Options
Greatest Seasons of Each Decade
dallasactuary
Posts: 4,119 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Have you ever wondered who had the best season in the majors in each decade? You haven't? Well, I'm going to tell you anyway. Some are really obvious, some are going to be a surprise.
1900's
Hitter: Honus Wagner, 1908
Pitcher: Jack Chesbro, 1904
1910's
Hitter: Tris Speaker, 1912
Pitcher: Walter Johnson, 1913
1920's
Hitter: Babe Ruth, 1923
Pitcher: Dolf Luque, 1923
1930's
Hitter: Jimmie Foxx, 1933
Pitcher: Lefty Grove, 1931
1940's
Hitter: Ted Williams, 1946
Pitcher: Dizzy Trout, 1944
1950's
Hitter: Mickey Mantle, 1957
Pitcher: Robin Roberts, 1953
1960's
Hitter: Mickey Mantle, 1961
Pitcher: Bob Gibson, 1968
1970's
Hitter: Joe Morgan, 1975
Pitcher: Steve Carlton, 1972
1980's
Hitter: Will Clark, 1989
Pitcher: Dwight Gooden, 1985
1990's
Hitter: Barry Bonds, 1993
Pitcher: Roger Clemens, 1997
In the 1980's, if he had been just as good in the 55 games that weren't played as he was in the 107 that were played, Mike Schmidt would have had the best season.
They only had a Cy Young Award for the last four decades, and all four pitchers won the Award in their decade-best seaons.
They had an MVP Award in evey decade except the first and two players with decade-best seasons did not even win the MVP in that year: Will Clark lost to Kevin Mitchell (who was the second-best player that year) and Mantle lost in 1961 to Roger Maris (who was the third-best player that year).
In terms of outshining one's peers (and thus avoiding the cross-decade debate), Honus Wagner had the greatest season of any player ever in 1908, and Walter Johnson had the greatest pitching season ever in 1913.
1900's
Hitter: Honus Wagner, 1908
Pitcher: Jack Chesbro, 1904
1910's
Hitter: Tris Speaker, 1912
Pitcher: Walter Johnson, 1913
1920's
Hitter: Babe Ruth, 1923
Pitcher: Dolf Luque, 1923
1930's
Hitter: Jimmie Foxx, 1933
Pitcher: Lefty Grove, 1931
1940's
Hitter: Ted Williams, 1946
Pitcher: Dizzy Trout, 1944
1950's
Hitter: Mickey Mantle, 1957
Pitcher: Robin Roberts, 1953
1960's
Hitter: Mickey Mantle, 1961
Pitcher: Bob Gibson, 1968
1970's
Hitter: Joe Morgan, 1975
Pitcher: Steve Carlton, 1972
1980's
Hitter: Will Clark, 1989
Pitcher: Dwight Gooden, 1985
1990's
Hitter: Barry Bonds, 1993
Pitcher: Roger Clemens, 1997
In the 1980's, if he had been just as good in the 55 games that weren't played as he was in the 107 that were played, Mike Schmidt would have had the best season.
They only had a Cy Young Award for the last four decades, and all four pitchers won the Award in their decade-best seaons.
They had an MVP Award in evey decade except the first and two players with decade-best seasons did not even win the MVP in that year: Will Clark lost to Kevin Mitchell (who was the second-best player that year) and Mantle lost in 1961 to Roger Maris (who was the third-best player that year).
In terms of outshining one's peers (and thus avoiding the cross-decade debate), Honus Wagner had the greatest season of any player ever in 1908, and Walter Johnson had the greatest pitching season ever in 1913.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
0
Comments
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
/s/ JackWESQ
In the spirit of the occasion, below you'll find this writer's choices for the 10 best individual seasons in major league history. One could make such a list and ignore just about everybody except Barry Bonds and Babe Ruth, and both figure prominently below. But I did consciously look for a mix of positions and eras, which is why you'll find a couple of pitchers in the mix (oh, and I did consider postseason performance, mostly as a tiebreaker).
