74475B5A5951675A415D4641505C5B350 wrote: For what it's worth, BB-Ref estimates these as the top 20 offensive seasons, based on offensive bWAR:
1. Barry Bonds (36). 12.4. 2001. L
2. Babe Ruth+ (28) 12.3 1923 L
3. Babe Ruth+ (26) 12.2 1921 L
4. Barry Bonds (37) 11.8 2002 L
Babe Ruth+ (25) 11.8 1920 L
6. Rogers Hornsby+ (28) 11.6 1924 R
7. Barry Bonds (39) 11.5 2004 L
8. Honus Wagner+ (34) 11.4 1908 R
9. Lou Gehrig+ (24) 11.3 1927 L
Mickey Mantle+ (25) 11.3 1957 B
Babe Ruth+ (32) 11.3 1927 L
12. Rogers Hornsby+ (26) 11.2 1922 R
13. Babe Ruth+ (31) 11.0 1926 L
14. Stan Musial+ (27) 10.8 1948 L
Babe Ruth+ (29) 10.8 1924 L
16. Babe Ruth+ (36) 10.7 1931 L
Ted Williams+ (22) 10.7 1941 L
18. Ty Cobb+ (30) 10.6 1917 L
Mickey Mantle+ (24) 10.6 1956 B
20. Mickey Mantle+ (29) 10.5 1961
Thanks for that, Babe. I'm not much of a fan of WAR but, to your point, there were more than a few seasons by that measurement that were above Hornsby's 1922 season.
Today's birthdays
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
Bobster21
Today's birthdays
712731252A30202B263103242E222A2F6D20430 wrote: ...And April 27:
Paul Miller (1965): 1991-93; RHP; 26.1 IP; 1-0, 4.10
Miller was a 53rd round pick in 1987. I always confuse him with Kurt Miller, another big right-hander who was a first-round pick in 1990 and who was dealt to Texas in the Steve Beuchele trade.
Best player born on April 27: Rogers Hornsby
Is it possible that Hornsby's 1922 season was the greatest offensive season in history? It's hard to imagine there could have been one better. And his four year stretch from 1922 through 1925 may be the best consecutive years ever.
are you not counting Babe Ruth?
Good call, EC. Hornsby in '22 and Ruth in '23 had very similar years statistically. I've always believed that Ruth is the greatest offensive player ever. Add to that his pitching prowess and, for my money, he was the best baseball player ever.
The batting averages in those old days of Hornsby and Ruth were insane. In 1922, Hornsby and Ty Cobb tied with a .401 BA. Tied for 2nd place that is. They weren't even close to George Sisler who hit .420. BAs above .360 were common.
What impresses me most about Ruth is that he was on another planet when it came to HRs. As a P/OFer in 1918 he led MLB in HRs with 11. The next year he led with 29 but no one else had more than 12. The next year he hit 54 but no one else had more than 19. The next year he hit 59 while 2nd place was 24. So it took several years for the rest of MLB to come anywhere near Ruth's HR production. Maybe swinging for the fences was not a strategy until others saw how successful it made Ruth. But it looks very odd that he was in a whole different world when he first started hitting HRs. He was amazing.
Paul Miller (1965): 1991-93; RHP; 26.1 IP; 1-0, 4.10
Miller was a 53rd round pick in 1987. I always confuse him with Kurt Miller, another big right-hander who was a first-round pick in 1990 and who was dealt to Texas in the Steve Beuchele trade.
Best player born on April 27: Rogers Hornsby
Is it possible that Hornsby's 1922 season was the greatest offensive season in history? It's hard to imagine there could have been one better. And his four year stretch from 1922 through 1925 may be the best consecutive years ever.
are you not counting Babe Ruth?
Good call, EC. Hornsby in '22 and Ruth in '23 had very similar years statistically. I've always believed that Ruth is the greatest offensive player ever. Add to that his pitching prowess and, for my money, he was the best baseball player ever.
