Lost Seasons from the Era of Questionable Training.

[Guest Edgy DC]

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]

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

[Guest Edgy DC]

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.

[Guest Iubitul]

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

[metirish]

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]

Sammy Sosa then leads in this category!

[Frayed Knot]

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.

[Guest 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.

[Frayed Knot]

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.

[Guest Hillbilly]

="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!

[Guest Edgy DC]

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

[Guest Iubitul]

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

I didn't think we were.

[RealityChuck]

How about this, then:

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

[Guest Iubitul]

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?

[Guest Edgy DC]

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]

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]

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

[Guest Edgy DC]

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

[MFS62]

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

[Guest Edgy DC]

]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]

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?

[Guest Edgy DC]

RealityChuck wrote: Players who had a really great season, but who were overlooked?

Yes, but of recent vintage.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

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.

[Guest Edgy DC]

]Worst. Thread. Ever.

Ever.

Thanks for summing up what I cannot.

[The Big O]

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?

[Guest Edgy DC]

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.

[Guest Mr. Zero]

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

[Elster88]

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]

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...

[Guest Edgy DC]

Who says that's today's definition?