Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greatest Offensive season by lineup

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

  • Greatest Offensive season by lineup

    Its relatively easy to come up with greatest player by position and by team but what is trickier and down right almost impossible is assembling a team that is the best based on lineup position. Oh and this is for single season offensive years.

    For me:
    #1 Rickey Henderson, 1990 .349/.438/.552 MVP
    #2 Lefty O'Doul, 1929 .398/.465/.622 2nd in MVP votes
    #3 Babe Ruth, 1921 .378/.512/.846
    #4 Barry Bonds, 2004 .362/.509/.812 MVP
    #5 Jimmie Foxx, 1932 .364/.469/.749 MVP
    #6 Troy Glaus, 2000 .285/.404/.605 Played a 134 games the #6 spot and didn't get a single MVP vote
    #7 Gabby Hartnett, 1930 .339/.404/.630
    #8 Adolfo Phillips, 1967 .268/.384/.458
    #9 Don Newcombe, 1955 .359/.395/.632-For non-pitcher division it would be Roberto Kelly, 1989 .331/.391/.446 No MVP votes



    Surprisingly a lot of pitchers topped positional players at the #9 spot. I think the best #9 positional hitter with a decent amount of PA was Charles Johnson.

    Anyone got a few of them?
    Last edited by Ubiquitous; 03-02-2014, 09:34 AM.

  • #2
    Ubi, didn't Bonds always bat fourth?

    Comment


    • #3
      No in 2001 he bat 3rd 137 games and 4th 11 games. It wasn't until the next year that he moved to 4th partway into the season. Before that he did have seasons in which he was 4th. In looking it over I discovered that Bonds first year as a Giant he batted 5th for them and put up an impressive line. Much better then David Justice's line. I'm going to replace David for Bonds. Now he has two spots on the lineup. I could probably pencil him in in a third lineup spot the 4th spot for his 2004 spot, but I chose to go with Lou because he had more hits, more total bases, and the better batting average. While Barry just got walked a ton and hit homers.
      Last edited by Ubiquitous; 02-20-2006, 11:18 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        What..good ol' Georgi Herman isn't good for your third spot

        Comment


        • #5
          Henderson's '90 looks better cuz of the era-adjusted stats, but personally I'd pick Billy Hamilton's 1894 for leadoff. .404 BA, 126 BBs, 98 SBs, 192 runs! Come on! That's simply beautiful!
          Red, it took me 16 years to get here. Play me, and you'll get the best I got.

          Comment


          • #6
            Not sure what your first sentence means. I would say that the only reason Hamiltons seasons looks great is because the stats are not era adjusted. Hamilton had a .404 BAVG and that wasn't even enough to be in first. He finished in 5th with that batting average. 10th place had a .371 batting average. Offense went through the roof because of the box being moved back to 60 ft 6 inches. Rickey playing in 1990 with the pitchers having almost 100 years to hone their skills at 60ft 6 inches manages a .349/.438/.552 compared to Billy's .404/.523/.528. Rickey has a 188 OPS+ to Billy's 157 OPS+.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
              What..good ol' Georgi Herman isn't good for your third spot
              George has 1920 and 1921. The 1920 Babe has the higher rate stats but doesn't play as many, in the other he has the higher counting stats but the slightly lower rate stats. On top of that the whole league by 1921 has taken a step forward in terms of offense so compared to league he loses a good chunk of ground from the previous year. Bonds was creating 17.18 runs per 27 outs while his league (with him in it) was scoring 4.75 runs per game. Babe Ruth was creating 18.3 and 17.82 runs against a league that was scoring 4.79 and 5.15 runs per game. Ruth's 1920 season in terms of rate is better but his 1921 season because of the league is slightly lower. So in the end it comes down to Babe Ruth with the higher batting average and OBP and Bonds with the higher SLG, Home Run total, and Total bases. Bonds gets a slight advantage in his stolen base department, he goes 13-3 while Ruth goes 14-14. BP has Barry before even adjustment with more batting runs then Ruth, and the gap gets larger after BP does its adjustments.