The batting averages in those old days of Hornsby and Ruth were insane. In 1922, Hornsby and Ty Cobb tied with a .401 BA. Tied for 2nd place that is. They weren't even close to George Sisler who hit .420. BAs above .360 were common.
What impresses me most about Ruth is that he was on another planet when it came to HRs. As a P/OFer in 1918 he led MLB in HRs with 11. The next year he led with 29 but no one else had more than 12. The next year he hit 54 but no one else had more than 19. The next year he hit 59 while 2nd place was 24. So it took several years for the rest of MLB to come anywhere near Ruth's HR production. Maybe swinging for the fences was not a strategy until others saw how successful it made Ruth. But it looks very odd that he was in a whole different world when he first started hitting HRs. He was amazing.
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
Today's birthdays
163B36272031266665540 wrote: ...And April 27:
Paul Miller (1965): 1991-93; RHP; 26.1 IP; 1-0, 4.10
Miller was a 53rd round pick in 1987. I always confuse him with Kurt Miller, another big right-hander who was a first-round pick in 1990 and who was dealt to Texas in the Steve Beuchele trade.
Best player born on April 27: Rogers Hornsby
Is it possible that Hornsby's 1922 season was the greatest offensive season in history? It's hard to imagine there could have been one better. And his four year stretch from 1922 through 1925 may be the best consecutive years ever.
are you not counting Babe Ruth?
Good call, EC. Hornsby in '22 and Ruth in '23 had very similar years statistically. I've always believed that Ruth is the greatest offensive player ever. Add to that his pitching prowess and, for my money, he was the best baseball player ever.
The batting averages in those old days of Hornsby and Ruth were insane. In 1922, Hornsby and Ty Cobb tied with a .401 BA. Tied for 2nd place that is. They weren't even close to George Sisler who hit .420. BAs above .360 were common.
What impresses me most about Ruth is that he was on another planet when it came to HRs. As a P/OFer in 1918 he led MLB in HRs with 11. The next year he led with 29 but no one else had more than 12. The next year he hit 54 but no one else had more than 19. The next year he hit 59 while 2nd place was 24. So it took several years for the rest of MLB to come anywhere near Ruth's HR production. Maybe swinging for the fences was not a strategy until others saw how successful it made Ruth. But it looks very odd that he was in a whole different world when he first started hitting HRs. He was amazing.
Ruth was going to hit way more HRs than other players regardless of circumstances but, what enabled him to hit so many more than had been hit in the past was Ray Chapman's death quickly followed by the breaking news of the Black Sox Scandal a few weeks later. Because of Chapman's death, the owners permitted the use of more baseballs during games that were whiter in color, rounder, and harder than the one or two baseballs typically used during games. In addition, because of the Scandal, the owners were quite happy to see many more fans coming to the ballparks to see Ruth's offensive might because they were legitimately concerned that the Scandal would keep fans away. Ruth was the perfect remedy at the time needed most, and wow, did he ever come through.
Paul Miller (1965): 1991-93; RHP; 26.1 IP; 1-0, 4.10
Miller was a 53rd round pick in 1987. I always confuse him with Kurt Miller, another big right-hander who was a first-round pick in 1990 and who was dealt to Texas in the Steve Beuchele trade.
Best player born on April 27: Rogers Hornsby
Is it possible that Hornsby's 1922 season was the greatest offensive season in history? It's hard to imagine there could have been one better. And his four year stretch from 1922 through 1925 may be the best consecutive years ever.
are you not counting Babe Ruth?
Good call, EC. Hornsby in '22 and Ruth in '23 had very similar years statistically. I've always believed that Ruth is the greatest offensive player ever. Add to that his pitching prowess and, for my money, he was the best baseball player ever.
The batting averages in those old days of Hornsby and Ruth were insane. In 1922, Hornsby and Ty Cobb tied with a .401 BA. Tied for 2nd place that is. They weren't even close to George Sisler who hit .420. BAs above .360 were common.
