Ohms showing domination in the domination thread :pQuote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Printable View
Ohms showing domination in the domination thread :pQuote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Pitcher: Pedro '99. Just sickening what he did that year.
Hitter: I like Williams in '41, and I like Yastrzemski's triple crown. But I'm going off the board and saying Matt Williams in '94. Basically one home run every 10 at bats. If that season is completed, is there a '98 McGwire/Sosa showdown? Or do Williams/Griffey/Thomas obliterate 61 by mid-September?
Interesting take. I wouldn't say Williams was the most dominant player that season, though, in terms of overall dominance. Barry Bonds, Jeff Bagwell, Ken Griffey, and Frank Thomas all were having much better seasons. It was quite some year though, huh? I wish it could've played out.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckwillard
As do I. More speculation: would the Expos still be the Expos if there had been no strike?
Quite possibly. Their fan support wasn't bad prior to and during '94, and they had one Hell of a team coming together. It all would have come down to their being able to afford to keep that core, or not.
Interesting indeed about Williams. He was crushing the ball, but there are players who obliterated him in different categories, and in the case of Ruth in the 20s and Bonds from 2001 to 2004, *all* categories. At one point Bonds was hitting 1 HR in just a tad bit over ever 5 ABs. But I understand the sentiment of the "clean" player chasing Maris. Although Griffey and Thomas also were doing it "clean" by all accounts. Plus, Thomas was in the middle of a run of seasons where he was *consistently* putting together overall year-by-year numbers that hadn't been seen since Ruth/Gehrig/Foxx. Thomas' OPS in 1994 was almost sickening, so I'm not sure Matt Williams was even the most dominant hitter in that season. Sometimes I fear Thomas will be overlooked in the future as having been the best hitter of the 90s, which he definitely was.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckwillard
Interesting choice though, for sure, and a lot of great questions raised (once again) about what could have been in '94.
I'm confused...first post asked for the 'modern era' and the next two posts highlighted players in the 1960's???????????
I think the 'modern era' should be defined before continuing.:rolleyes:
It's basically agreed to be about 1900, or around the same time the World Series started.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
In other words, you shouldn't answer with some player who had a freak season in 1868 or some odd year, when there were 10 balls to a walk or whatever.
So Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, Dave Winfield, Frank Thomas... names from any of those eras would be "acceptable."
I'd be more inclined to take Barry Bonds in that discussion. It's close between both of them, but the Bonds from the 1990's has turned out to be ridiculously underrated because of the level of dominance he had in the early years of the millenium (and of course because of the steroid cloud over his head). When the decade turned to the 90's, Bond reached a new level of performance and never looked back.Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
As justanewguy said, "modern era" in baseball discussions has always referred to the time period since the two league - AL and NL system - was introduced - 1901 and on. The rules of the game have been virtually unchanged since then. Prior to 1901, the rules were continually in flux. The AL-NL system defines the "modern era", which, of course, has further "eras" in it, defined by the league environment.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Modern era is from 1993- to present,
Some say that Modern Baseball is from 1969- Present, but it really changed in teh early to mid 90's.
- 2 teams added in 1993 (less talent per team)
- New divisional setup
- Steriods- even thou I don't think they have any effect..if somebody is going to work out, they are going to get bigger, with or without steriods. Even so, scoring is at an all-time high, not seen since the 1930's...and the style of play is a lot different than from 69-92
- 2 teams added in 1998.
Modern Baseball is from 1900- Present (when the AL joined the NL) - Some rules have changed, a lot of score keeping has changed, but the basic rules stay the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
Football players & olympic athletes were taking steroiids long before 1993, so why is 1993 the start-year for steroids in mlb?
It isn't. Jose Canseco started in the mid-1980's. The "Steroid Era" though is usually defined as 1993 to the early 2000's, which is when steroid use was at a peak.Quote:
Originally Posted by etothep
I think as an overall player, Bonds was better, especially with his speed on the bases, but I gotta go with Thomas for the pure hitting numbers. 1994 for him was the most Ruthian type season I'd seen in my lifetime, from anyone. Plus he edges Bonds in BA, OBP and SLG for most of the decade.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
It's very close, but Thomas' numbers are just too pretty.
I do completely agree that what Bonds did in that decade tends to get overlooked because of the aforementioned issues.
Even Bonds 2001-2004?Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
Bonds was .302/.434/.602 for the decade, while Thomas was .320/.440/.573, so yeah, it's really close. Bonds also has a 60 homer edge. What does it for me is that Bonds played in a worse hitter's park - their respective OPS+'s are 179 to 169.Quote:
Plus he edges Bonds in BA, OBP and SLG for most of the decade.
It's very close, but Thomas' numbers are just too pretty.
"I'd seen" = "I *had* seen," but I should have also qualified it by saying "until Bonds," since I was barely a teenager at the time of the strike anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Ah... I knew there was an adjusted difference in Bonds' favor. I think it's the evenness in the overall performance that makes me consider Thomas, plus the seasons (like '94) in which he'd hit in the mid .300s and slug well over .600. When Thomas was "on," he was definitely the most feared hitter in the game back then.Quote:
Bonds was .302/.434/.602 for the decade, while Thomas was .320/.440/.573, so yeah, it's really close. Bonds also has a 60 homer edge. What does it for me is that Bonds played in a worse hitter's park - their respective OPS+'s are 179 to 169.
Thomas' overall 90s numbers are also hurt by those "bad" seasons he had in '98 and '99.