1. Barry Bonds, 2001
Say what you want, but Bonds broke Mark McGwire's home run record and Babe Ruth's slugging-percentage record. Oh, and he broke Ruth's single-season walks record, too. Essentially, 2001 was when Bonds began to displace the Babe as the game's most devastating hitter.
2. Babe Ruth, 1921
How do you follow up two record-setting seasons? But setting another, of course. In '21, Ruth somehow topped himself by hitting 59 homers, more than eight teams in the major leagues hit that season. Among his various league-leading stats were a career-high 177 runs scored. And even after all these years, his 457 total bases still stands as the single-season record.
3. Barry Bonds, 2002
He played in only 143 games and hit only 46 homers (down from 73 the previous season). But Bonds put doubts about his clutch hitting to rest forever with brilliant performances throughout the postseason.
4. Babe Ruth, 1920
Still an outfielder/pitcher in 1919, Ruth shocked the sport by hitting 29 home runs. The Babe's new record lasted less than one year, as he blasted 54 homers after joining the Yankees in 1920.
5. Mickey Mantle, 1956
A hint of what Mantle might have done without all the injuries: Only 24, Mantle hit 52 homers and batted .353 on his way to the Triple Crown. All while playing brilliantly in center field.
6. Honus Wagner, 1908
On their surface, Wagner's numbers -- including his .354 batting average and .542 slugging percentage, both National League bests -- don't look all that special, as Wagner enjoyed a bunch of great seasons. But this was the deadest season in the dead ball era. And Wagner also was a great defensive shortstop.
7. Ted Williams, 1941
No, he didn't win the MVP Award; that went to Joe DiMaggio. All Williams did, at the tender age of 22, was hit .406 and draw 147 walks. That was 67 years ago and nobody has hit .400 since.
8. Pedro Martinez, 1999
In a year in which American League pitchers combined for a 4.86 ERA, Martinez posted a 2.07 ERA that was nearly a run-and-a-half lower than the No. 2 man on the list. He also won 23 of 27 regular-season decisions before chucking 17 scoreless innings in the playoffs.
9. Babe Ruth, 1923
Rarely mentioned among the Babe's greatest seasons is 1923, but he batted a career-high .393, led the American League in every meaningful hitting stat, and hit three homers against the Giants as the Yankees won their first world championship.
10. Lefty Grove, 1931
Grove, perhaps the most dominant pitcher between Walter Johnson and Pedro Martinez, went 31-4 with the lowest ERA (2.06) of his brilliant career, then beat the Cardinals twice in the World Series.
<< <i>Have you ever wondered who had the best season in the majors in each decade? >>
How do you define best season? I'd probably choose Frank Robinson in 1966 over Mantle in 1961.
Robert
Any high grade OPC Jim Palmer
High grade Redskins (pre 1980)
Jay
<< <i>I don't have the stats in front of me, but how's about Mattingly in 85 over Clark in 89 (although Clark was a beast, and I agree, should have been the MVP). I remember paying $35 a pop for his Fleer rookie that year (I bought 2 of the damn things).
Jay >>
I'll 2nd that vote for '85 Mattingly. I'll also throw a bone to '77 Rod Carew and '77 George Foster. Tough to choose between the two, but I think they both surpass '75 Morgan.
For the 60's as great as gibby's 68 season was, koufax in either 63, 65 or 66 is just as awesome; although Mantles numbers in 61 are better, what Yaz did in 67 puts him on this list
For the 50's Mantle in 56 is right up there
<< <i>Pedro's 1999 season dwarfs Clemens' 1997 season...it's not really even close. >>
It is pretty close, but Clemens still clearly was better. First, Clemens averaged almost 8 innings per start, logging 264 innings in 34 starts, while Martinez came in at less than 7 - 213 innings in 31 starts. Assuming they were equally good pitchers Clemens starts with an advantage of almost 25%. Pedro was better when he pitched, but not 25% better: Martinez' had a 2.07 ERA in a context where 5.02 was average, Clemens' ERA was 2.05 in a context where 4.53 was average. That's an advantage of about 10% for Martinez. Bottom line on which pitcher had the best season - Clemens by about 15%.
