Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Monday, March 26, 2012

Most Meritorious Player: 1971 Discussion

Most Meritorious Player: 1971 Discussion

A year I know mainly from the fantastic Topps set. The Orioles, Athletics, Giants and Pirates made the playoffs with the Pirates winning the World Series in seven games. In other news, SABR is formed.

Voting will end on April 18th 2012.

Player 			SH Win	BB-ref
        		Shares	WAR
Bobby Murcer		36.5	7.2
Roy White		28.6	7.4
Willie Stargell		34.7	8.1
Graig Nettles		26.7	6.5
Sal Bando		28.0	6.3
Henry Aaron		32.4	6.6
Bobby Bonds		32.3	6.3
Merv Rettenmund		26.5	6.2
Reggie Jackson		31.9	6.5
Joe Morgan		28.5	5.2
Joe Torre		41.2	6.8
Leo Cardenas		22.1	3.3
Don Buford		25.7	5.6
Roberto Clemente	23.5	7.1
Lee May			24.4	5.2
Bill Melton		24.9	5.3
Mark Belanger		20.0	4.5
Freddie Patek		23.4	3.8
Willie Mays		27.9	6.5
Amos Otis		27.1	5.3
Lou Brock		30.7	4.2
Rusty Staub		31.4	6.0
Rico Petrocelli		27.2	5.3
Dick Allen		28.9	5.9
Davey Johnson		22.3	4.5
Reggie Smith		28.9	5.5
Bud Harrelson		19.7	3.2
Dick Dietz		18.4	3.7
Manny Sanguillen	25.0	4.7
Bill Freehan		23.9	4.4	
Billy Williams		25.4	3.7
Cleon Jones		23.6	4.1
Brooks Robinson		22.4	5.5
Frank Robinson		22.2	3.7
Ralph Garr		24.5	4.0
Carl Yastrzemski	20.5	4.1

Wilbur Wood		32.9	10.0
Tom Seaver		31.2	9.6
Ferguson Jenkins	35.1	10.6
Vida Blue		30.7	8.3
Dave Roberts		23.0	8.5
Mickey Lolich		28.8	8.5
Don Wilson		22.3	6.3
Bert Blyleven		20.7	5.7
Sonny Siebert		21.7	6.3
Tom Bradley		19.3	5.5
Bill Stoneman		20.9	5.5
Don Sutton		20.1	5.3
Rick Wise		22.3	4.8
Milt Pappas		20.2	5.6
Bob Gibson		16.2	4.6
Phil Niekro		21.6	4.7
Catfish Hunter		21.1	4.2
Joe Coleman		20.8	4.9
Jim Palmer		21.8	4.0
Tug McGraw		16.5	4.3
Ken Sanders		20.1	3.2


DL from MN Posted: March 26, 2012 at 06:22 PM | 102 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.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. DL from MN Posted: March 26, 2012 at 06:30 PM (#4089621)
hot topics
   2. DL from MN Posted: March 27, 2012 at 09:54 AM (#4089976)
Lots of different answers when you look at the various systems. Torre, Murcer, Jenkins, Wood and Seaver all come out on top in at least one. I don't like the writer's results this year either, too focused on the pennant winners.

1971 Prelim

1) Tom Seaver - quality over quantity this year
2) Wilbur Wood
3) Ferguson Jenkins
4) Bobby Murcer
5) Vida Blue
6) Dave Roberts
7) Roy White
8) Willie Stargell
9) Graig Nettles
10) Henry Aaron
11) Mickey Lolich
12) Bobby Bonds

