Greatest Single Season by a Red Sox?

[cbbosox]

Pedro 00?

Clemens 86?

Williams41?

Yaz67?

Rice 78?

 

I am sure there are more

 

Personally i am torn bewteen Yaz & Pedro

[Dojji]

Well of those, Yaz67 and Clemens86 have deep playoff runs going for them, and Yaz67 has the edge in that department because it doesn't have a spectacularly embarrassing ending (fighting Bob Gibson's Cardinals to 7 games was probably overachieving yet again).

 

That said, I'd like to enter a new contender -- Ortiz06. Single season home run record for a team as old as this one needs to be included.

 

And just since we're such a storied franchise, let me throw another concept out there.

 

Cy Young, 1901. Led the league in ERA, 33 wins, 1.62 ERA impressive even in a relatively offensively stunted era, 371 1/3 innings pitched, 219 ERA+

 

NO one today COULD do that.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Ortiz best season statistically is definitely 2006, but no one will argue 2004 was his best season in terms of postseason.

[Bellhorn04]

You have to mention an Ortiz season in there somewhere. If you go with 2004 you get his incredible postseason as well.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

What year do you guys say for Papelbon?

[Dojji]

Ortiz07 is probably the compromise position, but Ortiz06 was when he broke the longstanding team single season HR record and that counts for a ton on its own.

[mvp 78]

Pedro 99: monster regular season, All Star Game, series against the Guardians.

[Dojji]

What year do you guys say for Papelbon?

 

2007. No question at all. 06 was ridiculous but the postseason becomes magnified for a closer.

[a700hitter]

What year do you guys say for Papelbon?

Eh closers? That's a tough argument, although Did Radatz had a year or 2 worth considering.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Wasn't following the Red Sox at the time, but I believe Wakefield's best season was 1995.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

What year do you guys put Nomar, Varitek, and Manny?

[Whiteandnerdy42]

I would include Williams '42 or '49 in there as well, as those were his two triple crowns.

[Divinity]

I would include Williams '42 or '49 in there as well, as those were his two triple crowns.

 

'47 was his second triple crown season, not '49

[Divinity]

I would say Yaz 67 or Williams 42, the batting triple crown is much rarer than the pitching triple crown, so I give them the edge over Pedro.

[Bellhorn04]

Pedro's 2000 season is considered by some to be the greatest season by a pitcher in history. His ERA+ was 291, the highest in modern baseball. His ERA was 1.74 when the league average was 4.91. His WHIP was .74. 284 K's, 32 BB's.

[jacksonianmarch]

Pedro in 2000, and it isnt even close.

[cbbosox]

Pedro in 2000, and it isnt even close.

 

There was a program on MLB network that considered this to be the

greatest single season pitching performance in MLB history.

[jung]

I would have to go with Yaz 67...probably few that remember it but Yaz carried the Sox on his back both in the field and at the plate in the regular season and in the post season making totally ridiculous plays from left field, some of them from the seat of his pants. That to me is what distinguishes that Yaz year from the others being mentioned. I can't think of anybody else that carried the team both in the field and at the plate to the degree that Yaz did in 67. Taking into account as well that his contributions got them all the way to the WS. Ortiz had great years and outrageous post seasons but I can't give it to him knowing Yaz got it done in all around fashion.

 

I think it was Dick Williams that called it the greatest single season he had ever seen for a ballplayer.

[SoxSport]

The greatest I've seen is Yaz '67. Dick Williams said that, too. Yaz put it all together that year--a dominant player who carried the team to the pennant. And they might have beaten the Cardinals in the Series if Gibson hadn't been unhittable and Lonborg had had an extra days rest for the 7th game (he had only 2 days; Gibson had 3).

 

Yaz was as good a hitter as Williams for that one year--and a much better all-around player.

[Spitball]

I think Ted Williams 1941 season was the greatest offensive season for several reasons. The guy hit 37 homeruns but only struck out 27 times. He had a .553 OBP. His OPS was 1.287. Those are pretty amazing numbers.

 

Pedro's 2000 season (as has been mentioned several times) is the greatest overall.

[jung]

This is a hypothetical question but to be honest, I am growing less and less convinced that Pedro was completely clean through the steroid era. Frankly I simply do not believe that the preponderance of successful players through that era were doing it clean. I am inclined to think that the if we had the real numbers, the % of players that were juicing would be staggering compared to the % of players that were not. Just like I have been saying for a long time now that believing baseball has cleaned up its act at this point is just naive.

 

We have already seen athletes feeling like they have painted themselves into a corner in that so much of their legacies are now tied up in whether they did or they did not. They no longer have a choice but to maintain adamantly that they did not juice. Even watching the way Pedro answers those questions or responds to those comments, there seems to be a bit of hesitation working into his responses almost like this is getting to be a burden he is starting to find difficult to carry. I think its a raw deal cause we are going to tar and feather some of these guys that we have held up as "guys that did it right" when we find out that they were also juicing. I just don't think its fair to them. I am ready to throw in the towel and say that thinking there are not guys already in the HOF that juiced makes no sense. That thinking we have any control over what happened in the past makes no sense. I think it just reflects badly on all of us, fans, media, MLB, PA, the players themselves as I think we are all acting like we have blinders on.

