Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted June 14, 2004 Pretty simple. Best season by a catcher, 1B, 2B, etc. Include both leagues please. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HarleyQuinn 0 Report post Posted June 14, 2004 Didn't feel like separating between AL/NL *I'm going by Adjusted OPS for a Single Season according to Baseball-Reference* C: Mike Piazza, Los Angeles Dodgers, 1997 1B: Lou Gehrig, New York Yankees, 1927 2B: Ross Barnes, Chicago Cubs, 1876 3B: George Brett, Kansas City Royals, 1980 SS: Honus Wagner, Pittsburgh Pirates, 1908 LF: Barry Bonds, San Francisco Giants, 2002 CF: Ty Cobb, Detroit Tigers, 1917 RF: Babe Ruth, New York Yankees, 1920 *Now going by RC* C: Mike Piazza, Los Angeles Dodgers, 1997(153 RC) 1B: Lou Gehrig, New York Yankees, 1927(210 RC) 2B: Rogers Hornsby, St. Louis Cardinals, 1922(206 RC) 3B: George Brett, Kansas City Royals, 1985(141 RC) SS: Alex Rodriguez, Seattle Mariners, 1996(157 RC) LF: Barry Bonds, San Francisco Giants, 2001(209 RC) CF: Mickey Mantle, New York Yankees, 1956(174 RC) RF: Babe Ruth, New York Yankees, 1921(232 RC) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted June 14, 2004 2B: Ross Barnes, Chicago Cubs, 1876 I've got to mention this one. Barnes is a special case, because he really wasn't that good. In 1876, a rule was in place that stated a ball was considered fair as long as it landed in fair territory before bouncing foul. Barnes exploited this rule and perfected a method of bunting a ball so it would bounce foul, and he collected cheap base hits. The league changed the rule after the season, and note how Barnes career falls off the cliff. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted June 15, 2004 I'm gonna ask 1901 be the cut off line. Too many Ross Barnes, and Pud Galvin's who had clear advantages in their records. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted June 15, 2004 You'll find inherant biases in any era. But Barnes is obvious, and its clear his success was due to nothing more than exploiting the rules. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted June 15, 2004 True. But, pitching numbers are skewed because the mound was 10 feet closer up to 1885. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted June 15, 2004 It wasn't even a mound. It was a box, and pitchers took a running start. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