13-15) Merv Rettenmund, Reggie Jackson, Joe Morgan
16-20) Joe Torre, Leo Cardenas, Don Buford, Bill Melton, Mark Belanger
   3. DL from MN Posted: March 27, 2012 at 12:10 PM (#4090198)
Dan R's data has Nettles 36 runs above average with the glove. What are the other systems saying?
   4. sunnyday2 Posted: March 27, 2012 at 11:37 PM (#4090819)
Very ironic. WAR systems all disagreeing among themselves. What makes WAR the answer at all?
   5. Mr. C Posted: March 28, 2012 at 12:38 AM (#4090854)
DRA has him at +36 runs as well.
   6. DL from MN Posted: March 28, 2012 at 10:09 AM (#4091092)
I don't see it as ironic at all. There are different philosophical takes as to replacement value, positional value, the value of a run scored/prevented. They don't disagree wildly, it's just a close year where small differences separate things differently.
   7. DL from MN Posted: March 28, 2012 at 10:32 AM (#4091115)
Talking about a close year - just coming up with the order for Seaver, Wood and Jenkins is difficult. Wood has the innings but was a terrible hitter, Seaver has the rate stats, Jenkins somewhere in between. There is evidence Seaver was helped by his defense/park but that makes his hitting stand out more. Looking at the two systems above would have it ranked Jenkins, Wood, Seaver but raising replacement level just a titch re-orders things.

Among the hitters there are questions about Joe Torre's defense that make a big difference. Stargell won it all but had a putrid postseason. Nettles' case is ALL defense. Murcer's team didn't make the playoffs.
   8. DanG Posted: March 28, 2012 at 11:28 AM (#4091175)
Having now achieved the status of "Time-Honored Institution", here are 1971's top relief pitchers.

Rk           Player WAR ERASV    WPA  WHIP GF GS    IP Age  Tm Lg  G  W  L  ERA  OPS OPS+
1        Tug McGraw 4.0  201  8  4.247 1.027 34  1 111.0  26 NYM NL 51 11  4 1.70 .537   58
2       Ken Sanders 3.5  182 31  4.066 1.064 77  0 136.1  29 MIL AL 83  7 12 1.91 .607   78
3        Bob Miller 3.2  209 10  1.138 1.247 37  0  98.2  32 TOT NL 56  8  5 1.64 .593   76
4        Jim Brewer 2.9  173 22  2.775 0.971 41  0  81.1  33 LAD NL 55  6  5 1.88 .530   58
5     Fred Scherman 2.6  135 20  1.280 1.239 40  1 113.0  26 DET AL 69 11  6 2.71 .672   92
6     Steve Mingori 2.4  269  4  0.723 0.971 24  0  56.2  27 CLE AL 54  1  2 1.43 .500   41
7       Joe Hoerner 2.2  180  9 
-0.264 1.068 28  0  73.0  34 PHI NL 49  4  5 1.97 .601   74
8           Jim Ray 2.1  160  3  2.312 1.055 21  1  97.2  26 HOU NL 47 10  4 2.12 .573   67
9     Tom Burgmeier 2.1  199 17 
-0.095 1.143 34  0  88.1  27 KCR AL 67  9  7 1.73 .594   74
10         Bill Lee 1.8  137  2  0.192 1.451 13  3 102.0  24 BOS AL 47  9  2 2.74 .688   95
11      Lloyd Allen 1.8  130 15  3.481 1.223 28  1  94.0  21 CAL AL 54  4  6 2.49 .591   78
12    Paul Lindblad 1.8  119  8  1.365 1.074 26  0  99.2  29 TOT AL 51  7  4 2.80 .595   78
13   Danny Frisella 1.8  172 12  1.202 1.169 42  0  90.2  25 NYM NL 53  8  5 1.99 .615   80
14     Cecil Upshaw 1.6  106 17  0.051 1.500 41  0  82.0  28 ATL NL 49 11  6 3.51 .749  112
15      Joe Grzenda 1.6  173  5  1.446 1.009 21  0  70.1  34 WSA AL 46  5  2 1.92 .563   69
16     Clay Carroll 1.6  131 15  2.862 1.281 40  0  93.2  30 CIN NL 61 10  4 2.50 .656   95
17   Rollie Fingers 1.5  113 17  2.466 0.959 28  8 129.1  24 OAK AL 48  4  6 2.99 .600   76
18      Frank Linzy 1.4  171  6 
-0.202 1.281 24  0  59.1  30 STL NL 50  4  3 2.12 .616   76 

