Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Sunday, July 23, 2006

Frank Robinson

Eligible in 1982.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 23, 2006 at 09:59 PM | 80 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 23, 2006 at 10:03 PM (#2108827)
Should claim all of the second spots on all of our ballots behind the even more worthy Bad Henry. Can't see a valid reason for anything less than that.
   2. Harold can be a fun sponge Posted: July 23, 2006 at 10:14 PM (#2108844)
Has that ever happened before, John? Unanimous #1 and #2?
   3. yest Posted: July 23, 2006 at 10:22 PM (#2108852)
Ruth Hornsby
   4. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 23, 2006 at 10:32 PM (#2108863)
Ruth Hornsby

yest got it, Harold.
   5. OCF Posted: July 24, 2006 at 01:17 AM (#2109066)
What makes this comparison unique is that Aaron and Robinson are so directly comparable: essentially the same type of hitter, playing mostly the same position, at the same time, often in the same league. Sorting seasons best to worst, I'd say that Aaron has a very slightly better peak than Robinson, and of course, Aaron has the career value advantage. I'm not quite sure what you get if you emphasize consecutive peak.

Probably the biggest context difference between Aaron and Robinson is in the leagues. Notice Robinson's two-year spike in OPS+ just after he got traded from the NL to the AL. One could read that as a signal showing the difference in quality between the leagues at the time. (What followed after that would be normal age-related decline on Robinson's part.)

But this is picking around the edges, arguing between him and Aaron. I have no doubt that Robinson utterly towers over any candidate on the ballot other than Aaron.
   6. DavidFoss Posted: July 24, 2006 at 01:45 AM (#2109088)
Here is the year-by-year comparison for Aaron & Robinson. WS by year. Season-length adjusted and sorted:

Yr   Hank    Frank
1    40.7    40.7
2    39.4    40.7
3    37.8    36.3
4    37.1    32.7
5    37.0    32.3
6    36.4    29.5
7    34.1    28.1
8    33.8    27.4
9    33.3    26.6
10   32.6    26.0
11   32.5    25.8
12   31.8    25.7
13   31.7    24.5
14   30.8    23.8
15   30.6    23.2
16   27.1    22.6
17   24.5    20.5
18   21.3    18.8
19   20.2    14.2
20   13.4     6.0
21   13.3     1.5
22    9.0
23    4.8 
   7. DavidFoss Posted: July 24, 2006 at 01:53 AM (#2109092)
They are tied after the top year, Frank takes a small lead after year two, Hank catches him after year three.

After that Hank just leaves him in the dust with a 5-6 WS advantage for almost every other year on the list.

I have no doubt that Robinson utterly towers over any candidate on the ballot other than Aaron.

Just would like to repeat what OCF said here. Frank Robinson has been underrated by history because he was not as good as Hank Aaron. Frank Robinson was an amazing ballplayer would be a unanimous #1 pick many years.
   8. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 24, 2006 at 03:05 AM (#2109141)
Hank Aaron had 15 years as an MVP candidate accordin gto OCF's chart. Damn.

I seems that FRobby only had six. Slacker.
   9. Howie Menckel Posted: July 24, 2006 at 03:14 AM (#2109147)
I went OPS+, Aaron vs Robby vs contemporaries, over in the Aaron thread.

FRobby's edge over someone like Killebrew, for instance, is just ridiculous.

When you factor in HOF measures, like first black manager and STILL managing today, he's arguably one of the most important people in baseball history...
   10. OCF Posted: July 24, 2006 at 03:27 AM (#2109156)
jschmeagol: that's David Foss's chart you're reacting to, not mine - not that I'm disagreeing with the conclusion. For something that's "my chart" here's a reprint from the 1981 discussion thead:

Here's another of my context-scaled RCAA best-to-worst lists, aimed as much at the 1982 election as 1981. The already-elected Kaline is here for the same reason that a geology photograph has a person standing next to the rock formation: so that you know the scale.

H.Aaron 97 86 74 71 70 69 68 62 61 61 60 56 53 52 52 46 43 42 33 20  7 --3
F
.Robby 92 83 76 68 65 60 51 51 49 48 43 42 41 40 39 35 35 25 19 10  0
Kaline  71 62 55 46 45 45 44 39 38 38 35 33 33 24 21 20 17 11  8 
--3-19
BWillms 70 66 54 51 46 44 42 37 32 23 23 23 21 20 13  3  2 
-4
Kllbrew 83 78 59 57 57 48 42 38 38 37 36 35 27 16  3  1 
-----8-10 


This is strictly offense; you need to add your estimates of defensive value to this. But we're looking at four corner outfielders and a multiposition corner infielder. None of them is a Gold Glove CF; none of them is a Luzinski-esque "where can we hide him" guy.
   11. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: July 24, 2006 at 05:31 AM (#2109218)
When you factor in HOF measures, like first black manager and STILL managing today, he's arguably one of the most important people in baseball history...

Not to denigrate Frank in any way, but the still managing today part isn't that extraordinary. He started managing in 1975. Torre started in 1977, Cox in 1978, Larussa in 1979, and they've all spent much more time managing than Frank. Jack McKeon started in 1973 and was managing last year. (Not that Frank was lollygagging in his non-managerial time or anything.)
   12. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 24, 2006 at 05:41 AM (#2109230)
The mroe I look at Billy Williams, the less I like him. I always figured he would be an easy choice but he may not even be in the top half of my ballot.
   13. The George Sherrill Selection Posted: July 24, 2006 at 06:07 AM (#2109245)
I think being the first black manager was a huge achievement.

Anybody who has stayed managing longer than Torre, Cox and LaRussa (three of the great managers of the modern era) must have something going for him.
   14. fra paolo Posted: July 24, 2006 at 08:21 AM (#2109312)
Anybody who has stayed managing longer than Torre, Cox and LaRussa (three of the great managers of the modern era) must have something going for him.

As an Expos/Nats fan who has endured four years of his managing, I've got to believe the something going for him is friends in high places. He habitually does three things I regard as bad management:

1) He rips his players in public, yet also gives background against them.
2) He drives his bullpen capriciously, overusing the hot hand until it breaks. (And this from a man who grew up watching John Hiller pitch for the Tigers.)
3) He pushes guys to 'play through pain', part of a gospel of machismo he embraces.
   15. DCW3 Posted: July 24, 2006 at 08:35 AM (#2109314)
As an Expos/Nats fan who has endured four years of his managing, I've got to believe the something going for him is friends in high places. He habitually does three things I regard as bad management:

Even the author admits that this doesn't necessarily mean much, but in Baseball Prospectus's book Baseball Between the Numbers, James Click has a section where he calculates the value of certain strategic managerial decisions (sac bunts, stolen base attempts, intentional walks) through a Win Expectancy framework. Among managers with at least five managerial seasons between 1972 and 2004, Robinson ranks as the least effective manager in baseball at making these decisions, costing his team 3.2 wins per season on average.
   16. karlmagnus Posted: July 24, 2006 at 01:30 PM (#2109392)
I didn't follow his earlier career, but I don't think he's done badly with the Expos/Nats, who've pretty consistently finished better than people expected at the start of the season. One interesting measure of managerial capability would be actual position of team versus position expected at start of season. Bad teams who achived mediocrity (this year's Florida marlins) would do better on such a measure than the Yankees, so it would be unfiar on Torre's last decade, but it might identify good managers on poor teams, such as Robbie, gene Mauch or the early Torre, were actually any good.
   17. jingoist Posted: July 24, 2006 at 11:18 PM (#2110249)
Other than Connie Mack name me a player or a manager or a combination thereof who has had a better MLB career than Frank Robinson.
The guy has been in the spotlight for almost every day over the past 50 years.

That praise given, I must agree with fra paolo's assesmnet of Franks lees than sanguine approach to managing.
Frank "doesn't believe" in statistics; he goes with his hunch most of the time. He decides who is hitting the ball well in games and bp and the decides who has the "hot hand" based upon his observations. Decidedly an unsabremetrician. Very old school.

I don't expect to see Frank back next year unless his team rallies and plays over it's collective head the remainder of 06.
   18. Steve Treder Posted: July 25, 2006 at 12:11 AM (#2110392)
Other than Connie Mack name me a player or a manager or a combination thereof who has had a better MLB career than Frank Robinson.

And don't forget he was MLB's Czar of Discipline there for a while, too. For sheer impact of multiple remarkable contributions, a case can be made that this is the most remarkable career of them all.
   19. OCF Posted: July 25, 2006 at 12:27 AM (#2110436)
An All-Star team:

C: Hartnett, who wasn't quite Cochrane (or is that the other way around?)
1B: Foxx, who wasn't quite Gehrig
2B: Biggio, who wasn't quite Alomar (Or maybe use one of Gordon/Doerr?)
3B: Brett, who wasn't quite Schmidt
SS: George Davis, who wasn't quite Wagner - well, that's not close. (Or maybe Jeter goes here)
LF: Raines, who wasn't quite Henderson
CF: Speaker, who wasn't quite Cobb
RF: Robinson, who wasn't quite Aaron
P: Alexander, who wasn't quite Johnson
P: Hubbell, who wasn't quite Grove
P: Nichols, who wasn't quite Young
P: Roberts, who wan't quite Spahn
   20. Mike Emeigh Posted: July 25, 2006 at 01:30 AM (#2110690)
SS: George Davis, who wasn't quite Wagner - well, that's not close. (Or maybe Jeter goes here)


Perhaps Jeter, who wasn't quite ARod?

(ducking and running...)

-- MWE
   21. sunnyday2 Posted: July 25, 2006 at 02:25 AM (#2110929)
2B--Alomar, who wasn't quite Biggio?

Doerr, who wasn't quite Gordon, seems a safer bet.
   22. Chris Cobb Posted: July 25, 2006 at 02:56 AM (#2111007)
Doerr, who wasn't quite Gordon, seems a safer bet.

Doubtful. Too many would say it should be "Gordon, who wasn't quite Doerr" or would say that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two of them . . .
   23. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 25, 2006 at 03:20 AM (#2111050)
I would say Alomar who wasn't quite Biggo and I buy Jeter, who wasn't quite ARod. Maybe Yount (or Trammel) who wasn't quite Ripken?

And how about Maddux who wasn't quite Clemens? Or Carlton who wasn't quite Seaver?

At Catcher we could do IRod who wasn't quite Piazza or Camply who wasn't quite Berra.

This is fun.

Also, I think you could argue that John McGraw had a greater player/manager career than Robinson. Much better manager and a player who had definite HOM talent. Joe Torre as well, better manager not nearly FRobby's equal as a player but still a HOM candidate.
   24. Buzzards Bay Posted: July 25, 2006 at 03:28 AM (#2111064)
i've tried to come to terms with why i reach the level of 'idolatry' with certain players..nothing concrete..
in most cases it is founded in the numbers..in other cases (Bill Mueller) the Batting crown is a safe deposit box for something else in the world..the way he attacks the game..it is the person,the ballplayer,the persona too------------

Frank Robinson is the combination of so many aspects of the game and life-at-large/// he registers on the seismograph and the wind chimes..
there are millions of fans with their own favorites..the only thing i can come up with is 'round ball round bat'
and it gets real fun and interesting when you push your case..the numbers can be exciting, but in a way it can be rote and droll..maybe in a fan journey you just catch lightnin' in a bottle..and Robinson just happened to make eye contact for a second and flip a baseball to a crowd..
and politicians and war and taxes and crime and criminals recede
and everything is cool...and IT HAS LEGS because it is there every day..and you have a friend //business be damned// and it has dimensions of the phony.. but so what.. and anybody can posit any axiom......but but you know..and you dig in ..feeling good about Frank Robinson..Hall of Fame..Hall of Merit..
   25. karlmagnus Posted: July 25, 2006 at 03:32 AM (#2111069)
Caruthers, who wasn't quite Ruth?
   26. OCF Posted: July 25, 2006 at 03:55 AM (#2111086)
No, karlmagnus. One of the rules of the game is that the players have to be contemporaries and easily comparable. I've also left the Negro Leaguers out of this, in part because they're not so easily comparable to their white contemporaries. (Or another way to look at it would be that all of the Negro Leaguers belong on this "team.")

And underlying it all is a plea for fair consideration of the players on this "team." You can't hold the greatness of Aaron against Robinson, or the greatness of Young against Nichols. That it was possible for Wagner to exist is no reason not to vote George Davis into the HoM. And (I'm looking at you, HoF voters), Rickey Henderson is not the yardstick against which Tim Raines should be measured.
   27. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 25, 2006 at 03:56 AM (#2111087)
Or is it Caruthers who wasn't quite Dihigo or Rogan?
   28. Sean Gilman Posted: July 25, 2006 at 08:33 AM (#2111240)
DH: Martinez, who wasn't quite Thomas . . . .
   29. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 25, 2006 at 08:39 AM (#2111242)
Ortiz who wasn't quite Hafner...(ducks)
   30. jingoist Posted: July 27, 2006 at 06:29 PM (#2114687)
Ray Oyler who wasn't quite Eddie Brinkman....(runs for cover due to heavy incomming ordinance).
   31. OCF Posted: July 27, 2006 at 07:08 PM (#2114728)
As a fan of the late-60's Cardinals, I have to say that Dal Maxvill was a MUCH better player than either Oyler or Brinkman. I know the saying about shaking a tree and a hundred gloves fall off - but not many are gloves like Maxvill's.
   32. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: July 27, 2006 at 07:51 PM (#2114771)
As far as FRobby goes, he's managed a lot of 'surprise' teams hasn't he? I've always regarded that as a positive.

He had the Indians over .500 in 1976 - something that was amazingly rare at the time - OK he took over a team that won 78 games in 1974, but still, it was the best record they had from 1969-85.

Then he takes over in San Francisco, another team that was in pretty bad shape and in 1982 he has them down to the last weekend of the season in the pennant race.

He goes to Baltimore, and he turns the team from 54-101 (with that 0-for-20something start) and has them fighting the Blue Jays on the last weekend of the season in 1989.

In 2002 he takes over an Expos team that lost 95 games the year before and gets them over .500 for two years and .500 or better 3 of 4.

While his in game managing may have its issues, he sure seems to find his way to turning bad teams around, IMO.

Now the act usually wears thing and he's gone in a few years . . . but I wouldn't have any problem pulling him in to turn my 90-100 loss team around in a year or two.

There's a lot more to managing a baseball team than knowing when to hit & run or call for a setup man . . .
   33. sunnyday2 Posted: July 27, 2006 at 07:55 PM (#2114775)
My fave pairs:

C- I would go with Campy who wasn't quite Yogi
1B- Foxx, wq Gehrig
2B- Carew wq Morgan
SS- Yount wq Ripken
3B- Brett wq Schmidt
LF- Raines wq Rickey
CF- Mays wq Mantle (peak orientation)
RF- F. Robby wq Aaron

SP- Matty wq Alex (boy, that's a close call)
Nichols wq Cy
Marichal wq Koufax
Hubbell wq Grove
Maddux wq Clemens
Carlton wq Seaver
Roberts wq Spahn (the pitchers are just too easy)
   34. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: July 27, 2006 at 08:17 PM (#2114799)
Matty and Alex's careers really don't overlap other than a few years.

I'd go with Alex wq WJ.
   35. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 27, 2006 at 09:05 PM (#2114846)
Joe,

I remember reading an article sometime in the last couple of years, probably at BP, that analyzed Frob's managing. Its conclusion was that Frank's teams tended to see an uptick in their batting performance upon his hiring, especially where walks were concerned. He appeared in this analysis to espouse a more selective hitting philosophy which may have resulted in a little more power too. Not sure I'm remembering correctly, however.

I kind of the 82 Giants are intersting, maybe because they are kind of forgotten. Yes, he had a pretty good lineup (player followed by OPS+):
May/Brenley 93/105
Rg Smith/Bergman 133/118
Morgan 135
Da Evans 118
Lemaster 50 (yuck!)
J Clark 138
C Davis 100
Leonard 102

Good lineup, not superb, no one having a career year, but good. Finished 8th of 12 in Runs Scored. Good lineup except, that it's possible that allowing Lemaster to pile up 436 ABs at a 50 OPS+ might have cost them the pennant, given that they finsihed two games back. Someone needs to take a lot of blame for that. The bench was pretty good too, with several guys pitching in 100 OPS+es in limited duty (including Duane Kuiper, of all players).

The rotation was putrid.

Laskey 115
Gale 85
Hammaker 88
R Martin 78
Fowlkes 70

While the "big three" each threw 170+, none topped 190.

That the team finished seventh in ERA (in a 100 park factor park) is due to Robinson's handling of those guys, viz a viz these guys in his bullpen:

Minton 197
Lavelle 135
Holland 108
Breining 117
Barr 110

All five threw 100 innings, with the final three making 7, 9, 9 starts with 0, 2, 1 CG among them. Here's how those breakout with their innings and eras partioned by starting and relieving, thanks to Retrosheet:

Holland 38/91 3.15/3.76 (sp/rp)
Breining 56/87 3.51/2.79
Barr 50/78 4.47/2.53

His most effective pure relievers threw 100+ innings, and his next two threw more than 85. Minton threw 120. Without looking at how concentrated the bullpen usage of other managers of the time was, this strikes me as impressive in as much as Robinson went to his best pitchers as often as he could and steered innings away from his crappy starters. Some derisively call this riding the hot hand, and that interpretation could be true, but it could also be seen as his making an apt judgment of the relativer merits of his relievers and his starters. Evidence he wasn't merely riding the hot hand comes from the fact that only five other pitchers made appearances for he Giants that year, none with more than 33 innings. So Robby was'nt blowing through whatever pitchers he could find.

Anyway, it's a pretty interesting season. Robinson gave a whole bunch of guys a chance to get more PAs (esp Leonard, Davis, and Brenley), he turned over the entire rotation, and ran a nice bullpen en route to a surprise finish. One starting pitcher that was halfway decent and/or a shorstop who hit like Chris Speier's worst full season could have been the difference. I think Robby gets credit for minimizing the problem of the former and discredit for not being more active about the latter. It's not as dramatic as the late 80s O's turnaround, but it's pretty cool.
   36. Paul Wendt Posted: July 28, 2006 at 01:47 AM (#2115076)
normal age-related decline on Robinson's part.

I recall knowing in 1968(?) that he suffered double vision from a hit by pitch.

He missed July 1967 ( in another MVP-quality season).
Then in 1968,
.382/.286 through Apr 20 (8 games), thanks to 3-for-4 that day;
about three weeks out, ending with three games as pinch-hitter;
ten more regular games played through May 21 (36 team games), now .333/.313 on the season;
two+ weeks as a pinch-hitter, six appearances, now .302/.280 through Jun 7 (53 team games).

That is two months, one-third of the season, bouncing around .200/.300/.300.

Baltimore ; Frank Robinson
_53 games; 18 in field, 9 more at bat, 26 dnp : 1968 to -06-07
109 games; 99 in field, 4 more at bat, 6 dnp : 1968 from -06-08
162 games; 117 in field, 13 more at bat, 32 dnp : 1968 total
   37. Paul Wendt Posted: July 28, 2006 at 02:06 AM (#2115090)
> 109 games; 99 in field, 4 more at bat, 6 dnp : 1968 from -06-08
In the final nine games he sat three and bat two, so
100 team-games: 95 in the field, 2 at bat, 3 dnp : 1968-06-08 to -09-17

He did finish far above above .200/.300/.300, climbing to about .270/.390/.430 during June and, roughly, maintaining that to the end.
   38. kthejoker Posted: July 28, 2006 at 02:10 AM (#2115093)
Hooray this is a lot of fun:
Elway wq Montana
Mansfield wq Monroe
Thatcher wq Reagan
Redford wq Newman
Superman wq Batman
In The Wild wq Madagascar
Martin wq Sinatra
Shelley wq Byron
Cat wq Dog
   39. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 28, 2006 at 12:57 PM (#2115367)
joker,

i'm down with your list, except this:

Cat wq Dog

Come now, we're all civilized enough to understand that dog wq cat.... Real men admit they love cats (more than dogs!)
   40. sunnyday2 Posted: July 28, 2006 at 01:03 PM (#2115373)
Russell wq Chamberlain (ducks)
West wq Robertson
Bird wq Magic
Barkley wq Malone (?)
Robinson wq Olajuwon
Walton wq Alcindor
Ewing wq Willis Reed
Dr J wq Baylor
   41. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: July 28, 2006 at 01:07 PM (#2115375)
sunny:

Robin Yount "wasn't quite" Ripken? Please. Yount was Ripken before Ripken. Or have you overlooked 1980? 1982? 1983? And then Robin gets hurt and it's off to centerfield.

Early on Ripken hit for average, had power, drew walks, and played defense while playing in a pitcher's park.

Yount hit for average, power, drew fewer walks, could run, played defense, and also played in a pitchers park.

And before you protest about the "bandbox" of Milwaukee County Stadium check out 1982 when Yount hit 9 homers at home. And 20(!) on the road.

Robin Yount wasn't quite Cal Ripken Jr.? Give me a break.......
   42. fra paolo Posted: July 28, 2006 at 02:34 PM (#2115422)
Frank Robinson took the last Montréal Expos team, which had lost 94 games in 2001, and lead the Major League Baseball Expos to 83 wins in 2002. I became interested in where the improvements occurred, so I went to Retrosheet and looked at the splits by position:

Position     2001   BA/SLG/OBP      2002    BA/OBP/SLG
Catcher             248/291/369             275/338/445
1b                  240/327/436             230/329/378
2b                  320/373/470             308/363/473
3b                  235/300/353             246/309/406
ss                  275/321/424             267/320/391
LF                  253/333/402             262/331/385 
CF                  220/284/317             258/335/436
RF                  297/366/546             334/417/592

He got big improvements at catcher, where Brian Schneider replaced Randy Knorr as the backup, and at CF, where Brad Wilkerson started to play regularly. Vlad got better while Vidro got worse. Fernando Tatis also wasn't hurt so much. However, he got a bit worse in LF and at 1b, where he had problems with a Lee Stevens/Andres Galarraga/Wilkerson combination. (Stevens was much worse.) Most of these improvements look personnel related, so FRobby's input is open to debate. However, he may have helped Barrett and Vlad raise their game.

For what it's worth, the team's walks went from 432 to 537, which also bears out his reputation for encouraging patience. Vlad got an extra 20 walks in 2002 and Vidro and extra 16. Catcher walks went up by 22, and CF ones by 23.

I have to do some work now, otherwise I'd look at pitching.
   43. Dizzypaco Posted: July 28, 2006 at 02:41 PM (#2115425)
Yount wasn't quite Ripken.

His peak may be as good as Ripken's, but he only had a few great years at short, and Ripken played his whole career there. Part of what makes one player "not quite" another is that the first guy isn't able to hold his peak as long as the second.
   44. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 28, 2006 at 02:46 PM (#2115428)
and Ripken played his whole career there.

Actually, 77% of his career was at short, but that still beats Yount's 55% easily.
   45. sunnyday2 Posted: July 28, 2006 at 03:31 PM (#2115461)
Thanks, Diz. Yount wasn't quite Ripken.
   46. sunnyday2 Posted: July 28, 2006 at 03:34 PM (#2115465)
Thanks, Diz. Yount wasn't quite Ripken.
   47. sunnyday2 Posted: July 28, 2006 at 03:38 PM (#2115470)
PS. As a Twins fans, I will be the first to say that Harmon Killebrew wq Willie McCovey, Tony Oliva wq Dick Allen, Rod
Carew wq Joe Morgan, Kirby Puckett wq Ken Griffey, who'd I miss?
   48. Paul Wendt Posted: July 28, 2006 at 04:37 PM (#2115534)
Jim Kaat wq Tommy John? or w he?
But Tommy John wq good enough or rhs.