What impresses me most about Ruth is that he was on another planet when it came to HRs. As a P/OFer in 1918 he led MLB in HRs with 11. The next year he led with 29 but no one else had more than 12. The next year he hit 54 but no one else had more than 19. The next year he hit 59 while 2nd place was 24. So it took several years for the rest of MLB to come anywhere near Ruth's HR production. Maybe swinging for the fences was not a strategy until others saw how successful it made Ruth. But it looks very odd that he was in a whole different world when he first started hitting HRs. He was amazing.
Ruth was going to hit way more HRs than other players regardless of circumstances but, what enabled him to hit so many more than had been hit in the past was Ray Chapman's death quickly followed by the breaking news of the Black Sox Scandal a few weeks later. Because of Chapman's death, the owners permitted the use of more baseballs during games that were whiter in color, rounder, and harder than the one or two baseballs typically used during games. In addition, because of the Scandal, the owners were quite happy to see many more fans coming to the ballparks to see Ruth's offensive might because they were legitimately concerned that the Scandal would keep fans away. Ruth was the perfect remedy at the time needed most, and wow, did he ever come through.
Today's birthdays
the 1927 NYY hit 158 homers with Ruth leading the way with 60. That team scored 976 runs. The Pirates lost the World Series 4-0, the Bucs hit 54 homers and scored 817 runs. Team batting average of 305 vs. the Yankees 307
-
ArnoldRothstein
Today's birthdays
In 1920, Ruth had already hit 42 homers when Chapman was hit on August 16. His great leap forward was from 9 homers at Fenway in 1919 to 29 at the Polo Grounds in 1920. He just needed to get to a park that wasn't killing off his homers.
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
Today's birthdays
5C6F737271794F7269756E697874731D0 wrote: In 1920, Ruth had already hit 42 homers when Chapman was hit on August 16. His great leap forward was from 9 homers at Fenway in 1919 to 29 at the Polo Grounds in 1920. He just needed to get to a park that wasn't killing off his homers.
You're right, I'd forgotten Ruth's first three years in New York were played at the Polo Grounds. But the baseballs being used after Chapman's death contributed to the power surge throughout the game. There's no question Ruth would've hit more HRs than any other player, regardless of the ball. The park, the ball, and his talent were all reasons why.
You're right, I'd forgotten Ruth's first three years in New York were played at the Polo Grounds. But the baseballs being used after Chapman's death contributed to the power surge throughout the game. There's no question Ruth would've hit more HRs than any other player, regardless of the ball. The park, the ball, and his talent were all reasons why.
Today's birthdays
095F495D524858535E497B5C565A525715583B0 wrote: In 1920, Ruth had already hit 42 homers when Chapman was hit on August 16. His great leap forward was from 9 homers at Fenway in 1919 to 29 at the Polo Grounds in 1920. He just needed to get to a park that wasn't killing off his homers.
You're right, I'd forgotten Ruth's first three years in New York were played at the Polo Grounds. But the baseballs being used after Chapman's death contributed to the power surge throughout the game. There's no question Ruth would've hit more HRs than any other player, regardless of the ball. The park, the ball, and his talent were all reasons why.
Ruth was the first one to take advantage of launch angle (I bet he didn't call it that though).
You're right, I'd forgotten Ruth's first three years in New York were played at the Polo Grounds. But the baseballs being used after Chapman's death contributed to the power surge throughout the game. There's no question Ruth would've hit more HRs than any other player, regardless of the ball. The park, the ball, and his talent were all reasons why.
Ruth was the first one to take advantage of launch angle (I bet he didn't call it that though).
-
Bobster21
Today's birthdays
1C3A3B2C3A2A590 wrote: In 1920, Ruth had already hit 42 homers when Chapman was hit on August 16. His great leap forward was from 9 homers at Fenway in 1919 to 29 at the Polo Grounds in 1920. He just needed to get to a park that wasn't killing off his homers.
