Best season of the following: CENTER FIELD

[Blackout]

Mickey Mantle 1956: .353/.464/.705 52 HR 130 RBI 132 Runs 10 SB 112 BB 210 OPS+

Ty Cobb 1917: .383/.444/.570 44 Doubles 102 RBI 107 Runs 55 Sb 61 BB 209 OPS+

Tris Speaker 1912: .383/.464/.567 53 Doubles 90 RBI 136 Runs 52 SB 82 BB 188 OPS+

Hack Wilson 1930: .356/.454/.723 56 HR 191 RBI 146 Runs 3 SB 105 BB 178 OPS+

Willie Mays 1955: .319/.400/.659 51 HR 127 RBI 123 RBI 24 SB 79 BB 174 OPS+

Hugh Duffy 1894: .440/.502/.694 18 HR 145 RBI 160 Runs 48 SB 66 BB 172 OPS+

Duke Snider 1954: .341/.423/.647 40 Hr 130 RBI 120 RBI 6 SB 84 BB 171 OPS+

Joe Dimaggio 1937: .346/.412/.673 46 HR 167 RBI 151 Runs 3 SB 64 BB 168 OPS+

Ken Griffey Jr 1997: .304/.382/.646 56 HR 147 RBI 125 Runs 15 SB 76 BB 165 OPS+


ranked in order of OPS+

[Proctor, CF]

Mickey, 1956. And his Spring in St. Pete was one for the ages, too - pounding the ball incredible distances, with incredible frequency - both in games and batting practice. A Spring of historic power.

[willshad]

what made you choose that season for Cobb? His 1911 season is regarded as his best season. Thats probably better than any of these seasons, maybe top5 all time. Out of these, Its a close call between Mantle and Wilson. The raw stats are close, but the thing that stands out is the 191 RBI. Is that more impressive than the triple crown? Its a judgment call.

[Blackout]

i personally say cobb's 1911 but most people on here like his 1917 better because 1911 had a HUGE offensive increase

cobb's OPS+ in 1911 was 196, in 1917 it was 209

[willshad]

I think that makes Cobb's 1911 season even MORE impressive. The fact he could lead the league in about every offensive stat despite the offensive surge league-wide. he was up against guys like Jackson, Crawford, Collins, Speaker, Baker and Delahanty all in their prime. To me this is more impressive than Mantle winning the triple crown with no competition. In fact, the two best hitters in the league that year besides Mantle was a 40 year old Ted Williams and a 20 year old Al Kaline. The second best home run hitter had 32. This was a horrible era for hitters, especially elite power hitters. The OPS+ scores he put up during this era are very misleading.

[willshad]

Jim Edmonds 2004 might also belong on this list...especially considering he was probably as good in the field as any of these guys besides maybe Speaker.

[AstrosFan]

Really? You think Edmonds was Mays's equal in the field?

[willshad]

Larry Walker's 1997 season was arguably as good as any of these seasons, depending how much you penalize him for the' Coors factor'

[willshad]

Really? You think Edmonds was Mays's equal in the field?

Well probably not. But not much behind him either. For that one season he was as good as Mays ever was, in my opinion.

[leecemark]

I think that makes Cobb's 1911 season even MORE impressive. The fact he could lead the league in about every offensive stat despite the offensive surge league-wide. he was up against guys like Jackson, Crawford, Collins, Speaker, Baker and Delahanty all in their prime. To me this is more impressive than Mantle winning the triple crown with no competition. In fact, the two best hitters in the league that year besides Mantle was a 40 year old Ted Williams and a 20 year old Al Kaline. The second best home run hitter had 32. This was a horrible era for hitters, especially elite power hitters. The OPS+ scores he put up during this era are very misleading.

--Ed Delahanty was long in his grave by 1911. Except for Crawford the others Cobb was competing with in 1911 were still around and still in their primes (or should have been in their primes anyway) in 1917, plus several new stars had arrived. I don't see any reason to think the league was better in 1911 than 1917. The ball was just livelier.

[leecemark]

Larry Walker's 1997 season was arguably as good as any of these seasons, depending how much you penalize him for the' Coors factor'

--Walker wasn't playing CF

[AstrosFan]

Wrong position. Walker is a right fielder.

[willshad]

--Ed Delahanty was long in his grave by 1911. Except for Crawford the others Cobb was competing with in 1911 were still around and still in their primes (or should have been in their primes anyway) in 1917, plus several new stars had arrived. I don't see any reason to think the league was better in 1911 than 1917. The ball was just livelier.

Jim Delahanty, not Ed.

[leecemark]

--If Jim Delahanty was one of the top hitters that was a pretty bad league.

[willshad]

--Ed Delahanty was long in his grave by 1911. Except for Crawford the others Cobb was competing with in 1911 were still around and still in their primes (or should have been in their primes anyway) in 1917, plus several new stars had arrived. I don't see any reason to think the league was better in 1911 than 1917. The ball was just livelier.

I guess its all just a mater of personal taste. Seems to me that in 1917 most of the big name guys had down years, except maybe Speaker. To me its just more impressive to dominate a competitive league than to dominate when there's no competition. Some look it the other way and see it as Cobb(1917) and Mantle being even MORE dominant, because they were posting great stats in a 'tougher hitting environment'. You can look at it either way.