--
1975 Cleveland Indians batting leaders
semiregular players

Slug
.524 Boog Powell (1B, 502pa)
.508 Frank Robinson (DH, 149pa)
.504 rico carty (DH-1B,436pa)

OnBase
.385 Frank Robinson
.378 rico carty
.377 Boog Powell

Carty-Robinson was no platoon, both batting right. The team also enjoyed the services of John Lowenstein and Oscar Gamble, both batting left. The quartet split the DH starts 65-37-27-21 - Powell 4 - other 5. Gamble and Lowenstein were the fourth and fifth outfielders by innings or starts, Carty sixth with 10 starts, FRobinson none.
   49. yest Posted: July 28, 2006 at 04:54 PM (#2115556)
2B- Carew wq Morgan
I'll take Carew over Morgan (but that probobly comes as no surprise)

3B- Brett wq Schmidt
Brett and Mays were the most complete player I can think of who ever played the game

SP- Matty wq Alex
Marichal wq Koufax

only on peak

Tony Oliva wq Dick Allen
Oliva was a better player and not a **** (insert your favorite word)

Kirby Puckett wq Ken Griffey
I'll take Puckett due to his Fielding and Average

Superman wq Batman
no way (though not in recent history)

West wq Robertson
West was better clutch player and better shooter

Bird wq Magic
put Bird on the Lakers and Magic on the Celtics I doubt yo'll think that way

Barkley wq Malone
career only

Walton wq Alcindor
you wer talking a bought collage only

Ewing wq Willis Reed
Reed was more complete but Ewing wasa better
   50. sunnyday2 Posted: July 28, 2006 at 05:48 PM (#2115604)
yest, when we get to the hoops HoM your consensus score is still gonna be on the low side! ;-)
   51. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: July 31, 2006 at 07:34 AM (#2119292)
Interesting about the FRob and patience thing.

Soriano is a lot more patient this year - I've seen at least 50 of his PA in person. He goes deep in at bats much more often is way over his career high in walks already. He's a completely different hitter up there.

I wonder if that will hold up after he's traded.
   52. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 31, 2006 at 07:43 AM (#2119300)
Wow, I think that I disagreed with yest on everything in post #49 except Barkley/Malone. I think malone is one of the most overrated players I have ever seen.

But seriously Carew over Morgan? Morgan was the best 2B ever! And if you want to take points off of Dick Allen for being dispicable, doesn't Kirby need points taken off as well?

Doc,

While real men can admit they like cats that doesn't change the fact that Dogs are clearly superior in all ways. ;-)
   53. yest Posted: July 31, 2006 at 08:18 AM (#2119311)
But seriously Carew over Morgan?

I never did like Morgan very good power (I don't give positioning bonus's ecxept catcher) very good defense (though not half as good as people want to make him out to be) a great eye, a great base runner and a above average hitter but I'll still take one of the best contect hitters ever over him (also Carew wasn't as big a butcher as his rep made him out to be)

Morgan was the best 2B ever! well?
I can see an argument for him over Hornsby by overrating Morgan's glove and running and underrating Hornsby's but how can someone justify Morgan over Collins


And if you want to take points off of Dick Allen for being dispicable, doesn't Kirby need points taken off as
I'm taking the points off Allen because he hurt his team (Kirby might have been a ----- but he helped his team with his personality)

Walton wq Alcindor
you wer talking a bought collage only

what I meant was in the pro's this wasn't even close
   54. fra paolo Posted: July 31, 2006 at 09:52 AM (#2119329)
Since this thread sprang into life again...

I did look at 2001 vs 2002 Expos' pitchers, but couldn't see anything obviously different from the basic starters and pitchers splits. There was a general overall improvement in both categories, and I'm not sure how much that is down to Mr Robinson, and how much to 'regression to the mean'. It might be that the relievers' improvement is a product of his 'hot hand' approach. There's also a couple of significant personnel improvements, such as Bartolo Colon, that need to be taken into account.

Based on my own experience of The Crusty Cat-napper, handling pitching staffs is not among his obvious talents.
   55. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 31, 2006 at 10:03 AM (#2119330)
Well, at least we agree about Barkley v. Malone...
   56. vortex of dissipation Posted: July 31, 2006 at 10:15 AM (#2119336)
Deep Purple wq Led Zeppelin
Stone Temple Pilots nq Alice in Chains
Karla Bonoff nq Laura Nyro
The Raspberries nq Badfinger
Kathleen Edwards nq Lucinda Williams
Son Volt nq Wilco
U2 nq Big Country
Jeff Buckley nq Tim Buckley
Pink Floyd nq Genesis
Poco nq Flying Burrito Brothers
Coldplay nq Radiohead
Elliott Smith nq Nick Drake
Phish nq The Grateful Dead
Jefferson Starship nq Jefferson Airplane
Marshall Tucker Band nq Allman Brothers Band
Michael Penn nq Aimie Mann
Robin Trower nq Jimi Hendrix
The Libertines nq The Clash
Ane Brun nq Ani Difranco
John Mellencamp nq Bruce Springsteen
   57. vortex of dissipation Posted: July 31, 2006 at 10:17 AM (#2119337)
Oops...

