best season by a Boston Red Sock?

[Blackout]

david ortiz 2006: .287/.413/.636 54 HR 137 RBI 165 OPS+

wade boggs 1987: .363/.461/.588 24 HR 87 RBI 173 OPS+

ted williams 1941: .406/.553/.635 37 HR 120 RBI 235 OPS+

jimmie foxx 1938: .349/.462/.704 50 HR 175 RBI 188 OPS+

manny ramirez 2002: .349/.450/646 33 HR 107 RBI 184 OPS+

tris speaker: .383/.464/.567 53 doublse 52 SB 188 OPS+

babe ruth 1919: .322/.456/.657 29 HR 114 RBI 219 OPS+

nomar garciapara 00: .372/.434/.599 51 doubles 155 OPS+

yaz 1967: .326/.418/.622 44 HR 121 RBI 193 OPS+

[BlueBlood]

A .553 OBP? Come on! We have a winner.

[steve rogers]

A .553 OBP? Come on! We have a winner.

Well, he wasn't the MVP that year. Thanks to Dave Egan, back when real sports writers did real reporting. Not like those kids living in their mothers basement writing their blogs in their underwear.


Scott

[Proctor, CF]

Well, he wasn't the MVP that year. Thanks to Dave Egan, back when real sports writers did real reporting. Not like those kids living in their mothers basement writing their blogs in their underwear.

Scott

He wasn't MVP, thanks to Joe DiMaggio.

[Urbanshocker13]

That is Just a crazy season for teddy ball game, just plain amazing! How can a human hit like that?? Even with Joe D's 56 game hitting streak how did he not win the MVP?

[Proctor, CF]

I have to go with Ruth's 1919 - the year he revolutionized the game of baseball with power so phenomenally greater than anything ever seen before that the game would never be the same again. He led the league - with unprecedented dominance - in home runs, on base percentage, runs batted in, runs produced, slugging average, and total bases, inter alia. He was also wildly popular, filling stadiums everywhere, despite playing for an inferior team. I don't believe Williams' 1941 was as dominant or historically significant.

[Proctor, CF]

Even with Joe D's 56 game hitting streak how did he not win the MVP?

Because, even with Williams hitting .400, DiMaggio was the better all-round player and team player.

[Seels]

Because, even with Williams hitting .400, DiMaggio was the better all-round player and team player.

Oh please. There are maybe 5 seasons in major league history that deserve mention among Williams 41 season. DiMaggio being an all around player doesn't make up the difference from a 1.083 ops to a 1.288 ops. This, like 4-5 other MVP's Ted should have won, was solely because of the media bias against him.

[brett]

Oh please. There are maybe 5 seasons in major league history that deserve mention among Williams 41 season. DiMaggio being an all around player doesn't make up the difference from a 1.083 ops to a 1.288 ops. This, like 4-5 other MVP's Ted should have won, was solely because of the media bias against him.

I am a big Ted Williams fan, and yes the voters used the wrong reasoning (they didn't even know what on-base% and slugging% were back then), but it is possible that Dimaggio's season just about matches Williams' in value:

1) Based on the defensive analyses that we have, Williams had a particularly poor defnesive season in '41-the worst of his first 15 seasons.

2) He missed 11 games but also pinch hit only in another 10 meaning that he started just 133 games. That's just 86% of his team's games that he started and while that's not terrible, if he had produced at his rate for another 40 plate appearances, his value would have gone way up.


Because of defense, (and the fact that he actually had two very good fielding seasons in '42 and '46-almost gold glove level for a left fielder) and because of 21 games in which he sat out or pinch hit, and because of league changes in offense levels, I would rate '42 and '46 higher than '41.

Dimaggio played a tougher position and was 16 fielding runs above average (and probably more when factors of YS are considered). Williams played left and was 9 runs below average among left fielders in '41. Dimaggio also only played 139 games, but almost certainly picked up extra bases that are not in the stat line more frequently than Williams.

Dimaggio's '41 had a WARP of 14.9 and Williams' 12.7 when defense is factored in.

Williams by the way was over 16 in both '42 and '46, and had he not missed the 3 years to the war might have gone down as a "good" left fielder.