 

We should just stop, give the whole bunch of them a pass as opposed to continuing with what is surely a fallacy in some cases, maybe all cases. I would trade that for a realistic approach to the issue going forward.... real standards that make sense that MLB can support with a really solid testing regimen. Maybe for example it would make sense to allow players to use substances to rehab. Not saying for certain that this is what MLB should do. However I really think we are all kidding ourselves.

 

So for the guys that want to put Pedro at the top of the pyramid, would your view of him change if it became known that he was also juicing. While I have not put Pedro at the top of the mountain, it would not change my admiration for what he accomplished mainly because of what I am contending about the numbers. I think the % that used is huge. So why should I hold it against Pedro if he also used.

[BigPapiEnFuego]

I can only speak from 2003 to present since that is when I got into the Sox. I'd say Ortiz' 2006 season. That season was hard to watch, but the only thing that kept me coming back was Ortiz. I remember the first day of my senior year of high school I won tickets to a game against the Angels from this very board and it ended up being a Tim Wakefield complete game and David Ortiz walk off home run. I will never, ever forget that.

[a700hitter]

This is a hypothetical question but to be honest, I am growing less and less convinced that Pedro was completely clean through the steroid era. Frankly I simply do not believe that the preponderance of successful players through that era were doing it clean. I am inclined to think that the if we had the real numbers, the % of players that were juicing would be staggering compared to the % of players that were not. Just like I have been saying for a long time now that believing baseball has cleaned up its act at this point is just naive.

 

We have already seen athletes feeling like they have painted themselves into a corner in that so much of their legacies are now tied up in whether they did or they did not. They no longer have a choice but to maintain adamantly that they did not juice. Even watching the way Pedro answers those questions or responds to those comments, there seems to be a bit of hesitation working into his responses almost like this is getting to be a burden he is starting to find difficult to carry. I think its a raw deal cause we are going to tar and feather some of these guys that we have held up as "guys that did it right" when we find out that they were also juicing. I just don't think its fair to them. I am ready to throw in the towel and say that thinking there are not guys already in the HOF that juiced makes no sense. That thinking we have any control over what happened in the past makes no sense. I think it just reflects badly on all of us, fans, media, MLB, PA, the players themselves as I think we are all acting like we have blinders on.

 

We should just stop, give the whole bunch of them a pass as opposed to continuing with what is surely a fallacy in some cases, maybe all cases. I would trade that for a realistic approach to the issue going forward.... real standards that make sense that MLB can support with a really sold testing regimen. Maybe for example it would make sense to allow players to use substances to rehab. Not saying for certain that this is what MLB should do. However a really think we are all kidding ourselves.

 

So for the guys that want to put Pedro at the top of the pyramid, would your view of him change if it became known that he was also juicing. While I have not put Pedro at the top of the mountain, it would not change my admiration for what he accomplished mainly because of what I am contending about the numbers. I think the % that used is huge. So why should I hold it against Pedro if he also used.

I love Pedro. It was such a thrill to see him play. I had a discussion the other day about theHOF and ARod in light of these latest PED diclosures. The guy that I was talking to feels that ARod, Bonds, Clemens, Palmiero and McGwire will never make it to the Hall. I raised questions about other guys who were suspected but who never flunked tests like Sosa and Bagwell among others. He didn't think they would go in either. I question where do you draw the line? Is suspicion the guidepost? I don't think it should be. Some guys who have never been suspected might also have been juicers. What about Biggio? He was never the target for much suspicion, but who knows... maybe he did ... maybe he didn't. We can't be sure. Either they all go in with some caveat where it is noted that they played during an era where steroid use was prevalent, or they are all kept out. When I say everyone, I mean everyone who played the majority of their career during the steroid era. This would be quite draconian, but the drug use during that era badly damaged the reputation and integrity of the game and its history. It was permitted with the tacit approval of the team owners, managers, coaches, medical staffs, the press and media and the Commissioner. None of them (owners, players, managers or the Commish) should gain admission to the Hall, beause they soldout the game for record profits. They got their money, but they sacrificed their good names in the process.

[cbbosox]

This is a hypothetical question but to be honest, I am growing less and less convinced that Pedro was completely clean through the steroid era. Frankly I simply do not believe that the preponderance of successful players through that era were doing it clean. I am inclined to think that the if we had the real numbers, the % of players that were juicing would be staggering compared to the % of players that were not. Just like I have been saying for a long time now that believing baseball has cleaned up its act at this point is just naive.