Martinez in 1999 was almost exactly as good as Maddux in 1992 and Kevin Appier in 1993. But all of those seasons fall short for second place to Maddux in 1995, and third place goes to Clemens again for his 1990 season.
What Martinez probably wins for 1999, at least among the seasons mentioned here, is luckiest season. Ending up with a record of 23-4 in only 31 starts when you generally leave the game with more than two innings left to pitch means that his bullpen rarely, if ever, cost him a win when he left the game with a lead. Few pitchers are that lucky, and it's one of many reaons that W-L records can generally be ignored when evaluating pitchers.
Frank Robinson in 1966 had a remarkable year, but Mantle in 1961 just runs away with best. Mays's 1965 season comes in a clear second and then there's a pack in and around third that includes Robinson's 1966 season, Reggie's 1969 season, Yaz in '67, Allen in '64, Aaron in '63, Mays and Robinson in '62, and Cash in '61.
The contexts that Mantle and Robinson played in were similar enough that we can ignore them. Just look at OBP and slugging (between them, 90% of a hitter's value) and you're done: Mantle beats Robinson .448 and .687 to .410 and .637. That's less than a 10% difference, but everywhere else you look Mantle's lead grows. Mantle stole 12 bases and was caught once, Robinson was 8 out of 13; Mantle grounded into 2 double plays, Robinson 24; Mantle was an excellent center-fielder, Robinson was an adequate right fielder. Mantle had the best season of the 1960's by a wide margin.
Larry Walker was not among the top 5 players of 1997, let alone the top spot of the decade. That's Coors you were watching, not greatness.
Tommy Davis in 1962 had lots of RBI, and a solid A season. But see the discussion of Robinson/Mantle above for a sample of the A+ seasons.
Mattingly had a great year in 1985, although he was clearly better in 1986 so I know RBI are clouding the issue already. But Clark was better; some of it is context (Candlestick was tougher), some of it was baserunning, some of it was GIDP, most of it is OBP. But I'm very comfortable that Clark's 1989 season was the best of the decade.
I won't dignify Foster's nomination with a rebuttal, but Carew's 1977 season was great, and by "great" I mean which player would you want on your team the most. Fielding is part of that, and it's a big part of why Morgan beats Carew. I think Morgan was a better hitter than Carew in the years at issue, but not by a wide margin. If you look at their hitting stats and then add in their baserunning stats, I think you'll see it; if you consider their fielding value, I don't see how anyone could miss it.
<< <i>Jim Rice - Boston Red Sox 1978 >>
Jim Rice didn't have the best season of 1978, let alone the 70's.
If the value of Joe Morgan isn't as obvious to everyone as it should be, how can anyone seriously think Jim Rice's 1978 season was better than Torre's 1971 season? I mean, seriously? Ignore the almost galactic difference between Fenway and Busch if you want to live in that particular parallel universe, but here in this one Rice loses to Torre by a wide margin, and Morgan by a huge one.
<< <i>Larry Walker was not among the top 5 players of 1997. That's Coors you were watching, not greatness. >>
I disagree and couldnt care less whether you think Coors field had anything to do with his stats or not but he put up an incredible 49 HR's to go along with a .366 batting average and 33 SB's
What other guys in 1997 did better than him?
<< <i>What other guys in 1997 did better than him? >>
Gwynn, Piazza, Biggio, Thomas, Bonds and Griffey.
Perk, if you were to show that Walker hit better on the road for all his years at Coors, then you may be able to make the claim that Coors was a hitters paradise, but it didn't affect Walker to the same degree as others. But I don't think that is the case.
Whenever Jim Rice is brought up(and I like the guy as a player)...all one has to do is point to his two outfield mates who were actually better. Both Lynn and Evans had better careers, and in this single season case, all you have to do is move one position over, and one year over, and you find Fred Lynn's 1979 season in which he hit better than Rice's '78, and I am pretty confident to say that he fielded better too.
