Most exciting season by a player?

[pathogan]

What was the most exciting season you have seen[i.e. in your lifetime] by a major league player?
Bonds last season? Mcgwire/sosa of '98?Goodens 1985??????????

there are so many candidates.The singular most exciting year I have seen was by Vida Blue in 1971. The country was enthralled by blue{I remember at The Stadium that summer when Blue pitched you got in for free if you could prove you last name was Blue}The A's were at the dawn of the best baseball team I have ever seen[with a nod to the 1978 Yankees} Goodens 1985 was close, but the world was larger by that time, and baseball was not nearly as dominant as in 1971...

[TGwynn19]

Tony Gwynn in 1994. Had a serious shot at the magical .400

[gyb13]

Nolan Ryan '91, Pedro 2000, Barry 2001...
and I wish I had been old enough to appreciate Don Mattingly '85

[spitball]

Originally posted by TGwynn19
Tony Gwynn in 1994. Had a serious shot at the magical .400
I can't remember the year but how about George Brett going after .400.
And Ichiro last year.

[Slippery Pedro]

I'm going to qualify my answer - is qualify the right word? - in that I'm only going to pick a "season" where I was able to watch most of it personally, in my backyard, as opposed to say Bonds last year where I had to watch it via SportsCenter highlights.

The key word for me is "exciting" on these selections, meaning each time I saw the player "play" it was eye-poping that year.

Pitcher - Ron Guidry 1978.
Hitter - Rickey Henderson 1985.

[spitball]

Originally posted by Slippery Pedro
I'm going to qualify my answer - is qualify the right word? - in that I'm only going to pick a "season" where I was able to watch most of it personally, in my backyard, as opposed to say Bonds last year where I had to watch it via SportsCenter highlights.

The key word for me is "exciting" on these selections, meaning each time I saw the player "play" it was eye-poping that year.

Pitcher - Ron Guidry 1978.
Hitter - Rickey Henderson 1985.
Those are great choices.
I have to add the 95 Angels season . Even though we gagged down the stretch it was just so fun to watch.

[WiredTiger]

Mark Fidrych's rookie season in 1976. The Bird was the word and it is my first baseball memory.

[moose]

how about dimaggio in 41? it's not just the first hitting streak, but can you imagine the craziness surrounding the one he started right afterward? crazy stuff

[also, pedro 99-00]

[TGwynn19]

Originally posted by moose
how about dimaggio in 41? it's not just the first hitting streak, but can you imagine the craziness surrounding the one he started right afterward? crazy stuff

[also, pedro 99-00]

moose,

how many games did you attend that year?:rolleyes:

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by TGwynn19
Tony Gwynn in 1994. Had a serious shot at the magical .400

You know that season is tainted for most of us..


The Cubs 1984 was just magic. Everyone pulled their weight. Sandberg's season was unexpected and phenomenal.

The Cubs 1985-88 was just tragic.

[pathogan]

Originally posted by Slippery Pedro
I'm going to qualify my answer - is qualify the right word? - in that I'm only going to pick a "season" where I was able to watch most of it personally, in my backyard, as opposed to say Bonds last year where I had to watch it via SportsCenter highlights.

The key word for me is "exciting" on these selections, meaning each time I saw the player "play" it was eye-poping that year.

Pitcher - Ron Guidry 1978.
Hitter - Rickey Henderson 1985.


thats what I was trying to say by exciting as opposed to best...thank you...Gooden in 1985 is close,so is Guidry in 1978

[KCBOOMER]

Brett's monster 1980 season.

The Year of the Yaz 1967.

[TGwynn19]

Originally posted by SmedIndy


You know that season is tainted for most of us..


The Cubs 1984 was just magic. Everyone pulled their weight. Sandberg's season was unexpected and phenomenal.

The Cubs 1985-88 was just tragic.

The Padres 1984 was ok for me too!!;)

[pwdennis]

Most exciting season would be Yastrzemski's 1967 season. Not only did he dominate the last month of the season, but he got to see the most exciting pennant race ever - four teams still in it at game 159 with a winner-take-all finish. What more could you want ?

[johnny]

Brett in '80.

On a personal note, Donnie in '95. After '94, I just knew they would go all the way and Donnie could retire with his ring. Things didn't work out, but it was the most exciting season to me in a long time. I was living in Va Beach, and sat on the deck out back every night and listened to Sterling and Kay.