You're right, I'd forgotten Ruth's first three years in New York were played at the Polo Grounds. But the baseballs being used after Chapman's death contributed to the power surge throughout the game. There's no question Ruth would've hit more HRs than any other player, regardless of the ball. The park, the ball, and his talent were all reasons why.
Ruth was the first one to take advantage of launch angle (I bet he didn't call it that though).
Ted Williams' book "The Science of Hitting" discusses in depth what is now called "launch angle." He swore by it.
You're right, I'd forgotten Ruth's first three years in New York were played at the Polo Grounds. But the baseballs being used after Chapman's death contributed to the power surge throughout the game. There's no question Ruth would've hit more HRs than any other player, regardless of the ball. The park, the ball, and his talent were all reasons why.
Ruth was the first one to take advantage of launch angle (I bet he didn't call it that though).
Ted Williams' book "The Science of Hitting" discusses in depth what is now called "launch angle." He swore by it.
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
Today's birthdays
1B3D3C2B3D2D5E0 wrote: In 1920, Ruth had already hit 42 homers when Chapman was hit on August 16. His great leap forward was from 9 homers at Fenway in 1919 to 29 at the Polo Grounds in 1920. He just needed to get to a park that wasn't killing off his homers.
You're right, I'd forgotten Ruth's first three years in New York were played at the Polo Grounds. But the baseballs being used after Chapman's death contributed to the power surge throughout the game. There's no question Ruth would've hit more HRs than any other player, regardless of the ball. The park, the ball, and his talent were all reasons why.
Ruth was the first one to take advantage of launch angle (I bet he didn't call it that though).
The Babe lived large, he knew no other way, including hitting the ball as far as he could every time. I loved how in the Ken Burns documentary one of Ruth's teammates described him as "a parade (or was it a circus) all by himself".
You're right, I'd forgotten Ruth's first three years in New York were played at the Polo Grounds. But the baseballs being used after Chapman's death contributed to the power surge throughout the game. There's no question Ruth would've hit more HRs than any other player, regardless of the ball. The park, the ball, and his talent were all reasons why.
Ruth was the first one to take advantage of launch angle (I bet he didn't call it that though).
The Babe lived large, he knew no other way, including hitting the ball as far as he could every time. I loved how in the Ken Burns documentary one of Ruth's teammates described him as "a parade (or was it a circus) all by himself".
-
WildwoodDave
- Posts: 568
- Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:19 am
Today's birthdays
702630242B31212A273002252F232B2E6C21420 wrote: In 1920, Ruth had already hit 42 homers when Chapman was hit on August 16. His great leap forward was from 9 homers at Fenway in 1919 to 29 at the Polo Grounds in 1920. He just needed to get to a park that wasn't killing off his homers.
You're right, I'd forgotten Ruth's first three years in New York were played at the Polo Grounds. But the baseballs being used after Chapman's death contributed to the power surge throughout the game. There's no question Ruth would've hit more HRs than any other player, regardless of the ball. The park, the ball, and his talent were all reasons why.
Ruth was the first one to take advantage of launch angle (I bet he didn't call it that though).
The Babe lived large, he knew no other way, including hitting the ball as far as he could every time. I loved how in the Ken Burns documentary one of Ruth's teammates described him as "a parade (or was it a circus) all by himself".
Wonder how much he would be making today?
You're right, I'd forgotten Ruth's first three years in New York were played at the Polo Grounds. But the baseballs being used after Chapman's death contributed to the power surge throughout the game. There's no question Ruth would've hit more HRs than any other player, regardless of the ball. The park, the ball, and his talent were all reasons why.
Ruth was the first one to take advantage of launch angle (I bet he didn't call it that though).
The Babe lived large, he knew no other way, including hitting the ball as far as he could every time. I loved how in the Ken Burns documentary one of Ruth's teammates described him as "a parade (or was it a circus) all by himself".
Wonder how much he would be making today?