I am not certain that Will Clark beats George Brett's 1980 season. I would have to check the park factors and if it is giving Clark an artificial boost. The thing holding Brett's season back is that he missed a lot of games that year.
Actually, what is giving Clark a bonus in 1989 is his Men ON base hitting numbers. He was phenomenal that year. That is what separated him from Mitchell(who actually had better numbers when you neglect what they did with men on base).
Don Mattingly's 1985 season was superb, but it is certainly the RBI that are misleading people. You can thank Rickey Henderson for that
<< <i>Why do these threads always end with a discussion of Jim Rice and how bad he was? >>
Because its Dallasactuary's thread, and he wants everyone on CU to know how he feels about Jim Rice. That is why.
Steve
Jim Rice had 406 total bases in 1978 (23 best all time/single season/18th best at the time he accomplished it) in 2nd place was Eddie Murray with 293. He eclipsed Murray by 113 total bases 38% higher than the next highest! Granted, Dave Parker led the NL with 340. Oh, and by the way, this was the first year someone had 400 total bases in a season since Stan Freakin Musial in 1948, that's 1948!!!!!
And you want to tell me that Jim Rice doesn't even belong on this list.............more numbers for you: the second highest total in the AL in the 70's was...........guess who............Jim Rice with 382 the year before. Now does anyone want to go for double jeopardy where the stakes can get really high? Guess who has the 3rd highest AL total of the 70's? No......it couldn't be...........Yes, it's Jim Rice with 369 in 1979, but no he doesn't belong on this list because he played in Fenway Park where it's so small anyone can hit there. blah, blah, blah. This is the last year of eligibility for Jim Rice for the HOF. I hope the BBWAA finally pulls their heads out of the dark hole they sit on and finally elect him!
<< <i>Do you really think Mantle's 57 season was better then his 56? >>
His OBP was almost 50 points higher in '57 than in '56, but his slugging dropped by 40 points. The park factors say it was was easier to score in Yankee Stadium in 1956 than in 1957, but I think the formula used to calculate park factors changes in 1957, so I don't know how much credence to give that.
In the end, if you think he was better in 1956 I won't disagree; he was awfully close to the same in the two years.
<< <i>but no he doesn't belong on this list because he played in Fenway Park where it's so small anyone can hit there. blah, blah, blah. >>
Curses! I was afraid someone would have the intellectual cunning to play the "blah, blah, blah" card. Well played, sir! I admit defeat.
All right, I'll come clean. The truth is that Mickey Mantle, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Frank Robinson, Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, Ted Williams, or Joe DiMaggio NEVER had as many total bases as Jim Rice. I've been keeping that from you for my own selfish purposes. Now you know, Jim Rice was one of the greatest players of all time! Of course, he's no Babe Herman with his gaudy 416 total bases in 1930, but now that the dreaded "blah, blah, blah" card has been played, I have to concede that hitting in 1930 was not any easier than hitting in the 1960's. Mays and Aaron must dream of how it might have been if they had had Jim Rice's awesome baseball talent. I mean 406 total bases? Case closed.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Pedro missed 2 starts in late July/early August. He had 31 appearances, but only 29 starts. He had 4-inning and 1-inning relief appearances after coming back from injury. He had 4 starts in which he went less than 6 innings: (1) 5 innings a 17-1 blowout, (2) the game right before and (3) after his trip to the DL, and (4) his second game back from the DL when he left with a 7-2 lead after 5 IP.
Outside of those 6 games, he averaged 7-2/3 IP, so the only basis for Clemens' "better season" isn't even much of an advantage for Roger. I don't think its a stretch to infer that if Pedro was healthy all year, his IP numbers would match up pretty well.
Factor in the K/BB (Pedro 313/37, Clemens 292/68) and WHIP (Pedro 0.92, Clemens 1.03), and it's clear that Pedro had the better year.