[Throwback]

McGwire in '98, easily. Every game was a chance at history in the making, and it was all fresh to the younger generation or two. Bonds' season (And I may be prejudiced as a Cardinals fan), seemed not to be at all as interesting. It was like a been there, done that, scenario, and I think it lessened the monumental status of the record as an entity. I watched probably 60 of Mac's homers live or on TV, or else heard them called on the radio, but I of course missed #62 because I was busy playing football. Well, I guess if I'm going to miss something historic, playing football is something I'd like to be doing at the time.

[LeGrandOrange]

For me, the most exciting season for a player was...well, I'll cheat and give several.
Mainly, it's a group of players from 1995 that played for the Mariners, among them including Randy Johnson, Luis Sojo, the "brothers" Martinez, Jay Buhner, and Alex Diaz. They were the reasons that we could celebrate a division title here in the fair city of Seattle. The fact I attended the clincher has ALWAYS made that season so great in my mind.
A-Rod has gone 40-40, Ichiro has reinvented the impact leadoff role, and Edgar has been Edgar...but NOTHING...well, maybe until we get a World Series berth will ever be better then anything that happened in 1995. Even with Griffey's campaign that year. And actually, because I felt like going to games in 1995, even a W.S. berth may pale in comparison to 1995.

[moose]

Originally posted by johnny
On a personal note, Donnie in '95. After '94, I just knew they would go all the way and Donnie could retire with his ring. Things didn't work out, but it was the most exciting season to me in a long time. I was living in Va Beach, and sat on the deck out back every night and listened to Sterling and Kay.

my personal one was 96. before the season started, i just KNEW it would be the season for us, dont know why. i must have watched 145 of their games that season, plus the playoffs/WS . even cut school to be at the parade...

i'm definitely getting a john sterling moment when finals are over :)

[BuzzBuzzard]

Originally posted by Throwback
McGwire in '98, easily. That's the one for me as well.

[ChicagoDave]

Originally posted by SmedIndy

The Cubs 1984 was just magic. Everyone pulled their weight. Sandberg's season was unexpected and phenomenal.

The Cubs 1985-88 was just tragic.


Why do people have to keep reminding me about the 84 Championship Series. Then the next few years. :splat:

------
Sosa/McGwire 98 - Mainly Sosa because I watch so many of his games. I saw in person 56 and 57.
Both McGwire and Sosa were likeable and they enjoyed each others drive for 62. Sosa had an awesome year last year as well if you look at his stats. (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/sosasa01.shtml)

[WiredTiger]

I was rooting for the Cubbies to make it that year. A Cubs-Tigers World Series would have been awesome.

[gyb13]

Maybe we should nominate Bonds 2002 already?

The Daily Prospectus: Barry Bonds, Pt. 1 (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20020507daily.shtml)
by Joe Sheehan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those of you who have had your fill of Barry Bonds will probably want to skip to Keith Woolner's latest column.

For the rest of you...

.628

I've spent a lot of time making the point that I, my colleagues here at Baseball Prospectus, and the many other people who do the kind of work we do love baseball, not numbers. The type of analysis that we perform is an outgrowth of a passion for the game that we all had long before we ever knew about strikeout-to-walk ratio or context-neutral performance or career paths.

But, geez....628.

That’s Barry Bonds's on-base percentage, a figure that is so far off the charts as to be mind-boggling. It's a number that would have been a league-leading slugging percentage for most of the 20th century. It's a number higher than the OPS of a handful of major-league regulars, and not all of them Pirates. Bonds is making an out less than 40% of the time he steps to the plate. In a game of failure, he's had success like no one reading this has ever seen.

It's only the most staggering of the feats, facts, and figures associated with Bonds to date, which include:

40 walks and just five strikeouts in 69 at-bats

Nearly as many times hit by a pitch (four) as strikeouts

A .391 batting average, despite often facing a shift that makes it difficult for him to hit singles

An .899 slugging average, even better than the all-time record he set last season (.863).
Bonds has been playing a different game than everyone else for a while now. Since August of 2001, in slightly more than half a season, he's hitting .381/.591/.956 (AVG/OBP/SLG). Everyone knows about Bonds's combination of power and plate discipline, but how many people realize that he's been a .381 hitter in his last 200-odd at-bats?

We don't have the kind of breakdowns of Babe Ruth's 1920 and 1921 seasons, or even Ted Williams's 1941, that we do for Bonds's last two years, so comparisons are difficult. I think it's within reason, though, to say that Barry Bonds is playing at a level that no one in major-league history has ever before played. His complete dominance at the plate over an extended stretch could only possibly be matched by the absolute peak of the greatest hitters in history.

Bonds may well be showing us the outer limits of what a hitter can do, and it's an amazing sight to behold.

It's hard to believe, but there really is a downside to all of this. We'll get into that tomorrow.