              Its really close.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Ubiquitous
                Not sure what your first sentence means. I would say that the only reason Hamiltons seasons looks great is because the stats are not era adjusted. Hamilton had a .404 BAVG and that wasn't even enough to be in first. He finished in 5th with that batting average. 10th place had a .371 batting average. Offense went through the roof because of the box being moved back to 60 ft 6 inches. Rickey playing in 1990 with the pitchers having almost 100 years to hone their skills at 60ft 6 inches manages a .349/.438/.552 compared to Billy's .404/.523/.528. Rickey has a 188 OPS+ to Billy's 157 OPS+.
                You pretty much explained what my first sentence meant. Hamilton looks much better looking at the raw stats, but if you era-adjust them, Henderson looks better. I just like Hamilton alot so that's why his 1894 would be my personal preference.
                Red, it took me 16 years to get here. Play me, and you'll get the best I got.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I guess in this lineup it doesn't really matter if a player gets walked a lot because the guy behind him is a crusher as well, but if I had to worry about driving in runs and needed a sure thing I might be tempted to take Lou again from 1930. In reality Bonds would probably be a good bet for #4, the walks would vanish and he would get pitched too. Sure his batting average would probably take a slight hit, and his OBP a bigger hit but his SLG might actually improve and his RBI creation would probably go through the roof.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Nobody can find better #6, #7, or #8? I refuse to believe that I find the best one so easily. There has got to be some better ones. Especially for #8, what with the DH and all.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The odd thing I just realized is that without trying to I almost compiled a list based on batting order and also fielded a complete team. Bonds and his bat stopped me though. As it is now I have all positions filled except for CF and 2B.
                      Unfortunately for me Ryno's best year doesn't come close to ARod's year so he couldn't take the #2 spot and Hornsby I believe doesn't stand up against the hitters in the #3 and #4 spot from which I believe he batted from. Meanwhile Willie Mays doesn't compare well there either nor does Richie Ashburn compare well against Rickey, he does Ok but I think its clear that Rickey is better. If I was forced to make a correct and proper lineup I could picked Billy Hamilton or I could just move Rickey to CF. It weakens the defense but Rickey does have a history there so it wouldn't be out of the blue. So in the end I am left without a 2B. This would be where the DH could come in and possibly save me, though it would have to depend on who was the best #9 hitter and which spot in the lineup it takes from and what the 2Bmen numbers are for that spot.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Ubiquitous
                        George has 1920 and 1921. The 1920 Babe has the higher rate stats but doesn't play as many, in the other he has the higher counting stats but the slightly lower rate stats. On top of that the whole league by 1921 has taken a step forward in terms of offense so compared to league he loses a good chunk of ground from the previous year. Bonds was creating 17.18 runs per 27 outs while his league (with him in it) was scoring 4.75 runs per game. Babe Ruth was creating 18.3 and 17.82 runs against a league that was scoring 4.79 and 5.15 runs per game. Ruth's 1920 season in terms of rate is better but his 1921 season because of the league is slightly lower. So in the end it comes down to Babe Ruth with the higher batting average and OBP and Bonds with the higher SLG, Home Run total, and Total bases. Bonds gets a slight advantage in his stolen base department, he goes 13-3 while Ruth goes 14-14. BP has Barry before even adjustment with more batting runs then Ruth, and the gap gets larger after BP does its adjustments.

                        Its really close.
                        how did Bonds have a higher total bases than Ruth's 1921?

                        You forgot to factor in Ruth having so many triples that year, like 16 of them I believe, those help add up alot of bases to go along with the 40-something doubles he had. Not to mention Ruth having more RBI's than Bonds could ever dream of producing

                        Ruth's BA with RISP in 1921 must have been pretty amazing, i wonder if anyone knows
                        Last edited by Blackout; 02-21-2006, 12:54 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I never said he did have a higher total then 1921, I was comparing 1920 to 2001.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            ubiquitous, you have sweet lou as the cleanup hitter (1927 .373/.474/.765 MVP).

                            who would be your backup guy in the #4 spot?
                            maybe bonds (2002 .370/.582/.799 MVP)?
                            "you don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. just get people to stop reading them." -ray bradbury

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Ubiquitous
                              George has 1920 and 1921. The 1920 Babe has the higher rate stats but doesn't play as many, in the other he has the higher counting stats but the slightly lower rate stats. On top of that the whole league by 1921 has taken a step forward in terms of offense so compared to league he loses a good chunk of ground from the previous year. Bonds was creating 17.18 runs per 27 outs while his league (with him in it) was scoring 4.75 runs per game. Babe Ruth was creating 18.3 and 17.82 runs against a league that was scoring 4.79 and 5.15 runs per game. Ruth's 1920 season in terms of rate is better but his 1921 season because of the league is slightly lower. So in the end it comes down to Babe Ruth with the higher batting average and OBP and Bonds with the higher SLG, Home Run total, and Total bases. Bonds gets a slight advantage in his stolen base department, he goes 13-3 while Ruth goes 14-14. BP has Barry before even adjustment with more batting runs then Ruth, and the gap gets larger after BP does its adjustments.

                              Its really close.
                              Yeah, he was banged up quite a bit during that '20 season. Makes it all the more impressive if you ask me. He should have hit over 60 that year if he'd stayed healthy and played more than 142 games.

                              Not sure how you can have a lineup and not include at least one of his seasons. Espn classic just did their "Who's number 1" show of the top single season performances of all time. Guess who was number 1

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X