Just curious as to what you guys' opinions are on this.
What would you guys say is the single most dominant season by a pitcher in the modern era?
How about by a hitter?
Printable View
Just curious as to what you guys' opinions are on this.
What would you guys say is the single most dominant season by a pitcher in the modern era?
How about by a hitter?
Batter id say Roger Maris 1961
The first thing that comes to mind is Bob Gibson, 1968. A 1.12 ERA, 258 ERA+, 0.853 WHIP, 268 K to 62 BB, and 28 CG with an UNREAL 13 shutouts. This earned him a Cy Young and MVP both, of course.
I hate to say this, but for a hitter, I can't deny Barry Bonds in 2004. He was intentionally walked 120 times. Most hitters don't even walk UNINTENTIONALLY that many times, or anywhere close. That speaks to his dominance more than anything. So dominant that his opponents gave up when he came to the plate. He struck out ONLY 41 times against 232 walks. Sorry, but steroids alone aren't doing that. He got on base at an unheard of .609. Add in an .812 slugging percentage and 45 HR in 373 AB, and you've got, in my opinion, the most insane season a hitter has ever had.
I'd love to see that Bonds face that Gibson...
Ron Guidry 1978!
Sparky Lyle 1977!
Babe Ruth pick a season!
Hate to say it, but Bonds 2001. Without the asterick, probably Maris '61.
Bonds 2001 or 2004
Hmm, a few pitchers come to mind: McClain, Gibson, Clemens, Gooden, Seaver, Ryan, Maddux, Pedro, Eckersley, Koufax, just pick a season
How was Maris in 1961 dominating? If he hit 59 home runs that season, how many mentions would Maris get when this question comes up? He wasn't even the best player on his own team that season.
For a pitcher, Bob Gibson's 1968 certainly was fantastic. I'd be more inclined to take Pedro Martinez in 1999 or 2000 (take your pick), although Gibson was more valuable due to the innings total. Greg Maddux 1994/1995 deserves mention too.
For hitters, Babe Ruth 1920...outhomering every single team but one is pretty dominating. Barry Bonds 2001-2004, as well. Only somebody completely blinded by their biases against the man would deny how dominating those seasons were. Ted Williams .406 season was pretty amazing too. My jaw still drops every time I see that he didn't get the MVP award that season.
2000 Pedro posted the craziest numbers of any pitcher ever, probably. But you're right, those 304 innings and 28 CGs put Gibson over the top.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Those Maddux seasons were incredible too. He refused to walk you, you probably weren't going to have any luck in picking up a hit against him, and if you somehow found yourself on first, sorry, but there's not a chance in hell you were going to score.
I agree about the Ruth and Williams seasons. But the 120 IBB is what does it for me with Bonds. Making grown men and professional athletes simply give up... no athlete in American professional sports has ever done that.Quote:
For hitters, Babe Ruth 1920...outhomering every single team but one is pretty dominating. Barry Bonds 2001-2004, as well. Only somebody completely blinded by their biases against the man would deny how dominating those seasons were. Ted Williams .406 season was pretty amazing too. My jaw still drops every time I see that he didn't get the MVP award that season.
61:pQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthJaker
Do all those extra innings that Pedro didn't have really make up for the difference in eras though? Pedro had two of the most dominating seasons in the history of the game at the height of the Steroid Era, that really has to be considered. I think the extra innings probably balance out with the extra hundred or so IP, but its close either way. In my objectivity, I'd go Pedro :).Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
Sandy Koufax was damn good, obviously :), as well.
A-Rod and Pujols and Griffey Jr. were all dominant in their recent era's.
Historically, Musial in '48 was damn good, Williams' .406 as mentioned above, Nap Lajoie in 1901, Mays in '54 or '55 all deserve mention.
Speaking purely in terms of "level of domination", I'd agree it's Pedro. When speaking in terms of overall value, it's Gibson.Quote:
Originally Posted by YEAH DAAAAWG
In the modern era as well. Yea, that only goes so far, but...Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
*shrug*
Quote:
Originally Posted by YEAH DAAAAWG
First off, I personally think the ability to dominate for an entire GAME does indeed speak to the level of domination.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Second, I think when comparing eras, you have to be careful not to short the guy whose numbers are dimmed more with adjustments. An ERA difference, comparative to league average, or adjusted, is not necessarily a LINEAR function. What ERA would Bob Gibson have needed to "match" Pedro's? 0.50? Pedro stood out from the league more, but there's only so low an ERA can go.
It's almost inevitable that at least 1 run will be scored in a game, so when ERAs approach 1.00, some extra consideration has to be taken.
It's not simply linear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthJaker
Reading comprehension...Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
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.
The change in Thomas' game was so Dramatic. He went from the Right Handed Ted Williams to just to good player...it is also said that when Thomas went to DH, his stats fell off. When he plays first base, he is a totally different player..
Injuries can do that. Thomas is a big guy, and his change in performance coincided with him turning 30, which is about the time a player of his stature starts to go downhill. The amazing thing about Thomas is that he was able to fend off injuries and still post excellent seasons, albeit not at his previous level.Quote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
The disparity between his numbers at 1B and at DH are due to the exact same reason. As he got older and more injury prone, and thus less productive, he played more DH to help keep him in the lineup. His injuries and aging moved him to DH AND caused lower production. The move to DH didn't affect his production. It just coincided with a lower level of production.