Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

All-time best single seasons in one lineup

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules
    I took the question to mean to make up a team with players at their best. In 1980 Brett was better a bit than Mike Schmidt. You failed to mention that Brett had 118 RBI in those 117 games.
    Yes! Someone does agree with me! This is the same logic I was using for Barry Larkin.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules
      I took the question to mean to make up a team with players at their best.
      That's exactly what I meant.
      Red, it took me 16 years to get here. Play me, and you'll get the best I got.

      Comment


      • #33
        --To me being able to play everyday, or nearly so, is part of being at your best. Brett missed over a quarter of his teams games in 1980. Schmidt also had a significant defensive advantage, although that may not be part of what you meant either.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by leecemark
          --I'd have rather had Mike Schmidt on my team in 1980 than George Brett. Actually, Schmidt's 1981 season would have been better than either of their 1980 season's if it hadn't been shortened by the strike.
          Nah. Brett's .390 BA is just too much for Schmidt to overcome. Schmidt did have 48 dingers, but his BA is over 100 points lower than Brett's, and his OPS+ is 34 points lower. Plus he struck out more than he walked, and that bugs me. Brett had an awesome combo of BA, power and plate discipline in 1980, and as HWR pointed out, he drove in 118 ribbies in 117 games. All in all, easily the best offensive season ever by a 3Bman.

          You do have a point about Schmidt's '81, however. 195 OPS+ and his BB's actually outnumber his K's. How much better or worse would that season have gotten if not for the strike? We'll never know.
          Red, it took me 16 years to get here. Play me, and you'll get the best I got.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by leecemark
            --To me being able to play everyday, or nearly so, is part of being at your best. Brett missed over a quarter of his teams games in 1980. Schmidt also had a significant defensive advantage, although that may not be part of what you meant either.
            As you can probably tell, I've paid very little attention to defense in these single seasons. It's pretty much your best offensive lineup possible. However, the positions must match the players correctly.

            If you want great defense to be a factor, that's fine, though. A few here have put Mays in their lineup, but I don't think any of his offensive years measure up to the greatest ever.
            Last edited by torez77; 02-17-2006, 08:19 PM.
            Red, it took me 16 years to get here. Play me, and you'll get the best I got.

            Comment


            • #36
              A team:

              C - Mike Piazza 97
              1B - Gehrig 27
              2B - Hornsby 22
              SS - A-rod 02
              3B - A-rod 05
              LF - Williams 41
              CF - Cobb 11
              RF - Ruth 21

              SP - Pedro 00
              RP - Gagne 03



              B Team

              C - Bench 70
              1B - Foxx 38
              2B - Hornsby 24
              SS - Wagner 08
              3B - Brett 80
              LF - Musial 48
              CF - Wilson 30
              RF - Ruth 23

              SP - Gibson 68
              RP - Rivera 05

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by blackout805
                SS - A-rod 02
                3B - A-rod 05
                Surprisingly, you're the first one to mention A-Rod. But I think it might be bending the rules to have the same player on the field twice at the same time.
                Red, it took me 16 years to get here. Play me, and you'll get the best I got.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by torez77
                  Here's what my lineup looks like:

                  1) Cobb 1911 (CF)
                  2) Hornsby 1924 (2B)
                  3) Williams 1941 (DH)
                  4) Ruth 1920 (RF)
                  5) Bonds 2001 (LF)
                  6) Gehrig 1927 (1B)
                  7) Brett 1980 (3B)
                  8) Piazza 1997 (C)
                  9) Wagner 1900 (SS)

                  RHSP: Uh, close between Walter and Pedro. But I'll go with Walter's 1913. That 36-7 record does it for me.
                  LHSP: Grove 1931
                  RHRP : Eckersley 1990
                  LHRP: Wagner 1999
                  That's one hell of a lineup! I might substitute Wagner's 1908 for the 1900. The NL of 1900 was condensed in terms of talent, but it was also still in 1890's mode (no foul strike rule, league hit .288). Wagner's production in 08' just slightly better, although perhaps having 8 teams instead of 12 makes up the difference.

                  Looking at the baseballprospectus stats leads me to believe that perhaps the 1900 NL was better than the 1908 league...