 

We have already seen athletes feeling like they have painted themselves into a corner in that so much of their legacies are now tied up in whether they did or they did not. They no longer have a choice but to maintain adamantly that they did not juice. Even watching the way Pedro answers those questions or responds to those comments, there seems to be a bit of hesitation working into his responses almost like this is getting to be a burden he is starting to find difficult to carry. I think its a raw deal cause we are going to tar and feather some of these guys that we have held up as "guys that did it right" when we find out that they were also juicing. I just don't think its fair to them. I am ready to throw in the towel and say that thinking there are not guys already in the HOF that juiced makes no sense. That thinking we have any control over what happened in the past makes no sense. I think it just reflects badly on all of us, fans, media, MLB, PA, the players themselves as I think we are all acting like we have blinders on.

 

We should just stop, give the whole bunch of them a pass as opposed to continuing with what is surely a fallacy in some cases, maybe all cases. I would trade that for a realistic approach to the issue going forward.... real standards that make sense that MLB can support with a really solid testing regimen. Maybe for example it would make sense to allow players to use substances to rehab. Not saying for certain that this is what MLB should do. However I really think we are all kidding ourselves.

 

So for the guys that want to put Pedro at the top of the pyramid, would your view of him change if it became known that he was also juicing. While I have not put Pedro at the top of the mountain, it would not change my admiration for what he accomplished mainly because of what I am contending about the numbers. I think the % that used is huge. So why should I hold it against Pedro if he also used.[/QUOT

 

 

Has anyone heard even a rumor about Pedro & PEDS?

[jung]

Not as far as I know....not a hint

[Orange Juiced]

Pedro in 2000, and it isnt even close.

 

Sure it is: Pedro's 1999 season. Let's compare the two.

 

1999 - 23-4, 2.07 era, 243 era+, 213.1 ip, 313 k, 0.92 whip, 0.4 hr/9, 8.46 k/bb, 13.2 k/9

2000 - 18-6, 1.74 era, 291 era+, 217.0 ip, 284 k, 0.74 whip, 0.7 hr/9, 8.88 k/bb, 11.8 k/9

 

There are good reasons for arguing that his 2000 season was better (namely, the era and whip were better), but there are also reasons for arguing that his 1999 season was better (better W-L, better k/9, fewer homers allowed). On the whole I think his 2000 was better because I put less stock in his W-L record than in his era, but still, his 1999 season was off the charts unbelievable, and it ranked right up there with his 2000 season. It is close, IMO.

 

I know I may be one of the biggest Pedro fans out there, but his run from 1997-2003 was, in my view, the greatest stretch of starting pitching in baseball history. Nothing remotely resembling anything less than A-#1 excellence during that entire 7-year run.

[Lucienbel]

This is a hypothetical question but to be honest, I am growing less and less convinced that Pedro was completely clean through the steroid era. Frankly I simply do not believe that the preponderance of successful players through that era were doing it clean. I am inclined to think that the if we had the real numbers, the % of players that were juicing would be staggering compared to the % of players that were not. Just like I have been saying for a long time now that believing baseball has cleaned up its act at this point is just naive.

 

We have already seen athletes feeling like they have painted themselves into a corner in that so much of their legacies are now tied up in whether they did or they did not. They no longer have a choice but to maintain adamantly that they did not juice. Even watching the way Pedro answers those questions or responds to those comments, there seems to be a bit of hesitation working into his responses almost like this is getting to be a burden he is starting to find difficult to carry. I think its a raw deal cause we are going to tar and feather some of these guys that we have held up as "guys that did it right" when we find out that they were also juicing. I just don't think its fair to them. I am ready to throw in the towel and say that thinking there are not guys already in the HOF that juiced makes no sense. That thinking we have any control over what happened in the past makes no sense. I think it just reflects badly on all of us, fans, media, MLB, PA, the players themselves as I think we are all acting like we have blinders on.

 

We should just stop, give the whole bunch of them a pass as opposed to continuing with what is surely a fallacy in some cases, maybe all cases. I would trade that for a realistic approach to the issue going forward.... real standards that make sense that MLB can support with a really solid testing regimen. Maybe for example it would make sense to allow players to use substances to rehab. Not saying for certain that this is what MLB should do. However I really think we are all kidding ourselves.

 

So for the guys that want to put Pedro at the top of the pyramid, would your view of him change if it became known that he was also juicing. While I have not put Pedro at the top of the mountain, it would not change my admiration for what he accomplished mainly because of what I am contending about the numbers. I think the % that used is huge. So why should I hold it against Pedro if he also used.

 

Interesting view point. None the less, I think we do need to scrutinize and not assume. Assumptions obscure the truth, and while I don't believe we'll ever get the full truth of who used and who didn't, we should still try our best to do so. Maybe it is hard to believe Pedro put up those numbers when he did, but until he is proven a steroid user he isn't.

 

I don't think that letting people have a pass when they played in that era is a good idea. We should try our hardest to get to the bottom of who did and who didn't. Even if a few slip through, at least we're still sending the message that this sort of thing is unacceptable.