Master Index of Archived Threads


Lost Seasons from the Era of Questionable Training.

Edgy DC Jul 05 2006 01:04 PM

Occasionally, I think about Adrian Beltre's 2004, and it blows my mind. He went .334 / .388 / .629 // 1.017. That's 48 homers, and 121 RBI, while playing excellent defense at third. He never smelled a season like that before or since, but that's arguably the best offensive season in Dodger history. He got 24 more PAs than Piazza (1.070 OPS) in 1996 and his defensive contribution was probably comparable. As a season, though, it's largely lost to history, another splash amid a statistical tidal wave. He finished a distant second in MVP voting (behind Bonds, of course). I grew up thinking about George Foster's 1977 all the time, and maybe kids latch onto other remarkable seasons today and it's only my perspective that's changed. But there's been so many of these that the Seasons of Remarkable Numbers aren't outliers anymore ... Barry Bonds' walk rate notwithstanding. That same year, Baltimore came in fifth place with a shortstop who drove in 150 runs. Apropos of nothing much, but he's a shortstop that drove in 150 runs. He finished fifth in MVP voting.

SteveJRogers Jul 05 2006 01:22 PM

Roger Maris, 1961 comes to mind also. Yes he was the MVP a year earlier and that front porch was tailor made for someone like him but he'd never approach 40 in a year again. I think that year superceeds the topic though due to the fact that its the sole reason people want to put Roger Maris in the HOF, all the others that will be mentioned (Brady Anderson also) do not propell the player in question to HOF debate material status

Edgy DC Jul 05 2006 01:31 PM

No, you see, that season remains remarkable. My point, poorly put, was to remark seasons like Beltre's which are made unremarkable, as they came apparently during the seasons of widespread steroid abuse.

Iubitul Jul 05 2006 01:48 PM

That's just it - there have been so many of these seasons, they are no longer remarkable..

metirish Jul 05 2006 01:56 PM

I thought of a guy like Richie Sexon but he had a few huge years , then I thought about Shawn Green but he had some great years for LA....in 2001 he had 49 homers with 125 RBI, the following year he had 42 and 114, since then he has gone down hill.

SteveJRogers Jul 05 2006 02:01 PM

Sammy Sosa then leads in this category!

Frayed Knot Jul 05 2006 02:02 PM

The mission now - should anyone choose to accept it - is to answer whether these outlier season ARE more common in this recent era. I'm not so sure they are. Conventional wisdom assumes that there's an automatic cause-&-effect between drugs and seasons like Brady Anderson's as if it's virtually certain that they couldn't have happened without modern chemistry. But the likes of Maris, Foster & Hack Wilson show that they certainly could have.

Edgy DC Jul 05 2006 02:21 PM

Well, as I'm still concerned I'm not getting across what I'm talking about, please tell me what would qualify. I can't demonstrate cause and effect. I can show that 50 homers happened 17 times before 1994 and 20 times since.

Frayed Knot Jul 05 2006 02:30 PM

But many of those 50+ seasons were NOT outliers, they were done by a handful of the same players multiple times and represented a new norm - as did the 50+ HR seasons of the '20s & '30s.

Hillbilly Jul 05 2006 02:50 PM

="Edgy DC"]Well, as I'm still concerned I'm not getting across what I'm talking about, please tell me what would qualify. I can't demonstrate cause and effect. I can show that 50 homers happened 17 times before 1994 and 20 times since. But the 20 HRs after 1994 weren't caused by the 17 before 1994? I follow you now!

Edgy DC Jul 05 2006 05:13 PM

I can't figure out what we're arguing about this evening.

Iubitul Jul 05 2006 05:43 PM

Edgy DC wrote: I can't figure out what we're arguing about this evening. I didn't think we were.

RealityChuck Jul 05 2006 05:57 PM

How about this, then: Herb Score: 20-9, 2.53 ERA, 263K. Injured the next year and never won more than 9 games afterwards.

Iubitul Jul 05 2006 06:15 PM

RealityChuck wrote: How about this, then: Herb Score: 20-9, 2.53 ERA, 263K. Injured the next year and never won more than 9 games afterwards. Wasn't that a case of him getting hit in the face with a line drive, altering his delivery because of it, and never being the same again?

Edgy DC Jul 05 2006 06:26 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 05 2006 07:29 PM

What I mean to call attention to is outstanding seasons of recent vintage that are easily overlooked because there are so many of outstanding seasons of recent vintage.

SteveJRogers Jul 05 2006 06:49 PM

Edgy DC wrote: What I mesn to call attention to is outstanding seasons of recent vintage that are easily overlooked because there are so many of outstanding seasons of recent vintage. Todd Hundley, 1996 Never hit more than 30 or drove in more than 86 any other year. You know, maybe Phillips going back on his promise to Todd wasn't a bad thing!