<< <i>I don't think its a stretch to infer that if Pedro was healthy all year, his IP numbers would match up pretty well. >>
As they say, that's a mighty big "if"; he wasn't healthy all year and that's why his 1999 season wasn't as good as Clemens. Remember, I said he was about 10% better when he was healthy, which is significant, but it's just not enough to get him out of the 25% hole in IP.
Look, I respect Martinez a great deal (as a pitcher, as a human being he's a complete ass). IF he hadn't been hurt constantly, he might have been the greatest pitcher who ever lived. But he was, and I'm not willing to give him credit for what he might have done. What he did do in 1999 was not as valuable to his team as what Clemens did for his team in 1997.
edit to add: Gene Tenace had a good year almost every year, but 1975 was his best.
<< <i>All right, I'll come clean. The truth is that Mickey Mantle, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Frank Robinson, Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, Ted Williams, or Joe DiMaggio NEVER had as many total bases as Jim Rice. Now you know, Jim Rice was one of the greatest players of all time! Case closed. >>
You said it, I didn't. Glad to see you finally came to your senses, welcome aboard.
I would take Boggs over Clark, but that depends on what you use for replacement level for the 13 game difference
Morgan 75 vs 76: 20 singles and 18 walks compared with 10 homeruns and 10 fewer outs. I'll take his second MVP season over the first
How close were Bagwell, Thomas and Maddux to the list, if not for the strike?
<< <i>You said it, I didn't. Glad to see you finally came to your senses, welcome aboard.
And I got here without drinking that foul Fenway Kool-Aid the rest of you had to drink!
Total bases is a measure of slugging ability, and Rice had a super year that season...but keep in mind that he had 746 plate appearances to achive those total bases, and that he generally didn't walk often...the net result is that he made a lot of outs...490 to be exact in 1978, which was good enough for fourth most in the league.
And absolutley yes Rice benefiitted from Fenway park, just like all the full time players from his time. It was the best hitters park in the league. In fact, that season his OPS was 1.105 at home, and .837 on the road.
His RBI are what people like to bring up, and they always mention that he was always among the top of the league in RBI. What they fail to mention is that he was also always among the league leaders in FAILING TO DRIVE IN RUNNERS FROM SCORING POSITION. The other middle of the order sluggers of his era were not nearly as high as failing as he was. I had a thread about that a while ago.
And I will say it again, Fred Lynn(who played in the same hitters park, so in this case the 'blind' cannot ignore the Fenway effect) had a better season. While Lynn only had 338 Total Bases, he made 120 LESS OUTS, giving him a HIGHER Fenway inflated slugging percentage, .637 to Rice's .600. Lynn then tossed in a .423 OB% to Rice's .370. For the people who still hang onto batting average, he beat him there too. He did all this while being a better defensive fielder.
<< <i>I would take Boggs over Clark, but that depends on what you use for replacement level for the 13 game difference
Morgan 75 vs 76: 20 singles and 18 walks compared with 10 homeruns and 10 fewer outs. I'll take his second MVP season over the first
How close were Bagwell, Thomas and Maddux to the list, if not for the strike? >>
1. Now that I am free of my Fenway delusion, you are correct. The top 100 seasons of all time are all by Red Sox. (Seriously, I'm giving 0 credit for replacement - you miss the games, you pay the price on my list).
2. He came to the plate 40 more times in 1975 than 1976 and played nine more games in the field. I think all things considered, 1975 was better, but you may be right.
3. Bonds 1993 season was a monster. Bagwell comes close if we fill in the missing games, nobody else does. Maddux, on the other hand, wins easily if we fill in his games. But could Maddux have pitched THAT well for a full season?
edit to add: Skin, before this gets ugly, just admit that Rice was better than Mantle or I will be forced to say "blah, blah, blah" to you. Remember, this case has been closed.