Ken Sanders' 77 Games Finished beat the previous record by ten and still stands as the 4th highest single season total. Mike Marshall had years with 84 and 83 GF. Billy Koch had 79 in 2002, the only season with more than 73 GF in the past 26 years. Jose Valverde is the only active pitcher to reach the 70 GF mark twice.
   9. sunnyday2 Posted: March 28, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4091365)
My 1st pass

1. Willie Stargell 35 WS 8.1 WAR
2. Joe Torre 41 NL MVP 6.8 WAR no longer catching
3. Henry Aaron 33
4. Vida Blue 30 8.3 WAR AL MVP
5. Bobby Murcer 38
6. Fergie Jenkins 37 10.6 WAR good thing I'm not a big WAR guy especially not pitcher WAR which seems inflated
7. Bobby Bonds 32
8. Mickey Lolich 29 8.5 WAR
9. Frank Robinson
10. Roberto Clemente
11. Sal Bando 29
12. Wilbur Wood 33 10.0 WAR OK with those kinds of IP I can take a 10 seriously
13. Tom Seaver 32 9.6 see #6
14. Reggie Jackson 32
15. Lou Brock 30

If we're voting for 12 again I doubt if I'll be dipping much below #15 for any changes here.

I'm just asking about WAR: How in the world do you guys know which one is right? How do you know that WS isn't right? Maybe I can just look at OPS+ and EERA+ and be more right. I'm just askin'. I just can't get comfortable that the pre-Moneyball logic was that bad. I started reading Bill James in 1983. I'm generally a believer. But I thought I was being radical dropping Torre down to #2, and now I see him at #16. I just can't warm up to such a system. I'm just sayin'.

Oh, and all you non-WAR voters. NON-WAR VOTERS WELCOME HERE! ;-)
   10. DL from MN Posted: March 28, 2012 at 02:52 PM (#4091434)
The WAR defensive stats have Torre as a butcher at 3B - 18 runs below average from Dan R and 26 below average from BBREF. I'd be quite interested in his reputation at the time.

We vote for 12 until 1977.
   11. SoCalDemon Posted: March 28, 2012 at 10:03 PM (#4091908)
My first prelim ever:
1. Fergie Jenkins 10.6 bWAR, 325 innings at 142 ERA+, but 7.1 SO/BB and great hitting year (102 OPS+) put him over the top for me
2. Tom Seaver 9.6 WAR, 286 innings at 194 ERA+, 4.7 SO/BB, 45 OPS+
3. Wilber Wood 10.0 WAR, 334 innings at 189 ERA+, 3.4 SO/BB, but terrible hitting (-41 OPS+), and over 124 PA, that is enough to drag him down (I thought he would be #1 for me before taking a look)
4. Joe Torre 3B 6.8 WAR*, .363/.421/.555 in 707 PA, 171 OPS+; *I do not buy his -25 fielding; surrounding years are -6 or -7, so charged him with -10; with adjustment giving him about 8.4 WAR
5. Bobby Murcer CF 7.2 WAR*, .331/.427.543 in 624 PA, 181 OPS+;*did not buy -13 fldg, cut it in half
6. Willie Stargell LF 8.1 WAR, .295/.398/.628 in 606 PA, 185 OPS+
7. Mickey Lolich 8.5 WAR, 376(!)innings at 125 ERA+, 3.4 SO/BB, 11 OPS+
8. Dave Roberts 8.5 WAR, 270 innings at 157 ERA+, only 2.2 SO/BB, 36 OPS+
9. Roy White LF 7.4 WAR, .292/.388/.469 in 634 PA, 149 OPS+ (feels high to me)
10. Hank Aaron 1B/RF 6.6 WAR, .327/.410/.669 (launching pad, but eegads!) in 573 PA, 194 OPS+
11. Willie Mays CF/1B 6.5 WAR .271/.425/.482, 158 OPS+
12. Roberto Clemente RF 7.1 WAR*, .341/.370/.502, 143 OPS+; knocked him down from 20 to 12; at this point in his career, his surrounding years suggest he was only an excellent +10 fielder
13. Sal Bando 3B 6.3 WAR, .271/.377/.452 in 643 PA, 137 OPS+
14. Bobby Bonds RF/CF 6.3 WAR, .288/.355/.512 in 691 PA, 144 OPS+
15. Merv Rettenmund RF/LF/CF 6.2 WAR .318/.422/.448 in 589 PA, 149 OPS+
16-23: Rusty Staub, Reggie Jackson, Dick Allen, Don Wilson, Sonny Siebert, Brooks Robinson, Bert Blyleven, Graig Nettles (I do not buy his defensive ratings, give him a +15)
   12. SoCalDemon Posted: March 28, 2012 at 10:07 PM (#4091909)
Sunnyday, I think you hit it on the head with your Wilber Wood comment; 1971-75 the innings are ridiculous; I am expecting to put a pitcher at the top every one of those years; they were just weird years, usagewise.
   13. SoCalDemon Posted: March 28, 2012 at 10:09 PM (#4091913)
And I also had a question: where are the second basemen and shortstops? Am I underrating them (I know that the 70s really valued defense; should I have a lwoer replacement level than BR does? Or is this just a weak year for middle infielders?
   14. SoCalDemon Posted: March 28, 2012 at 10:19 PM (#4091922)
Oops, totally missed Vida Blue; would be #4 for me, moving everyone else down 1.
   15. Jay Z Posted: March 28, 2012 at 11:08 PM (#4091966)
And I also had a question: where are the second basemen and shortstops? Am I underrating them (I know that the 70s really valued defense; should I have a lwoer replacement level than BR does? Or is this just a weak year for middle infielders?