MFS62 Jul 05 2006 07:01 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: The mission now - should anyone choose to accept it - is to answer whether these outlier season ARE more common in this recent era. I'm not so sure they are. They used to be called "career years". One example that comes to mind is the .361 season by the otherwise pedestrian Norm Cash in 1961. Maybe it wasn't the players so much as the ball thatyear. Later

Edgy DC Jul 05 2006 07:20 PM

A player's inability to match the numbers in another season isn't meant to be a qualifier.

MFS62 Jul 05 2006 07:24 PM

Edgy DC wrote: A player's inability to match the numbers in another season isn't meant to be a qualifier. Then what is? Aren't we talking about unusual performances that don't fit the rest of the player's history? (e.g.- Brady Anderson) Cash never had that kind of year before that one, either. Please provide an example and explain why your example is different. Later

Edgy DC Jul 05 2006 07:36 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 05 2006 07:46 PM

]Aren't we talking about unusual performances that don't fit the rest of the player's history? Many are, I guess because of my allusion to Beltre not matching his 2004 numbers. I'm not meaning to make that the subject, at all. I don't get it, but I"m apparently incapable of being clear on this point. "Lost Seasons from the Era of Questionable Training" is meant to be the qualifier. "Seasons of Remarkable Numbers that aren't outliers anymore" is meant to be a qualifier. "...seasons like Beltre's which are made unremarkable, as they came apparently during the seasons of widespread steroid abuse" is meant to be a qualifier. "...outstanding seasons of recent vintage that are easily overlooked because there are so many of outstanding seasons of recent vintage" is meant to be a qualifier.

RealityChuck Jul 05 2006 07:43 PM

So what exactly are you looking for? Players who had a really great season, but who were overlooked? Players who had one really great season, never did that well again, and are overlooked? What exactly is the point you're trying to make?

Edgy DC Jul 05 2006 07:47 PM

RealityChuck wrote: Players who had a really great season, but who were overlooked? Yes, but of recent vintage.

Johnny Dickshot Jul 05 2006 07:54 PM

Worst. Thread. Ever. I think we're looking for player seasons that might be overlooked seeing as they came amid the steroid epidemic where so many remarkable seasons were happening. The implication isn't whether Beltre could or could not replicate his success in another year, necessarily, or that he did or did not take steroids (indeed that's the sad undercurrent) -- just that that particular year of his may have been considered outstanding were there not so many guys who also generated terrific numbers that year thanks in speculative part to questionable training methods that were widespread when he put those numbers up.

Edgy DC Jul 05 2006 08:03 PM

]Worst. Thread. Ever. Ever. Thanks for summing up what I cannot.

The Big O Jul 05 2006 08:50 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 05 2006 09:43 PM

With newfound understanding, here's a (tangentially) Met-related one: Carlos Delgado, 2000 — .344 / .470 / .644 // 1.134 (OPS+ of 182) 41 home runs, 57 doubles, 1 triple for 378 total bases; 137 RBIs, 115 runs scored, 123 walks 162 games played at first; made 13 errors Did I mention he hit .344 with 41 homers?

Edgy DC Jul 05 2006 09:30 PM

Good example. Those sort of numbers tell you "Cancel the election; there are no other candidates for the MVP award." In fact, however, he was fourth in the league.

Mr. Zero Jul 06 2006 08:10 AM

Luis Gonzalez 2001. 57 hrs. 142 rbis. 3rd in MVP voting.

Elster88 Jul 06 2006 08:16 AM

I love Mikey as much as (actually probably more than) the next guy. But his power numbers don't "look" as impressive as they should. 1993 - 35-112 (9th in MVP voting) 94 - 24-92 (6th) 95 - 32-93 (4th) 96 - 36-105 (2nd) 97 - 40-124 (2nd) 98 - 32-111 (14th) 99 - 40-124 (7th) 00 - 38-113 (3rd) 01 - 36-94 (13th) 02 - 33-98 Imagine a run like that in the 80's.

Elster88 Jul 06 2006 08:20 AM

I always felt he was robbed in the 2000 MVP voting more than in the years he finished behind a Colorado player. If today's definition of MVP necessitates being basically the only guy on your team, how does it make sense that Kent and Bonds finished 1-2 that year? Shouldn't they knock each other out of the voting? Actually I disagree with today's definition of MVP, but if that's the standard...

Edgy DC Jul 06 2006 08:22 AM

Who says that's today's definition?

Elster88 Jul 06 2006 08:23 AM

I figured that question was coming. I'll take a rain check on answering that. I guess that's a discussion for another thread anyway.

Rockin' Doc Jul 06 2006 05:00 PM

I read this entire thread. Now I have a headache.