[Skip]

I'd vote for McGwire/Sosa '98 just because it was new and seemed to click with so many people. Bond's season didn't resonate with the general populace so much, but for those who follow more than just HR it was at least right up there. I remember Brett's chase of .400 pretty well too, moreso than Gwynn or Carew for whatever reason.

[Gosfgiants]

I am biased towards to Bonds season last year. Of course I watched a good number of those dingers fly out at the game. This included him blasting two off of Barry Zito, his 500th homer to beat the hated Dodgers, and number 73.

The amazing thing in watching him was the teams would not challenge him. If they got behind in the count 2-0 they would put him on the majority of times regardless of the situtation. Larry Dierker's actions were just the icing on the cake. People were walking him like crazy all year. They still are. Just ask Bob Boone.

What also makes his year more remarkable was that he did duing a pennant race mainly in a pitchers park. Throw in the stoppage of play after 9/11 and the death of a close friend, and the man was under enormous pressure. Big Mac had the ghost of Maris and the media to deal with, but I think Bonds had much more pressure on him.

[SmedIndy]

Pete Rose's hit streak really sticks out in my head as a teenage fan.

That and the exploits of Kong Kingman in the OF for the Cubs, but that was a different animal. The Rose season was phenomenal for edge of your seat drama....

[JamesI]

I'll have to vote for 1998 Sosa/McGwire. I have to go with games I see on tv, since I live to far away to get to a major league team. I remember watching homer 62 for McGwire on tv while in a laudramat.

[TimmyB]

Originally posted by pwdennis
Most exciting season would be Yastrzemski's 1967 season. Not only did he dominate the last month of the season, but he got to see the most exciting pennant race ever - four teams still in it at game 159 with a winner-take-all finish. What more could you want ?

Since I was only about a year old then, I can't say that this was the most exciting season I ever personally saw... however, even as a kid, the echos of that season, and Yaz's dominance, still reverberated through Red Sox Nation.

McGwire's '98 (with Sammy) was thrilling. Tune in for his next at-bat!

Brett's run at .400 in '80 was also a pick up the paper every day kind of season (pre-Sports' Center, remember).

I had to grudgingly admire Guidry's 1978 -- he single handedly kept NY in the race through the mid-summer. 24-4 would have been a helluva season. 24-3, too, would have been pretty impressive. But, either one of those and there's no tie, no Bucky Dent, no incredible series vs. KC. No World Series. He was that important (okay, I can't say exciting 'cuz, in reality, it was excrutiating.

Clemens' 1986 was both (at first) surprising, and exciting. But he couldn't close the deal in the World Series.

[Throwback]

I appreciated the significance of '98. Since then, I have lost some of that appreciation. It's sad that it continued and escalated. We now know that home run records set between 1998 and now are about as comparable to previous ones as those set in the 1920s and those set prior to it. It would have been nice if baseball would have unjuiced the ball somewhat after 98, and give us some illusion that McGwire and Sosa's feats really were that impressive. As it is, their achievements, as well as those who would challenge them (including Bonds and Sosa himself) are cheapened. If Barry Bonds, who had never hit 50, can hit 73 at his age, then something is wrong. Anymore, I only look upon home runs as a way to win or lose a game...the records no longer have any mystique or relevance, in my mind. I'd still have to say that Sosa-McGwire '98 was the most exciting, since at the time, it was believable.

[TimmyB]

I remember a non-baseball fan friend (yes, I have some of those) asking me at the end of '98 if it would be exciting if McGwire broke his own record in '99. He was really surprised that thought it would be terrible if McGwire or anyone else for that matter broke the record in the 15-20 years.

Only missed by 12-17 years...

[poorme]

Originally posted by Throwback
If Barry Bonds, who had never hit 50, can hit 73 at his age, then something is wrong.

I can't let this pass without mentioning that there are many Barryphiles who would take great offense.:redhot:

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by Throwback
It would have been nice if baseball would have unjuiced the ball somewhat after 98, and give us some illusion that McGwire and Sosa's feats really were that impressive. As it is, their achievements, as well as those who would challenge them (including Bonds and Sosa himself) are cheapened. If Barry Bonds, who had never hit 50, can hit 73 at his age, then something is wrong.

Sound like sour apples, there....lets dig up Gavvy Cravath and Socks Seybold and see what they feel about Ruth's record. Did it cheapen their accomplishment? How about Roger Conner or Harry Stovey?

What would Dave Orr, Charley Jones, or Dan Brouthers have to say about Ruth. Would they think he didn't really earn any homers because of the conditions he played in versus their time?

If Barry would have been healthier in 1999 and 2000 he would have hit 50. He probably would have hit over 50 in 1994, too.

Athletes are getting faster, stronger, more powerful. 73 isn't that much of a leap from 70. What's cheap about it is the gutless way some teams pitched to Bonds late in the year (yes, Mr. Dierker, I'm talking to you)....

[Throwback]

You forgot Ned Williamson...anyway, I don't think it's comparable, and for two reasons: First, it was understood at the time by essentially everyone that it was clearly a new era. Baseball changed drastically between 1919 and 1920. Nobody was foolish enough in those days to believe that the difference between a record 29 and a record 54 was due to better hitting. Comparing pre-1920 home run records with the ones that came after were like comparing apples and oranges, and nobody ever seriously thought otherwise. There is no such clear distinction between 1997 and 1998 on.

Also, nobody ever had a reason to question Ruth's legitimacy because he was so far ahead of everyone else when he was breaking the record. His feats were undeniable. If there were ten forty-plus homer guys in the league in 1920, and Ruth wasn't even universally acknowledged as the best home run hitter of his era, his achievements would not be so impressive. In a vacuum consisting of only them, Sosa's recent campaigns and Ruth's of 1919-1921 would have been comparable, but Sosa has never even led the NL in homers, which makes clear the fundamental difference. Sosa and McGwire are at least Bonds' rivals for the title of best home run hitter of recent years, if not a cut above. Constant competition for a record that had stood for 30+ years and which had prior to that stood for another 30+ cheapens the record without question.

Hugh Duffy's (or Rogers Hornsby's, if you prefer) single season BA record would be a more monumental one to break, because it is a standard that has stood for 108 years (or 78, if you prefer). However, if somebody (especially other than the original record breaker) were to break it within 3 or 4 years, and it was to be subsequently broken every 5 years or so, that reflects changes in the game rather than superior skill for all those who had broken it since 1894 or 1924. This would be similar to the evolution of fielding averages, which reflect better gloves and/or different scoring techniques as much or more than improved fielding skill. This is why we don't speak of Steve Garvey the way we would have once spoken of Ruth.

[SmedIndy]

I didn't count Ned Williamson because it was obvious that was a record that was tainted by ground rules and a short fence.

Constant competition does NOT cheapen a record. It should make it more enjoyable to the fans. Who could break the record this year?? Couldn't you say that the players are pushing each other to soar to new heights? What's wrong with that?

Ruth's and Maris' length of time with the record may be more anomaly than anything else.

And if someone puts up the Hugh Duffy number, and it causes other players to try and match it, so be it. Big whoop-de. It's still a monumental feat.

Bonds just didn't have a running mate to chase the record with him, and he didn't embrace the chase.

[Throwback]

It's basic economics...the more you have, the less it's worth. It's a home run era. Any special excitement generated would come from the competition among the competitors, not the competition for the record. I don't think they're pushing each other to soar to new heights at all. I think it's just like any other year with competition for the home run crown, except now, instead of 40 or 50 home runs being the stopping point, it's around 75. It doesn't reflect the players so much as the game.

What can your basis be for calling the longevity an anomaly when it's clearly been the rule?

What I'm saying is that if somebody hits .441 next year, you might say "WOW! What a hitter!". If he does a point better the next year, you might think the same. However, if three guys bat in the .430s both years, with 15 guys over .400, that's a pretty good sign the game itself is different. My point was that that's exactly the situation with the home runs now.

[sweaver]

Originally posted by Throwback
, but Sosa has never even led the NL in homers, which makes clear the fundamental difference.
Sosa led the NL in 2000, with 50. He hasn't led in any season where he hit 60.

One reason Ruth was leading the charge, was he was changing the perception of the game, that it was possible to win with the home run. Before that, "scientific ball" was the name of the game. Many old-timers held on to that for years, before giving in to new theories.

Kinda like today.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by Throwback

What can your basis be for calling the longevity an anomaly when it's clearly been the rule?

What I'm saying is that if somebody hits .441 next year, you might say "WOW! What a hitter!". If he does a point better the next year, you might think the same. However, if three guys bat in the .430s both years, with 15 guys over .400, that's a pretty good sign the game itself is different. My point was that that's exactly the situation with the home runs now.

It wasn't that much of an anomaly 1871-1919. Basically, we've got two long stretches and several short stretches. And the long stretches had a war and some strikes that interrupted play.

So the game is different. It's still an exciting season and a worthwhile accomplishment to blast 73. For me, since Mac and Sosa were forgone conclusions after a while, it was more compelling to see if chicken-bleep managers were going to allow Bonds to try to get the record.