<< <i>It's funny, because I tried the "blah, blah, blah," argument on my wife at dinner tonight and then told her the case was closed. I soon discovered that the case was most certainly NOT closed. >>
Chad,
I received this from my wife just the other day, while reading your post it's the first thing I thought of (and of course, there might be something to this - at least more than we know):
9 WORDS WOMEN USE
(1) Fine: This is the word women use to end an argument when they are right and you need to shut up.
(2) Five Minutes: If she is getting dressed, this means a half an hour.
Five minutes is only five minutes if you have just been given five more minutes to watch the game before helping around the house.
(3) Nothing: This is the calm before the storm. This means something, and you should be on your toes. Arguments that begin with nothing usually end in fine...
(4) Go Ahead: This is a dare, not permission. Don't Do It!
(5) Loud Sigh: This is actually a word, but is a non-verbal statement often misunderstood by men. A loud sigh means she thinks you are an idiot and wonders why she is wasting her time standing here and arguing with you about nothing. (Refer back to # 3 for the meaning of nothing.)
(6) That's Okay: This is one of the most dangerous statements a woman can make to a man. That's okay means she wants to think long and hard before deciding how and when you will pay for your mistake.
(7) Thanks: A woman is thanking you; do not question, or Faint. Just say you're welcome... (I want to add in a clause here - This is true, unless she says 'Thanks a lot' - that is PURE sarcasm and she is not thanking you at all. DO NOT say 'you're welcome'... that will bring on a 'whatever').
(8) Whatever: Is a women's way of saying, 'Kiss off and die a slow and painful death you inconsiderate creep!'
(9) Don't worry about it, I got it: Another dangerous statement, meaning this is something that a woman has told a man to do several times, but is now doing it herself. This will later result in a man asking 'What's wrong?' For the woman's response refer to # 3.
<< <i>His RBI are what people like to bring up, and they always mention that he was always among the top of the league in RBI. What they fail to mention is that he was also always among the league leaders in FAILING TO DRIVE IN RUNNERS FROM SCORING POSITION. >>
If the game is measured in runs, what does it matter if the runs driven in happened when they were in scoring position, standing at first base, or standing at home plate? A run is a run regardless of where the runner began. Besides, why hold it against him that he can drive in runners on first base?
In 1978, Rice's RISP batting average was .339. He hit .342 with runners on, .345 with a guy on 1st, .315 with a guy on 2nd, .444 with a guy on 3rd, .326 with guys on 1st and 2nd, .400 with guys on 1st and 3rd, and .333 with the bases loaded. The only time he had a low average was when there were guys on 2nd and 3rd and he hit .214.
Baseball Reference Link
You guys will have better historical information than I can track down on how Rice's '78 campaign compares to other players best years, but 89 RBI in 183 ABs with RISP seems pretty good to me.
Oh yeah, and blah, blah, blah!
Those are indeed impressive stats, but not so much when you consider that Rice was allowed four strikes before striking out and don't forget Fenway Park...
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I left out the pitchers, the ineligibles and the not yet eligibles because I didn't want to overdo it.
edit to add that no sooner had I hit enter that I realized I left out the catchers, too.
But you left out GENE TENACE!!!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>But you left out GENE TENACE!!! >>
And Ron Fairly, too. No, these are just the ones that are OBVIOUSLY better than Rice, not the close calls.
<< <i>How about Saberhagen over Dwight Gooden. Saberhagen won two CY Youngs vrs. Gooden's one, and Saberhagen won two games in the 1985 League Championship Series....and then two games in the World Series, I think earning MVP honors for both. In post season, Gooden was 0-4. >>
Saberhagen probably was a better pitcher than Gooden over their entire careers, but this is just a list of the best single seasons, and Saberhagen never had a season that approached Gooden's best.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Year Ag Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG *OPS+ TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
1989 25 SFG NL 159 588 104 196 38 9 23 111 8 3 74 103 .333 .407 .546 175 321 0 8 14 5 6
1986 25 NYY AL 162 677 117 238 53 2 31 113 0 0 53 35 .352 .394 .573 161 388 1 10 11 1 17
Does Clark '89 win solely on OBP? If 90% of a hitter's value is OPS, as you stated earlier, where does Clark make up the differential between his .953 and Mattingly's .967? I suppose you'll say Mattingly compiled his numbers in 742 PA vs. Clark's 675 PA, but having more PA won't change either of their OPS. The only significant edge Clark holds is GIDP, which is function of PA, and that is partially offset by his 3 CS.
