[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
McGwire "definitely peaked higher"? 1998 can't touch Thomas's 1994.



[/ QUOTE ]

Can't touch??? Maybe I'm missing something, but McGwire's Eqa was higher in 98 than Thomas' in 94. And he played 40 more games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doug,

I was using the "adjusted for all-time" stats. Wow, it makes a hell of a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

They have both of them there for a reason. I'm actually not entirely sure what the difference is, but I think it is this:

adjusted for season: adjusts for the league average
adjusted for all-time: uses "z-scores" or something similar to measure how difficult it is to be dominant that year.

If I'm correct, what the stats are saying is that Frank's 94 season was more dominant compared to the best players in the game, while McGwire's 98 was more dominant compared to the average player.

It's not clear to me that adjusted for all time is necessarily better. McGwire actually had a better adjusted for all time Eqa in 93 than Thomas in 94 (in half as many games). In 96 he had a slightly higher all-time adjusted eqa than 98 (still below Frank's) in 130 games.

Chances are, if Frank finished the season his eqa would have dropped some. It's arguable whether or not his 94 season was better than McGwire's best season.

I'm sure none of this is new to you, and you decided that Frank's season was better, even though maybe 4 fewer singles is the entire difference in all-time eqa's. As usual, you greatly overstated the difference by using words like "can't touch."