Originally Posted by Salukifan2
The question is not what is the greatest season ever in comparison to what the other players in the league were doing. Unless they can determine the balls were wound tighter in 1930, or bats were harder in 1930 i dont think it really matters what the league average says. In fact it may help Wilson's case. In the year where so many were having MVP seasons his stood head and shoulders above the rest.
If how good the season is relative to compettitors is what we are looking at then Ruth's early Yankee seasons should win hands down.
I would also like to nominate Bob Gibson's 1968 season:
22-9, ERA of 1.12, 13 shutouts, 28 Complete games, 304.2 IP and only 198 hits, 268 k's, ERA+ 258, WHIP .853.
Accolades: MVP, Cy Young Award, All-Star, Gold Glove
I agree with you here. I don't care what everyone else was doing that season, or what ball was used, or stadiums played in, it all comes down to production.
The reality is that we have no idea how Wilson or Gibson would have done in other seasons, at that point in their careers, under different circumstances. Maybe they would have adjusted to the other ball, or different mound, and still been as dominant. What their numbers tell me is that they were able to take advantage of an advantage given to them, and they shouldn't be dinged for that as we re-tell their history.