Single Greatest W.S. Performance By A Player

[pathogan]

...has had a more impact DRAMATICALLY, though practically, what PW said in another thread, 4 and out and next...he doesnt run anything out, his fielding is negligible[talk about living off you past there} if not awful. i don't know steve, I still cant figure out, really, how a guy who was a very very good/ great ball player at 35-36 becomes the best ballplayer ever at that age...still doesn t fit for me...

[sweaver]

Bonds is a contender. To those already listed, let me add Billy Martin, 1953, Gene Tenace, 1972, Reggie in 1977, and Bob Gibson in 1964.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Ruth and Gehrig are "hurt" by the fact that the '28 WS only went 4 games -- that shows dominance even more, if you ask me.

All the Babe did in those 4 games was get 10 hits in 16 AB's, with one walk, 3 doubles and 3 homers. His OBA was .647 and his SLG was 1.375. The Babe scored 9 runs and drove in 4.

Gehrig? Well, he batted behind the Babe and drew 6 walks for his trouble. Lou had 6 hits in 11 AB, with a double and 4 homers, scored 5 and drove in 9. His OBA was .706 and his SLG was 1.727.

The Series was a rout. The closest game was the 4-1 opener, with Waite Hoyt pitching a 3-hit gem. The other three games were decided by 4 or more runs.

Ruth and Gehrig wrecked St Louis that year in 4 games or their totals would be even gaudier than they already are, and they combined for the most dominant two-man hitting performance ever, IMO. The Cards had to pitch to Ruth (with devastating results) with Gehrig on deck and when they dared pitch to Lou, he ruined them too.

[pwdennis]

It's really hard to single out as a specific performance as being dominant. Two that readily come to my mind are Brooks Robinson in the 1970 World (hit .429 and made many great defensive plays) and Gene Tenace in the 1972 World Series (4 home runs). These are two that I recall with great clarity, but the greatest ever ?

Babe Ruth hit .625 in the 1928 World Series where the Yankees swept the Pirates in four games - 3 HR, 4 RBI, 9 runs scored

I guess that Ruth would be my pick although Gehrig in '28 (4 HR/ 9 RBI/ 5 Runs/ .545 BA/ 1.727 SLG)) or in '32 (3 HR/ 8 RBI / 9 Runs / .529 BA) might be worthy contenders

Over the course of a season, I agree that stats could easily determine who had a 'greater performance.'

However, over a sample size of time that is not statistically significant (7 games, 17 at bats, 30 PA) - I think the 'greatest' term becomes a far more subjective thing.

This is an occasion where I think a memory may be superior to stats.

[Max Power]

Originally posted by CpUltravox
However, over a sample size of time that is not statistically significant (7 games, 17 at bats, 30 PA) - I think the 'greatest' term becomes a far more subjective thing.

I see your point. I've watched 27 World Series now. And, this was the first time that I wanted to make sure that I never missed a single PA of one particular player (Bonds). His ability/performance had that "must see" appeal. No other 'great series player' had that effect on me - not Motilor in 1993, not Hatcher in 1990, etc.

[VNV Nation]

Didn't you say you missed the 1993 World Series because of your honeymoon?

Molitor killed the ball every at-bat.

I think Bonds is up there, certainly - although every at bat that I can witness is a must-see when Bonds is up, post-season or spring training....

Bonds has the misfortune of having to compete against himself in my mind. Whereas with other players I can judge them relative to everyone else, with Bonds, he's such an outlier that the comparisons don't do him justice.

It's kind of his curse.

For players in any sport with multiple MVP's... can anyone look back at a time when that player won his first few MVP's and think, "That's when he wasn't as good as he is now?" In other words, it seems we can only compare Barry to Barry.

Back to relative points - I think Bonds has established himself in a group of 4 or 5 to have the greatest in dividual effort in World Series history, but on such a small sample size, and based on how few I've seen with my own eyes - It's tough for me to single one of them out.

[rcartman28]

Originally posted by chrisfostermusi
..........................G ERA W-L SV CG IP H ER BB SO
Christy Mathewson 3 0.00 3-0 0 3 27.0 14 0 1 18



I don't know Steve, you make a good point for Barry but I am with Pat, if he has a Reggie night then I might jump ship.

If Bonds had hit a couple of homers in Game Seven, I might have gone with him, but my vote is for Mathewson's three shutouts.....

[KCBOOMER]

Originally posted by Max Power
That means those around him had better series than the guys around Bonds.

That's almost a pre-rehabilitation Bonds quote. Not my fault, man, it's them bums around me.

[chrisfostermusi]

another great WS performance that got no mention was Brooks Robinson in 70' He pretty much saved two games with his glove. It is a rarity that defensive play by a third basemen could have that effect.

Johnny Bench is still cursing him for his play in that series.

[Max Power]

Originally posted by VNV Nation
Didn't you say you missed the 1993 World Series because of your honeymoon? Molitor killed the ball every at-bat.

Got married in 1992. Saw most of that one on tape afterwards.

[Skip]

Originally posted by chrisfostermusi
Johnny Bench is still cursing him for his play in that series.

He's not the only one!

[gyb13]

Originally posted by Max Power
I see your point. I've watched 27 World Series now. And, this was the first time that I wanted to make sure that I never missed a single PA of one particular player (Bonds). His ability/performance had that "must see" appeal. No other 'great series player' had that effect on me - not Motilor in 1993, not Hatcher in 1990, etc.

that could be said about any bonds at bat over the past two years.

the problem with bonds in this series is that he didn't get the chance to produce in crucial situations. an intentional walk does wonders to his OBP and OPS, but people would remember santiago's rbi hit and not the fact that benito was hitting because scioscia took the bat out of barry's hands.

in a short series, counting stats matter more than in the regular season. What leads to wins in a short series can be measured by ACTUAL production (hr, rbi, etc)....RATE production (obp, slg, etc) is less meaningful in smaller sample sizes.

[qtlaw]

I agree that pitchers that win 3 in the 7 games is pretty special and almost another category, but Bonds' performance in this Series was amazing. Without examining the entire history, I'm sure that at the very minimum Bonds' performance has him arguably producing the single greatest performance.

It is ironic that whereas the detractors used to rail against Bonds for his post season performance and his supporters used to say the sample size was too small, the detractors are now saying that his performance is not accurate because it was in such a small sample size. Everything is cyclical.