1937 - Lou Gehrig v. Joe Medwick
 

Who do you think had a better season and why?

While I don't know Gehrig's stats from that season offhand, it is hard to argue with a triple crown, so my 50% informed decision goes to Medwick.

Think it over - here's their league leader rankings:

Iron Horse:
GAMES 1ST 157
RUNS 3RD 138
HITS T8TH 200
HOMERUNS 3RD 37
HR% 3RD 6.50
RBI 3RD 159
WALKS 1ST 127
AVERAGE 2ND .351
SLG 3RD .643
OBA 1ST .473
OPS 1ST 1.116
RUNS CREATED 1ST 185
RCAA 1ST 100
RCAP T3RD 65
OWP 1ST .805
RUNS CREATED/GAME 1ST 12.93
TOTAL BASES 3RD 366
EXTRA BASE HITS 4TH 83
ISOLATED POWER 3RD .292
SECONDARY AVERAGE 1ST .517
BPA 2ND .711
PLATE APPEARANCES 8TH 700

Medwick:
GAMES 1ST 156
AT BATS 1ST 633
RUNS 1ST 111
HITS 1ST 237
SINGLES T3RD 140
DOUBLES 1ST 56
TRIPLES T6TH 10
HOMERUNS T1ST 31
HR% 3RD 4.90
RBI 1ST 154
AVERAGE 1ST .374
SLG 1ST .641
OBA 3RD .414
OPS 1ST 1.056
RUNS CREATED 1ST 170
RCAA 1ST 92
RCAP 1ST 83
OWP 1ST .806
RUNS CREATED/GAME 2ND 11.25
TOTAL BASES 1ST 406
EXTRA BASE HITS 1ST 97
ISOLATED POWER 1ST .267
SECONDARY AVERAGE 3RD .338
BPA 2ND .654
PLATE APPEARANCES 5TH 677

It's close - but, I'm going with Lou.

It's sure closer than I would have guessed, and worth a look, but I'm going to have to say the edge goes to Medwick, slight as it is, largely on the strength of his significantly higher BA. One thing that might somewhat tip the scales is if Medwick had a lot more ABs. Unless I'm missing it, you forgot to include that figure for Gehrig. It's a good thing the AL & NL MVPs aren't competitive, because it would be a crime to deny either of them the honor.

They had about the same number of plate appearances - - LG 700, JM 677. But, Gehrig walked a ton - pitchers wouldn't throw to him. 'Nother reason why I went with Lou.

Yeah, I'm going to have to stay with Medwick. He had the higher average, and his power numbers were pretty much a wash with Gehrig's. Also, he appears to have dominated his league a little more. I don't want to choose, but if you've got a gun to my head, I'll take Medwick.

Batting Average? Shame on you. ;)
Look at the On Base Averages for both.

Why did I know you'd say that?:rolleyes: