Can you name the ESPN Top 25 Individual Seasons? by scottcmu

Rank	Player	Hint
1		NBA 1961-62
2		MLB 1921
3		NHL 1981-82
4		Golf 2000
5		NFL 2007
6		NCAA Football 1988
7		MLB 2001
8		NCAA Basketball 1969-70
9		MLB 1968
10		NHL 1969-70
11		NFL 1987
12		NFL 1984
13		NBA 1961-62

Rank	Player	Hint
14		Tennis 1988
15		NFL 1973
16		Golf 1930
17		NCAA Basketball 1966-67
18		NASCAR 1967
19		MLB 1999
20		NHL 1992-93
21		Tennis 1984
22		NBA 1987-88
23		NFL 2006
24		MLB 1941
25		NCAA Football 1981

Javascript is not currently enabled on your browser.
If you do have Javascript enabled:
This site uses javascript to make the magic happen.
Please turn on javascript and reload this page, or use a more current browser (like Firefox)

You might also like these games:
ESPN Top 25 Sports Movies	Top 25 College Basketball Players	Top College Football Players

There are 18 comments for this game.
(Warning: comments may contain spoilers)

ESPN Top 25 Individual Seasons Quiz

by scottcmu

Created Oct 16, 2009 in Sports
Game Plays 2,929

Friend Scores and Standings

Loading friend results....

Top Games Today in Sports

Top Games with Similar Tags

Top User Games in Sports

	joycepat:	Oct 16th, 2009 at 14:13 GMT		-1 points
	1992-93 is a little vague

	scottcmu:	Oct 16th, 2009 at 14:46 GMT		4 points
	how so? NHL and NBA seasons are always described like that because they take place evenly over two years.

	ted:	Oct 16th, 2009 at 15:13 GMT		3 points
	You left out the league name on #20.

	scottcmu:	Oct 16th, 2009 at 15:58 GMT		3 points
	Thanks, fixed.

	dtro:	Oct 16th, 2009 at 17:29 GMT		2 points
	Haha Pedro's 99 (and 2000) and Gooden's 85 were both better than Gibson 68, but ESPN doesn't understand the idea of context.

	stealthamo:	Oct 16th, 2009 at 18:44 GMT		1 point
	#13 should be #1. It's tough enough for players to get a triple double for a game. He averaged a triple double in an entire season.

	GeorgiaPeach:	Oct 17th, 2009 at 02:25 GMT		1 point
	Ruth's 1921 is vastly superior to Chamberlain when you consider the era and his accomplishments that even by today would be extraordinary.

	Zack_Morris:	Oct 17th, 2009 at 04:09 GMT		2 points
	Again you have to consider the context. It is unlikely anyone could average a triple double in today's NBA. But the NBA of 1961-1962 was very different form the NBA of today: teams played at a much faster pace and missed many more shots. Neil Paine at Basketball Reference has a pretty good explanation of pace and why its important: http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=1423 . In that analysis he suggests that Lebron would have averaged a triple double last season if the game was still played at the pace it was in 1962. Interestingly, neither the #1 or #13 seasons was deemed MVP worthy: Bill Russell won the MVP in 1961-1962.

	tgillman:	Oct 17th, 2009 at 20:49 GMT		2 points
	The fact that neither Chamberlain nor Robertson won the MVP that season shows how ridiculous the voting was back then. Bill Russell won more MVPs than he did first team all-NBA selections (meaning he was considered the best player of the year more often than he was the best center). Wilt Chamberlain deserves to have also the 1966-67 season on there. Led the league in rebounds, assists (only center to ever do this), 3rd in PPG, Set a league record for FG% (.683) and led his team to the best record in NBA history and the first time the Celtics were beat in the playoffs in 8 years.

	PublicEnemy:	Oct 18th, 2009 at 01:14 GMT		1 point
	Good list. How does Brady's 50 TD's make 5th and Manning's 49 TD's not make the list though? And Mario Lemieux's 199 points should be higher then 20th.

	JohnJF:	Oct 18th, 2009 at 02:22 GMT		-3 points
	The idea that Pedro and Doc Gooden were better than Bob Gibson in 1968 is laughable East Coast Bias at its best/worst. His ERA was 1.12 for Chrissakes! Denny McLain, who that season became the last pitcher to win 30 games in a season in another of the most phenomenal seasons in history, was just under two. Even by the supremely high (therefore low) standards of 1968, Gibby's 1.12 is unfathomable.

	sox_fan1468927:	Oct 18th, 2009 at 03:08 GMT		2 points
	JohnJF: You clearly don't understand CONTEXT. Gibson was playing in an era where pitching dominated. In 1968 there were SEVEN pitchers with an ERA under 2. The league ERA was 2.99. In 1999 the league ERA was 4.87. Pedro had an ERA of 2.07 that year, the next closest was 3.45.

	Camden:	Oct 18th, 2009 at 16:15 GMT		3 points
	Great quiz!! I can't argue with any of these being on the list. Honorable mention list: Gretzky has 2-3 more. Dimaggio in 1941. Yastrzemski in '67. Dwight Gooden in 1985. Glenn Robinson at Purdue in 1994. Priest Holmes in 2002 or 2003 take your pick. I know people are going to poo-poo that, but go look it up. 2 of the best seasons in NFL history.

	sjcredsox985:	Oct 19th, 2009 at 21:04 GMT		0 points
	To add to the point about the Gibson/Martinez pitching debate... Pitching was so dominant and runs were so at a premium in the 60's that the mound was lowered to start the 1969 season to give the hitter more of an advantage, in part because of the performances of Gibson and McLain in 1968.

	sjcredsox985:	Oct 19th, 2009 at 21:31 GMT		1 point
	And by that I mean I'd probably give a slight edge to Pedro. And statistically his best year was 2000, not 1999. ERA+ adjusts a players ERA for the pitcher's ballpark and the league average ERA, the higher the score the better. The average ERA is set to 100. Pedro's 2000 is a 291 and Gibson's '68 is 258. Also Pedro put fewer guys on base per inning as his WHIP was 0.737(lowest ever in any era) to Gibson's 0.853 with the higher mound. Besides that, I'd argue an ERA of 1.74 in a league average of 4.91 is better than a 1.12 in a league average of 2.97. (AL and NL averages respectively from baseball prospectus) I am biased in that I am a Red Sox fan and I was alive to see Pedro pitch but not Gibson, but really its just nitpicking over two of the best modern pitching seasons. The real question is how Gibson managed to get tagged with 9 losses that season while throwing 13 shutouts. Shame on the Cardinals offense.

	lukejameslarson:	Oct 20th, 2009 at 20:05 GMT		1 point
	@sjcredsox985 - there actually was not any strict regulation on mound heights before 1969. the rules said that it had to be under 15", but the mound @ dodger stadium was 20"! something had to be done. it wasn't because the pitching was soooooo good though, it was because the pitchers were given an unfair advantage, and it needed to balance things out.

	howard38:	Aug 21st, 2010 at 02:39 GMT		1 point
	OJ Simpson's 1975 season was better than his 1973 season. He had almost 200 more yards from scrimmage, a higher yards per touch average and eleven(!) more TDs, 23-12.

	howard38:	Aug 21st, 2010 at 02:48 GMT		1 point
	it's funny that Johnjf mentions east coast bias when dtro's profile doesn't even indicaye where he lives. Johnjf's profile, however, says he lives in Missouri which is Cardinal/Bob Gibson territory. In which case is bias more likely?