For shortstops power-hitting in the 1970s was pretty scarce. You had Toby Harrah for a few years and that was about it. Bigger parks, more Astroturf, more emphasis on speed. Really in the 1970s you had Bert Campaneris, and 15 other guys who were about the same as Bert Campaneris.

1970s was a good decade for 2b. But Morgan was still in Houston, and he took a big leap forward in Cincy, way beyond park effects. Carew hadn't taken off yet, and Grich was stuck behind Davey Johnson and Belanger. Dave Cash would have his best years in Philly. Glenn Beckert hit .342, but it was empty and he missed 30 games. Ron Hunt had his 50 HBP year in 1971.

   16. OCF Posted: March 29, 2012 at 12:12 AM (#4092000)
Back to reporting on pitchers, after a year away. And what a year for pitchers! Team R/G in both leagues sank back under 4; it was looking like the 68-69 steps intended to rein in pitchers (mound lowering, strike zone changes) were sliding backwards and the pitchers were resuming control. And the workloads! You'd think it was 1910 or something. Mickey Lolich pitched 376 innings. And what is now the received wisdom about not overstressing the very young was nowhere to be seen, as a 21 year old Vida Blue logged 312 IP and a 20 year old Bert Blyleven 278 IP.

Some RA+ equivalent records. This record does not include offense and does not reflect defensive support.

Seaver: 24-8 (OK hitter)
Blue: 25-10 (below average hitter)
Wood: 25-12 (bad hitter)
Jenkins: 23-13 (great hitter, for a pitcher)
Roberts: 19-11 (average-ish hitter)
Lolich: 25-16 (below average hitter)
Blyleven: 19-12 (below average hitter)

Sanders: 11-4 (17-6 with inherited runner adjustment)
McGraw: 10-3 (12-3 with inherited runner adjustment) (slugged .500 in 18 AB)
Scherman: 8-5 (14-8 with inherited runner adjustment)
Brewer: 7-2 (10-5 with inherited runner adjustment)
Mingori: 5-1 (10-3 with inherited runner adjustment)

That's a lot of pitchers with 23-25 equivalent wins; that tells you about the workloads.

   17. DL from MN Posted: March 29, 2012 at 09:47 AM (#4092135)
pitcher WAR which seems inflated

The workload is high enough that I believe those numbers. 280 innings was a "small" workload in 1971.
   18. DL from MN Posted: March 29, 2012 at 05:25 PM (#4092542)
I guess I should remind people over here also - everyone who wants to vote is eligible. All we ask from new voters is that they post a prelim ballot in this thread 48 hours before voting ends.
   19. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: March 29, 2012 at 06:05 PM (#4092571)
SoCalDemon, this topic has been dealt with extensively on my WARP thread--take a look. I think the replacement level should be super-low for 1970's SS; Sean Smith (of baseball-reference WAR) "redistributes" a lot of their aggregate crappiness to the benefit of 1B, 2B, and 3B.
   20. SoCalDemon Posted: March 29, 2012 at 06:10 PM (#4092576)
Dan R, I have previously read your WARP thread (awesome stuff!), and remember that being the take home message, but will reread it, and take another look at the better shortstops. Also, thanks Jay Z; sounds like it might just be one of those fluke weak years (and there seem to be superstar 3Bs just crawling out of the woodwork).
   21. bjhanke Posted: March 30, 2012 at 12:47 AM (#4092723)
DL (#10) =

As I've said, my memory of baseball from 1970-1973 is drowned beneath my problems with the Vietnam draft, but I took a look at BB-Ref and combined that with what little I remember. Here's what I have: The Cards brought Joe Torre (and Dick Allen) in as part of an ongoing desperate search to find someone who could hit homers in Busch Stadium. They'd tried Roger Maris, who was a spent force, and Orlando Cepeda, who didn't hit quite as many homers as they wanted. They then traded Cepeda for Torre (I think that was the trade), who was not gaining ground as a defensive catcher, but who could hit. He had a fine offensive year at catcher, but really couldn't catch full time any more.

Joe got moved out from behind the plate for 4 reasons: 1) he had lost the ability, really, to play catcher, 2) they had come up with the 21-year-old Ted Simmons, 3) they had a 26-year-old journeyman named Joe Hague who they wanted to try out at first base, and 4) Mike Shannon, the incumbent 3b, had completely collapsed, and they had no replacement. Hague turned out to be a AAAA player, but it took them 2 years to figure that out, and then they had the elderly Matty Alou to try there. Alou didn't have the arm for 3b. Hague probably didn't, either, but he's really just a name to me.

Torre got moved to 1b because the team came up with what they thought was a Gold Glove 3b, Ken Reitz, and also because they didn't have anyone left to try at 1b. (Reitz stayed at 3b long enough for me to have serious memories of him. What he had was magician's hands; it looked like he just swatted at the ball with his glove and it zinged across the infield on a line to wherever he wanted it to go, with complete accuracy. Unfortunately, this was very visible, while the fact that he had NO range was invisible.)

So you can make a case that Joe's glove at 3b could not have been that bad, because the team had a hole at 1b available for someone who could really hit but not play 3b. When Reitz came along, he looked SO good compared to Joe that Joe acquired a rep for lousy defense at third. What I can't sort out of my memory is whether this rep dates to the early 70s, which is where we are now, or if it's a later rep from the mid-70s that came from being compared to Reitz. The case the other way essentially goes that Torre, while a bad 3b, at least had the arm to try, while no one else on the team had that.

In other words, it's possible to make a case for Torre's 3b glove, and it's possible to make just as good a case that he was bad but the team had no options to try. In that situation, I think I'd go with the numbers, which are really bad. It may be important to remember that this was a time when the Cardinal management was in serious disarray. Red Schoendienst had managed for too many years in a row, and his team was getting away from him. The owner was involved with Dick Nixon's efforts to impose wage and price controls. The GM was in a perilous state all the time, because the owner had brought the elderly Branch Rickey back as a "special consultant", which Rickey interpreted to mean "higher in rank than anyone else other than the owner; certainly higher in rank than whoever is General Manager." Under those circumstances, I doubt that the team was well organized enough to go out and acquire an actual 3b, so Torre could move to 1b. They only did that when Reitz came out of the farm system.

Sorry. Best I can do. - Brock
   22. baudib Posted: March 30, 2012 at 01:46 AM (#4092732)
In the 1970s,there was this idea that if you were a catcher, you could also play third base. It felt to me like it was pretty widely accepted. In Little League I played both positions and thought it was natural because everyone else thought so, too.

Basically, it seems like if you could hit, you moved from catcher to third base. Third basemen who couldn't hit were moved to catcher.

I haven't really studied the issue but I believe there are more C-3B players from the 1970s, or who played for managers of the 1970s, than any other period in history.

Torre, of course. Mike Ivie moved from catcher to third base. Bob Boone moved from 3B to C. Marginal guys like Floyd Rayford and Dave Roberts. In 1980, the Phillies came up with Keith Moreland, who could hit but didn't have a position. He was mostly a catcher but they dabbled with him at 3B WHILE THEY HAD MIKE SCHMIDT. Johnny Bench played some third.

Before this period, I don't find any catchers who were playing third. Elston Howard, one of the greatest catchers who ever had to sit behind another catcher, played some outfield and first but not third. Gil Hodges was a guy who came up at catcher and just moved to first base.

   23. frannyzoo Posted: March 30, 2012 at 02:05 AM (#4092734)
As a total newb, I spent some time tonight going game-by-game through the Cards '71 season, as that -25 fielding number for Torre is so glaring. I had a hypothesis that perhaps: A. Torre might have been let down by Hague at 1B and had throwing errors that could have been prevented; B. that the errors were much greater in number early on as he learned 3B.

The upshot was that neither hypothesis was confirmed. 20 of Torre's 21 errors were fielding errors, not throwing, and the rate of errors was not appreciably higher in the first half of the season. I'm sure the calculations for such things probably already incorporate contingencies like this (e.g., a 3B with a lousy 1B), but it was fun reliving a motley Cards season with a newly minted catcher in Simmons and such. Still, it occurred to me that Torre should get some sort of credit for his positional flexibility as opposed to simple condemnation for the infamous -25. It's also not entirely clear why the club stuck with him at 3B that year given that Hague and Beauchamp were such offensive liabilities at 1B.
   24. Bug Selig Posted: March 30, 2012 at 07:10 AM (#4092755)
20 of Torre's 21 errors were fielding errors, not throwing,

1 throwing error in a full season from a third baseman?!? One? That blows my mind.
   25. frannyzoo Posted: March 30, 2012 at 07:52 AM (#4092761)
Sorry, the one non-fielding error for Torre was "catching" not throwing. So zero throwing errors. I am dubious, too, but that's what it says. I've always tended to overlook fielding rating discussion because: A. My brain started to hurt; B. I've always thought it inherently bogus to some degree. I'm willing to experience more brain pain if someone wouldn't mind pointing out a thing or two about this, especially in regard to J. Torre '71.
   26. DL from MN Posted: March 30, 2012 at 09:34 PM (#4093443)
We could use a logo for the Google+ page. Let me know if you have any ideas.
   27. bjhanke Posted: March 31, 2012 at 05:26 AM (#4093600)
Baudib (you don't take "spice", do you?) -

There's one other period where you see some movement from catcher to 3b in mid-career. It's the 1870s-1880s. What was happening was that the equipment was so poor for catchers that the position just tore your body up. Probably the two best catchers in the 1800s were Buck Ewing (best by far) and Deacon White (who played so few games at catcher that I have him in my mind as a third baseman - the Hall of Merit does NOT agree with me on this). Both were moved to third after several, but not many, years at catcher, because their teams wanted their bats in the lineup more often than the injuries of catcher allowed. They were moved to third because they, being catchers, had arms. White doesn't grade out as a real good 3b glove; Buck is better. But neither settled in at third forever; they got moved around a lot. The other case, the one that I'm not completely sure of, is Tom Daly. Tom wasn't the glove catcher that White and Ewing were, but he could hit, and it does look like he was moved to get his bat in the lineup more often. However, his glove at catcher is weak enough that it may have been part of the move, too. The best hitting catcher who was NOT moved to third was Charlie Bennett, who is a Hall caliber player. He was the Gold Glove of the 1880s (Ewing was right behind him), and hit well for a catcher, but not like White or Ewing. So his glove was SO good and his hitting not quite that hot that his teams didn't want to move him.