[poorme]

I vote for the McGwire year, with no other season close.

[Throwback]

Originally posted by SmedIndy


It wasn't that much of an anomaly 1871-1919. Basically, we've got two long stretches and several short stretches. And the long stretches had a war and some strikes that interrupted play.
That would be because the record had not yet been firmly established, and the rules were in a constant state of turmoil during that time. Of course it's not going to last long as 5 after 1876...that's the equivalent of any other league lead, it just happened to be the first in the universally recognized major league. If major league baseball had been around since 1830, for example, there would probably have been a couple long stretches with no new records, similar to the 1884 to 1919 interval. As for strikes and wars...the wars didn't actually interrupt play to any great extent, but I see where you're going. However, nobody was hitting home runs in the high 50s or anything in those days, so it's not likely that the record would have been in danger anyway. There was no threat in '81, either. I'll even grant you for the sake of argument that Matt Williams would have broken it in '94, but that's still a 33 year span between major challenges of the record.

So the game is different. It's still an exciting season and a worthwhile accomplishment to blast 73. For me, since Mac and Sosa were forgone conclusions after a while, it was more compelling to see if chicken-bleep managers were going to allow Bonds to try to get the record.
It's fine to have your own perception of Bonds' season from last year. I just don't see it as particularly monumental in any true sense. As for the managers, I wish people would stop beating that drum...sure, it kept him from hitting some homers, but you can't fault them...if there's nobody on first, I'm going to walk Barry Bonds every single time he's up in a close game. It wouldn't be because of any record, just because I don't want him to beat me.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by Throwback

[
It's fine to have your own perception of Bonds' season from last year. I just don't see it as particularly monumental in any true sense. As for the managers, I wish people would stop beating that drum...sure, it kept him from hitting some homers, but you can't fault them...if there's nobody on first, I'm going to walk Barry Bonds every single time he's up in a close game. It wouldn't be because of any record, just because I don't want him to beat me.

The changing of the RULES has nothing to do with the home run record. The rules for home runs were always the same.

Equipment, pitching stances, parks, all that had plenty to do with it, but not the rules. In fact, the OLD rules (fair balls vs. balls, etc.) where it took several balls before walks favored the hitter more than the pitcher. I mean, the pitchers had to put it right on the money, and the batter didn't have to swing at all if it wasn't a "fair" pitch.

But I think we're getting nowhere here, and fast. I still think that statement of wanting to dejuice the ball smacks of homerism for McGwire, and not allowing the game to evolve on its own.

[hmrsf]

For me the 1999 Pedro Martinez. What a season. He was unhittable. All I can say is wow!!

[Throwback]

Originally posted by SmedIndy


The changing of the RULES has nothing to do with the home run record. The rules for home runs were always the same.
I would dispute this...a mound 50 feet from home plate is a lot harder on the hitter than one 60 feet and six inches away.

Equipment, pitching stances, parks, all that had plenty to do with it, but not the rules. In fact, the OLD rules (fair balls vs. balls, etc.) where it took several balls before walks favored the hitter more than the pitcher. I mean, the pitchers had to put it right on the money, and the batter didn't have to swing at all if it wasn't a "fair" pitch.
Please clarify, because as it is this makes no sense. How can a nine-ball walk favor a hitter?

I still think that statement of wanting to dejuice the ball smacks of homerism for McGwire, and not allowing the game to evolve on its own.
You're right about the evolution part...I don't want baseball to stay or evolve from what it is now, which is a product corrupted by the home run craze. I want it sane. I would just as soon wipe out everything that happened in 1998 and since and go back and dejuice the ball so that the record still meant something. Home runs are a dime a dozen today, and I don't like it. I don't know why they have to fool with baseball the way it was when I was a kid. It was the greatest game on earth.

[SmedIndy]

A. There were rules limiting the way the pitch could be thrown, and a pitcher had to comply with a high pitch or low pitch. For many years a pitcher couldn't throw overhand.

B. A nine-ball walk, coupled with NO CALLED STRIKES was the main culprit. A pitcher had to throw it in the prescribed zone, early on, and was given warnings, then balls were called. Basically, all a batter had to do was sit and wait for a pitch to his liking. It was like coach pitch.

C. The product is not corrupted by the home run craze. It's a natural cycle of the game. Your beloved Hornsby played in an era much like it is now offensively. There's no proof they fooled with anything, except idiot managers employing too many specialists and artificially depleting pitching. You're way too young to get to old fogeyism. The baseball of the 50's and 60's was ghastly boring, really.

[Slippery Pedro]

We are way off topic on this one. Please all, start a new thread in these cases - rather than do something like this - - thanks