trainers, no long train trips, more crappy pitchers at the bottom of rotations. So maybe Ruth's was better, but I'll stick with Bonds for now.
happy
December 01, 2003 at 08:12PM View BBCode
out homering every other team will never be out done, lets go ruthPages: 1