The 40/40 thing aided Canseco's MVP candidacy more than those others primarily because he was the first to get there. Plus his team won their division with the best record in the league. By the time Bonds and ARod and Soriano did it, the novelty was gone and their teams were not post-season contenders.
I would have bet my hat on Dom DiMaggio and Reggie Smith, but the war got Dom and the trade stopped Smith.
I'd have thought Ellis Burks but he was off the team after his age 27 season. He finished with 93 HRs and 93 sb. Then he came back for his swan song in 2004, so his totals were 94 HRs, 95 sb.
This discussion got me to wondering whether anyone ever led the league both in home runs and stolen bases in the same year in the live ball era. My hunch was no way -- seems impossible. I thought the only possibilities were (1) Babe Ruth, in some year where a relatively small number of bases was enough to get to the lead, or (2) Willie Mays. Neither did, but Mays came close by leading the league with 51 and then ripping off 4 consecutive years of having the stolen base lead, but never in the same year.
Chuck Klein in 1932 is the only one to do it, not sure if that is live ball era or not. It came up this week because Jose Ramirez was 1st in both.
This is just my opinion, and maybe my logic is flawed here, is that an argument against WPA is the lack of foresight.
I'm guessing Mookie's WPA ticked up slightly when he took his walk and the probability the Sox would win inched up. In a 0-0 game, it's probably a decent amount.
In fact, in the post-1901 era, that's about as live as ball ever got. (Well, the peak was a couple of years before that, but close enough.)
Yeah, but home run numbers in the Baker Bowl were more than a little juiced. It was 280' to right.
Most people count 1920 as the beginning of the live ball era. It's a bit weird though, since (contrary to what Eight Men Out would have you believe) the actual live ball was introduced in 1910 or 1911.
Eric Davis had 57 sb and 37 hr in 1987, in only 129 games. He could have gotten to 40/60 easily, but was never going to lead the league in steals because Vince Coleman was running wild.
Seems surprising on the face of it, but then you take a look at the lists and see only 15 Red Sox players have ever stolen 100 bases for the team.
He was great but he obviously couldn’t stay on the field. Less than half his career he did even play over 100 games in a season.
For the five years he was a "full time" starter in Cincy, he averaged 30 homers and 41 steals with an OPS of .899, and did that missing at least 30 games each of those seasons. He hit for an OPS of .970 in 1998, after coming back from a retirement due to knee injuries and beating colon cancer. His talent level was just off the charts.
I’m agreeing with the assessment of his talent. The post I responded to commented that he’s never talked about. When only 5/17 seasons of a career can be labeled as full time starter, you’re not going to make it into a lot of conversations. I was a Reds fan as a small kid (no idea why) and he was my favorite player on those teams (I remember winning $10 off my dad that they’d beat the A’s). But, unfortunately, he couldn’t stay on the field. I’d say there’s other like him in baseball and any other sport.
He'd lose two seasons of his prime but the war would end earlier.
Yes, that's the AT&T building on the left. And 615 is the area code for Nashville. I think it's a pretty solid merger of Nashville and Boston
The musical notes, too.
I hadn’t thought of that. My fear is that he’s not going to be a consistent, year in, year out top hitter like Mike Trout is or JD looks to have become. Look at what Mookie did last year: .264/.344/.459. It couldn’t have all been not being aggressive enough early in the count, which Cora takes credit for pointing out to him before this season. What else ya got, Alex? Mookie did have a similar “slump” from July 15 through July 31 this year when his average dipped from .362 to .338. Then, 4 hit game against the Yankees and he was fine until the Rays series in Boston when he went 1 for 13. Maybe the Rays are his Kryptonite.
Absent and explanation of how the entire team so radically and consistently underperformed on offense last year, I'm not prepared to make many assumptions.
Fangraphs hasn't changed any of their formulas for this stuff recently. The most likely explanation is that Mookie made some good plays over that span, while Ramirez didn't.