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by csh19792001
                    That's one hell of a lineup! I might substitute Wagner's 1908 for the 1900. The NL of 1900 was condensed in terms of talent, but it was also still in 1890's mode (no foul strike rule, league hit .288). Wagner's production in 08' just slightly better, although perhaps having 8 teams instead of 12 makes up the difference.

                    Looking at the baseballprospectus stats leads me to believe that perhaps the 1900 NL was better than the 1908 league...
                    You could be right. Looking at the raw stats, 1900 looks so much better, though. And that's basically what I did when I made out my lineup - look at the raw stats. Didn't care to delve too deep into which year was stronger for the league.
                    Red, it took me 16 years to get here. Play me, and you'll get the best I got.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I took this to mean; (take your top team all time, and pick their best seasons to make a lineup).

                      csh, do you agree on Wagner 1908 > 1900 and Eckersley 1990 > 1992 ?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
                        do you agree on Wagner 1908 > 1900
                        I was wrong. They are actually pretty close when looking at the raw numbers (more SB's in '08). Plus Wagner's OPS+ in '08 is 30 points higher than '00. So I probably should change him to '08 in my lineup. I guess it was the .381 BA that made me choose '00.
                        Last edited by torez77; 02-18-2006, 06:49 AM.
                        Red, it took me 16 years to get here. Play me, and you'll get the best I got.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by torez77
                          Nah. Brett's .390 BA is just too much for Schmidt to overcome. Schmidt did have 48 dingers, but his BA is over 100 points lower than Brett's, and his OPS+ is 34 points lower. Plus he struck out more than he walked, and that bugs me. Brett had an awesome combo of BA, power and plate discipline in 1980, and as HWR pointed out, he drove in 118 ribbies in 117 games. All in all, easily the best offensive season ever by a 3Bman.
                          Schmidt in '81 was better if you expand for the strike, and Al Rosen in 1953, Ron Santo in 1966, Frank Baker in 1912, Heinie Groh in 1917, Wade Boggs in 1986, Alex Rodriguez in 2005, and Brett himself in 1985 were probably better too.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by 538280
                            Schmidt in '81 was better if you expand for the strike, and Al Rosen in 1953, Ron Santo in 1966, Frank Baker in 1912, Heinie Groh in 1917, Wade Boggs in 1986, Alex Rodriguez in 2005, and Brett himself in 1985 were probably better too.
                            Schmidt's 1981 certainly was extremely impressive (probably the only season of his career I'll say that about). You can't knock Al Rosen. Baker in 1912 was pretty solid. Boggs was better in 87 and 88 than 86 (like, clearly, across the board, in every way; not quite sure why you'd pick 86). ARod last year was, as has always been the case with him, horrifically overrated (don't get me started on the ten RBI game). I'm having a hard time trying to figure out why Heinie Groh's 1917 season is worth mentioning.

                            But, let's be reasonable here. 117 games, obviously, is a HUGE problem. It cuts into the guy's value dramatically. But we're talking about a guy who hit .390 in a neutral era! Who led his league in BA, OBP, and SLG. Who, despite his relatively few games, finished in the top 10 in 2B, 3B, and HR. Who led the league in RC despite having 36 fewer games than the #2 guy. How often does somebody get more than an RBI a game in the modern game?

                            Yes, it was a very, very short season, but Brett's dominating quality in 1980 just has to give an edge over most everybody. Forget 3B; it was the single most impressive season anyone had in the 70's or 80's. .390 with power? You kidding me? Quantity kills it a lot, of course, but come on now. If a guy pitches 160 innings, he's not as valuable as a guy who pitches 240. But if the 160 guy doesn't allow a single baserunner that whole time, you kind of have to give the edge to him.

                            I do, of course, have to use that qualifier "most." Gotta go with Rosen overall. .336/43/145 is just so disgusting that there's not much to be said about it.
                            "Simply put, the passion, interest and tradition surrounding baseball in New York is unmatched."

                            Sean McAdam, ESPN.com

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by ElHalo
                              But we're talking about a guy who hit .390 in a neutral era!
                              But wasn't this in the "worst" era ever ,as you like to tell us?
                              Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
                              Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules
                                Sultan,

                                Why not Honus' 1908 season? He had had 59 win shares that year.
                                Wagner's 59 Win Shares in 1908 is the highest of any player at any position (other than 19th century pitchers) ever.

                                The other minor point is that Wagner never played a game at SS in 1900.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X