<< <i>If the game is measured in runs, what does it matter if the runs driven in happened when they were in scoring position, standing at first base, or standing at home plate? A run is a run regardless of where the runner began. Besides, why hold it against him that he can drive in runners on first base? >>
Von,
First thing is, Rice did have a nice year in 1978. He did deliver well with men on...though not enough to eclipse the better seasons of the decade.
You want a case closed?? You brought up Rice's 89 RBI in 188 at bats with RISP???
In 1976 Joe Morgan had 88 RBI in 137 at bats with RISP!!! Yes, case closed indeed.
Oh, and Joe Morgan had a .444 OB% to Rice's .370.
How about Morgan's 60 SB and 9 CS, to Rice's 7 SB and 5 CS?
Defense? Let's just move on here, it is bad enough already for Rice's case.
Dallas, I think Morgan's '76 season may have been his better one too.
Second, what I am referring to is that Rice had MORE RBI opportunties than other prominent sluggers of his time(During his prime, compared to their primes), so of course he should drive in more runs than most. The fact is, he FAILED to deliver the guys from scoring position more than the other sluggers did. If you look at his total RBI as meaningful, then you MUST look at his failed RBI chances that cost his team(which a better hitter would have been more beneficial).
Third, since he didn't get on base as often as the other better sluggers of his time, he FAILED to present his teammates with RBI opportunities of their own, unlike guys who had the high OB%'s. I had a thread that detailed this a while back.
And yes, Fenway was a benefit for Rice and ALL the Red Sox regulars. Only a guy with blinders could not see this. Whether it is a huge benefit or merely a big benefit is debatable, but the benefit is certainly there.
Not sure who had the better year, Clemens after all had to face 9 batters.
Steve
Sounds like A Rod.
Steve
32 to me looks more like the monster yr then does the 33.
Steve
<< <i>
First thing is, Rice did have a nice year in 1978. He did deliver well with men on...though not enough to eclipse the better seasons of the decade.
You want a case closed?? You brought up Rice's 89 RBI in 188 at bats with RISP???
In 1976 Joe Morgan had 88 RBI in 137 at bats with RISP!!! Yes, case closed indeed.
Second, what I am referring to is that Rice had MORE RBI opportunties than other prominent sluggers of his time(During his prime, compared to their primes), so of course he should drive in more runs than most. The fact is, he FAILED to deliver the guys from scoring position more than the other sluggers did. If you look at his total RBI as meaningful, then you MUST look at his failed RBI chances that cost his team(which a better hitter would have been more beneficial).
Third, since he didn't get on base as often as the other better sluggers of his time, he FAILED to present his teammates with RBI opportunities of their own, unlike guys who had the high OB%'s. I had a thread that detailed this a while back. >>
Hoopster, I wasn't trying to prove that Rice's 78 season was better than anyone else's (Morgan's 75 or 76, or Torre's 71, for example). I was just trying to show that he did have a great season regardless of what all the haters want to make of him.
It is true that he had a lot of plate appearances so it makes sense that he had a lot of total bases. But this same logic explains why he would also have a lot of outs. More opportunities at the plate = more opportunities to reach base OR to record an out. This happens in baseball.
I am curious and would love to know where one finds information on FAILED opportunities to drive in runs? Is there a formula that you use that calculates this? Or a site that does it for you?
Finally, I've looked up Rice's career splits and with RISP he has a .308 career average/.317 OBP/.872 OPS. In 2,723 applicable plate appearances he had 719 hits, 94 SF, 263 BB, and 77 IBB. He drove in 1,031 runs that were in scoring position. That seems pretty good to me. It's certainly deserving of more respect than some people want to give him.