nq = wq = not quite = wasn't quite

Sorry!
   58. yest Posted: July 31, 2006 at 10:42 AM (#2119338)
It's A Wonderfull Life wq MR. Smith Goes to Washington
The Saboteur wq North by Northwest
Bach wq Beethoven
Payton wq Brown
Jackson wq Auerbach
Isiah wq Cousy
Lakers wq Celtics
Monarchs wq Grays
Speaker wq Cobb
Bush wq Bush (take your pick)
   59. rawagman Posted: July 31, 2006 at 11:38 AM (#2119350)
U2 wq Big Country?!?!
Pink Floyd wq Genesis?!?!?!?!

crack wq cocaine
   60. Dr. Vaux Posted: July 31, 2006 at 11:44 AM (#2119352)
Bach and Beethoven aren't directly comparable.
   61. Dr. Vaux Posted: July 31, 2006 at 11:44 AM (#2119353)
Assuming you meant J.S. Bach.
   62. sunnyday2 Posted: July 31, 2006 at 12:30 PM (#2119373)
Vortex, most of your should have been "wec" = wasn't even close, wasn't even on the same planet.

Except Pink Floyd wq Genesis? Again, not on this planet. Genesis wec.

And Bach wq Beethoven, au contraire mon frere!

>Bush wq Bush (take your pick)

Can't argue with that!

BTW you Pink Floyd and/or Genesis fans, check out a Minneapolis band called Halloween Alaska. Two great CDs out there.
   63. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 31, 2006 at 01:26 PM (#2119407)
While real men can admit they like cats that doesn't change the fact that Dogs are clearly superior in all ways. ;-)

litterboxes nq your bed

walton nq alcindor
alcindor nq jabbar

pink floyd nq genesis
no thanks on either of them.

son volt nq wilco
i'd say son volt nwn wilco (aka no where near). their career trajectories are something like Pinson nq Robinson, starting on the same team, splitting off somewhat close, but with a widening gulf by the end of their careers. See also Kuenn nq Kaline, T Davis nq F Howard.

Also this...

The Bobby Abreu trade nq the Pete Alexander trade.
   64. vortex of dissipation Posted: July 31, 2006 at 06:13 PM (#2119809)
59. rawagman Posted: July 31, 2006 at 07:38 AM (#2119350)

U2 wq Big Country?!?!
Pink Floyd wq Genesis?!?!?!?!

crack wq cocaine


U2 are one of the ten biggest bands of all-time. Big Country were one of the ten best bands of all-time. And, of course, The Edge's guitar sound was strongly influenced by Big Country guitarist Stuart Adamson's work, when he was with the Skids.

http://digamma.net/btfwiki/Big_Country

As for Pink Floyd...Of all the bands of that era, Pink Floyd was the one I never really got. And I probably should explain that I love most of the British progressive bands of the era - Genesis (especially with Peter Gabriel), Yes, King Crimson, Camel, Renaissance, etc.

But apart from one or two songs, ("Wish You Were Here", "Echoes"), I never cared for Pink Floyd. Floyd seemed to mine the same vein, mid-tempo plodders with spacy vocals and sound effects, for virtually all of their work. Dark Side of the Moon is brilliantly produced, but it seems to have about four real songs on it. The Wall is the most boring "classic" album I've ever heard. I do have to give Dave Gilmour credit for discovering Kate Bush, though!

They didn't have the wordplay of Gabriel-era Genesis, or the melodic gifts of Yes, or the instrumental chops of Starlight and Bible Black-era King Crimson. Yet they were more popular than the other three combined. Why?
   65. sunnyday2 Posted: July 31, 2006 at 06:26 PM (#2119828)
Well, in any event, we agree re. "Echoes," which I have among the top 5 rock tunes of all time. But seriously, there may only be about "4 real songs" on Dark Side, but as long as one of them was "Us and Them," who's to complain. And The Wall did have Comfortably Numb. There's 3 of the top 10 rock tunes ever. Not a bad output.

As for King Crimson, I'll take The Court every time (the LP, including Schizoid Man).

Like I said, check out the Mpls. band Halloween Alaska. Different people have told me they sound like Genesis, Peter Gabriel, Phil Collins, Sting, Blue Nile, even Yes (though I don't hear that one so much myself).

Saw Paul McCartney sing Sgt. Pepper with U2 on The Tube yesterday, had never seen that before. Nice. I like some U2 but overall they're overrated. I'll take Radiohead, thanks, or the FLips.
   66. vortex of dissipation Posted: July 31, 2006 at 06:53 PM (#2119869)
Like I said, check out the Mpls. band Halloween Alaska. Different people have told me they sound like Genesis, Peter Gabriel, Phil Collins, Sting, Blue Nile, even Yes (though I don't hear that one so much myself).

