Best Single Season Ever (Statistically) for a Player

[JP]

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?

[PolarBear]

How about George Sisler in 1922.

[JP]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

How about George Sisler in 1922.

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.

Originally Posted by dennis

mantle in 1956
bonds 2001-2004

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

[drc]

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

[Bridwell]

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

[Robextend]

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

[timber63401]

Pedro in 1999.

[CW]

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!

[rhettyeakley]

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

[toppcat]

How about Lefty Grove, 1931?

[dennis]

mantle in 1956
bonds 2001-2004

[fkw]

#1 will always be

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

[hunterdutchess]

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!!!!!!!!!!!

[M's_Fan]

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.

[hunterdutchess]

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!

[JP]

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.

[deadballpaul]

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

[JP]

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?

[barrysloate]

Ruth in 1921- best offensive season ever.

[wpeters]

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.

[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

[tbob]

I am 60 years old and during that time, there is one season which sticks out in which one player had the greatest season of any player in the last 60 years and that is Yaz' 1967 Miracle Season. Maybe the stats are skewed and you ignore it statistically because the pitchers were so dominant but never, ever have I seen one player play so incredibly and heroically both at the bat and in the field. I am not a Bosox fan by the way, in fact I died with my Twins when they lost on the last day of the season, but Yaz was incredible, simply awesome. It is a well-worn cliche that a player "carried" his team but this is the one example where a player literally lifted a team on his shoulders and took them to the promised land. Yaz made unbelievable catches, threw laser like throws, hit game winning home runs, made clutch hit after clutch hit, etc.
And oh by the way, he won the Triple Crown (last player to do so) and his stats that year, even with the big mounds and low ERAS: .326, 44 HR, 121 RBI.
For one year, Yaz was the natural.

[sox1903wschamp]

Originally Posted by tbob

I am 60 years old and during that time, there is one season which sticks out in which one player had the greatest season of any player in the last 60 years and that is Yaz' 1967 Miracle Season. Maybe the stats are skewed and you ignore it statistically because the pitchers were so dominant but never, ever have I seen one player play so incredibly and heroically both at the bat and in the field. I am not a Bosox fan by the way, in fact I died with my Twins when they lost on the last day of the season, but Yaz was incredible, simply awesome. It is a well-worn cliche that a player "carried" his team but this is the one example where a player literally lifted a team on his shoulders and took them to the promised land. Yaz made unbelievable catches, threw laser like throws, hit game winning home runs, made clutch hit after clutch hit, etc.
And oh by the way, he won the Triple Crown (last player to do so) and his stats that year, even with the big mounds and low ERAS: .326, 44 HR, 121 RBI.
For one year, Yaz was the natural.

Well said Bob. And might I add these stats during the heat of a great pennant race:

Final 15 games: .491 (27 for 55)
Final 10 games: .541 (20 for 37)
Final 6 games: .619 (13 for 21)
Final 2 games: . 875 (7-8)

That's getting er done. Besides the Triple Crown, he led the league in On base (.418), Slugging (.622), Runs scored (112), Hits (189) and total bases (360). Also, he grounded into 5 DP's the entire year!

And he hit .400 (10-25) in the World Series. For a 7 year old at the time, that season made a pretty good impression on me.

[JP]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

[QUOTE=JP;815137]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.

QUOTE]

The walks are a big part of the story.