I pick Williams '42 as the best season by a Red Sox player. Williams was +16 FRAA in left which is gold glove territory, was still running well, and hit almost as well relative to the league than in '41.

I like on-base percentage, but when it gets over .500, I don't really give it much extra weight. It usually means that the player was strategically walked in a situation where a hit would have been more devastating. The best hitters-Ruth and Williams and Hornsby all basically topped out right under .500 except for a few anomalous seasons. Take away 40 walks in key situations to Williams and let him hit in those situations and he probably helps his team more, but his slugging stays the same and his on-base% goes down to .500

[Yankees2k6]

Ted Williams

[Williamsburg2599]

Ortiz's 2007 season is argubly better than his 2006. That being said, It's Teddy Ballgame by a mile.

[Proctor, CF]

Oh please. There are maybe 5 seasons in major league history that deserve mention among Williams 41 season. DiMaggio being an all around player doesn't make up the difference from a 1.083 ops to a 1.288 ops. This, like 4-5 other MVP's Ted should have won, was solely because of the media bias against him.

Ted's 1941 is one for the ages, no doubt about it. But, DiMaggio's was too, and he played a much, much better all round game, leading his team to a world championship. He, too, performed one of the greatest batting feats ever, hitting in a still-unsurpassed record 56 consecutive games (plus in 72 out of 73 games) - he also surpassed Ted in hits, doubles, triples, RBIs, and total bases. By all accounts, he was a FAR better fielder, baserunner, team player & team leader. Ted hit amazingly, but his all round game left a lot to be desired, as he had not yet developed into a great team leader or player - nor did he ever approach DiMaggio as an all around player. His very serious early personality flaws did not help his own case, either.

Having said that, his hitting was so magnificent, he still almost got the MVP. Hats off to Teddy Ballgame for his all time 1941 season, for breaking .400! He's one of Baseball's greatest treasures.

Still, as great as both Teddy Ballgame & Joe Dimaggio played in '41, Ruth was even more phenomenal in 1919, completely dominating everybody with head-snapping power - transforming the game of Baseball forever. He launched the year against McGraw's World Champion Giants with an astronomical shot in Florida of over 550-feet and spent the remainder of the year beyond the stratosphere, far above what any man where any man has gone before. A true MegaStar.

[CTaka]

Without looking deeply into this, I was simply intending to just cast my vote for Teddy Ballgame. But I think I am inclined to swing my vote to the Babe.

Offensively, there is no question that Williams is the choice here. The initial post already pointed out that Williams has a 16 points edge in OPS+. His EqA was .411!?! That is just nuts. But Ruth wasn't exactly a slouch either, posting an EqA of .382. Ruth's WARP-3 for 1919 was 15.0 compared to 12.5 for Williams. In terms of Win Shares, Williams accumulated 39.6 batting WS compared to 33.5 for Babe. I still give Teddy Ballgame the offensive edge, but it isn't as huge a difference as I initially thought.

There is a distinct advantage for Ruth in the field. Ruth's fielding percentage as a LF was a whopping 38 points above league average. Williams was 12 points BELOW league average. Indeed, Ruth's fielding RAA that year was 8 compared to a -9 for Williams. Babe's fielding RAR was 23 compared to 6 for Williams. Big fielding edge for the Babe.

There is an even bigger difference in their pitching obviously. While Williams pitched 2 innings the year before, he did not pitch to a single batter in 1941. The Babe pitched 133 innings with a 2.97 ERA. His WHIP was high (1.55) and this was clearly not the Babe at his best on the mound. Yet he still picked up 7.94 pitching Win Shares for his efforts.

In terms of total WS, Ruth totaled 43.43 to 41.88 for Williams. Very close, and I could certainly understand those that would vote for Ted. But if we are looking at all facets of the game, hitting, fielding, and pitching, I would give the slight nod to the Babe.

I think Ruth's 1919 season is greatly underrated by most fans today because they look at the big home run totals in the years to follow and assume that 1919 was "no big deal" - heck, he didn't even hit 30 homers! I think those who think that would be very wrong.

[Proctor, CF]

Fully recognizing the extremely singular nature of Ruth's last season with Red Sox, I am still compelled to ask those in the know: Was he ever actually called a "Red Sock"?

[stejay]

I went with Ted Williams in 1941.