I went to their myspace page, and listened to the songs there; I quite liked them, especially “All The Arms Around You”. Thanks.
   67. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 31, 2006 at 06:57 PM (#2119878)
U2's a pretty darned good band, and where you put them in the pantheon is your own thing. But

Sunday, Bloody Sunday
Bad
Electric Co.
With or Without You
One Tree Hill
One

That's an impressive group of really stand out songs, with plenty of 1-A and 2nd tier tunes to go with.

I always think of U2 and REM as comparable rock bands. Highly influential, coming out of their countries' respective punk/new wave thangs, having long careers with changes in course, being hugely popular, yet never really being too too comfortable with it, having political overtones and some causework, etc....
   68. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 31, 2006 at 07:04 PM (#2119896)
I always think of U2 and REM as comparable rock bands.

I always think of them in unison because I first heard them on the same day.
   69. vortex of dissipation Posted: July 31, 2006 at 08:56 PM (#2120202)
Dr. Chaleeko:

I completely agree with you. U2 is a great band, and everything you said about them I'd agree with. And there's no doubt about their popularity, influence, and ability to remain at the very top of the A-list for two decades. But I honestly thing that Big Country was better, just looking at the musical side of things.

U2 and REM are two bands that I'll never forget where I was the first time I heard them - in both cases they were being played in a record store. U2's Boy in Everybody's Records in Bellevue, Washington, in 1980, and REM's Murmur in a a record shop in the Georgetown section of Washington, DC, in 1983. In both cases I was floored by their sound, and immediately bought the album...
   70. sunnyday2 Posted: July 31, 2006 at 09:52 PM (#2120363)
"Still Haven't Found What I'm Lookin' For" is the alpha and the omega, all the U2 I ever need, though "Peace on Earth" is a damn fine song too. They have a nice peak, I'll give you that. And I love The Edge's playing, it's a bit different from what the mainstream Clapton-rip-off artists keep putting out (which is what I love about Frank Zappa, too. A different voice). I would agree that they have been influential--but would hazard to say their influence outweighs their own actual achievements.

Again, that's just one guy's opinion.

It's not fair to compare them to Pink Floyd, of course...but even during their own "prime" years, I would take Bela Fleck and Leonard Cohen and Los Lobos and Bill Frisell and Marshall Crenshaw and Wilco and, more recently, Radiohead, among many others. Lately, Sufjan Stevens and Bright Eyes have already surpassed U2 on "prime."
   71. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 01, 2006 at 12:52 AM (#2120724)
But I honestly thing that Big Country was better, just looking at the musical side of things.

I've never listened to Big Country, but you guys have put me on notice. I'll get 'em under the proverbial belt.
   72. jimd Posted: August 01, 2006 at 01:06 AM (#2120760)
As for King Crimson, I'll take The Court every time (the LP, including Schizoid Man).

Who booked these bands together and Why?
Strange concert pairings I have experienced.

Black Oak Arkansas warming up for King Crimson.

Mahavishnu John McLaughlin warming up for The J.Geils Band
(at Schaefer/Sullivan/Foxborough stadium)
   73. Mefisto Posted: August 01, 2006 at 01:20 AM (#2120796)
How about Elton John warming up for Leon Redbone? And yeah, I said that right.
   74. Buzzards Bay Posted: August 01, 2006 at 01:29 AM (#2120815)
starship and airplane NQ Hot Tuna

if you got a speeding ticket on Highway 10 all alone in the Arizona desert after putting a U2 disc in ..well you might say big country was a center at OSU

all alone
nobody in sight
and i got nailed

still have the touch
still blame U2
   75. sunnyday2 Posted: August 01, 2006 at 01:36 AM (#2120826)
and i still haven't found what i'm lookin' for
   76. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 01, 2006 at 02:25 AM (#2120909)
starship nq hot tuna nq airplane.... ; )
   77. vortex of dissipation Posted: August 01, 2006 at 02:48 AM (#2120960)
71. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 31, 2006 at 08:52 PM (#2120724)

But I honestly thing that Big Country was better, just looking at the musical side of things.

I've never listened to Big Country, but you guys have put me on notice. I'll get 'em under the proverbial belt.


Send me an e-mail, and I'd be happy to burn you a compilation.
   78. DCW3 Posted: August 01, 2006 at 07:14 PM (#2121740)
Assuming you meant J.S. Bach.

Uh, I'm pretty sure he meant Sebastian Bach. It's close, but I think his run on Gilmore Girls pushes him ahead of Beethoven in terms of historical significance.
   79. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 01, 2006 at 07:25 PM (#2121750)
Maybe he meant PDQ Bach?
   80. DavidFoss Posted: August 01, 2006 at 07:48 PM (#2121772)
Maybe Barbara or Catherine Bach?

I found out just now that they are not sisters... who knew? :-)

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Piehole of David Wells
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.4213 seconds
49 querie(s) executed