The upshot is that, when these moves were tried way back over a century ago, the converted catchers did not end up as career 3b after the move (White's case involves rapidly increasing schedule lengths). They did what Torre did. They played a year or two at third, and then moved on. When Torre was managing the Cardinals, he tried the same stunt with Todd Zeile, destroying Todd's career. As a catcher glove, Todd was decent, maybe even good. With his bat, he was an All-Star there. At third, he was a weak glove with an ordinary bat. Moved to first base, he was a decent glove with not as much bat as you would want. So the move turned Zeile from an All-Star catcher to someone who you were always looking to replace with a better 1b.

In short, I'm not a big fan of the move, although I understand that the playing conditions for 1800s catchers were dreadful. There seem to be very few such conversions that actually took for several years. I think that the problem often is that 3b requires more range than catcher does, and many of the converts were slow runners. (White and Ewing were not slow. Catching in the 19th century required speed, because of all the WP and PB.) Elston Howard, who could run a little, may have been blocked from 3b by people like Clete Boyer.

- Brock
   28. baudib Posted: March 31, 2012 at 06:07 AM (#4093603)
Yeah, the spice must flow!

Should have mentioned Zeile and his connection to Torre. It was obviously an overall meh move. Zeile was a highly regarded prospect, sort of like a Wieters or Posey and obviously would have been a plus bat at C instead of a mediocre bat at 3B/1B. Carlos Delgado was a catcher in the minors, but his bat was so big he pretty much had to move -- I never saw him catch so I can't comment on his catching ability, but it was probably a good move even if he had been average, I think.

Daly ended up playing many more games at 2B than 3B, and is basically the only historical precedent for Craig Biggio.

At this point, it's weird for me to think of 3B as a "natural" secondary position for catchers. The positions require wildly different skills. Yes, at both positions you need a good arm and a willingness to stop a baseball with your face or chest. But third base requires great reflexes and range. IMO one of the reasons for the small number of great career third basemen is that it's a tweener position. You need to be a pretty good athlete to play third base, unlike first. But if you are a REALLY great athlete, you end up playing shortstop or center field instead. So what you get at third base are the secondary tier of athletes who give you good 8-year stretches, hit .270 with 25-30 homers a year and end up falling off a cliff at age 33. A Tim Wallach, Doug DeCinces type player.

Ironically, the 1970s probably featured the greatest group of third basemen in the game's history. At the same time, you perhaps the weakest crop of shortstops ever. If it isn't the weakest, the presence of a star player is glaringly absent, as alluded to earlier in this thread. This started to shift as Yount and Trammell came up and Cal Ripken got moved to third, paving the way for the Jeters and A-Rods. Mike Schmidt might have stayed at shortstop had he been born 15 years later.

   29. Chris Fluit Posted: March 31, 2012 at 04:20 PM (#4093848)
bjhanke, I'm glad you brought up the 1870s-80s guys as I thought of them as well. The practice also continued into the '90s.

Lave Cross started out as a catcher ('87-'90), then split time between C and other positions ('91-'93) before finally settling in at 3B ('94-'07). Based on the numbers, Cross was a decent defensive catcher though he really blossomed at third.

Duke Farrell is another player who was primarily a C (1000 games played) but also bounced around at 3B (200), 1B and OF (100 each). He even played more games at third in '91 and '92 than he did behind the plate.

However, baudib is correct that Daly was moved from C to 2B, not 3B.
   30. bjhanke Posted: April 01, 2012 at 03:14 AM (#4094081)
Chris -

I just looked up Daly, because I wasn't completely sure. We both have cases. What happened was that Daly spent several years where he was primarily a catcher, but played elsewhere. Then, for one year, he was primarily a 3b, although he played elsewhere. The very next year, he was a second baseman who played a little elsewhere, including 3b. After that, he was a second baseman who occasionally played a little elsewhere, but not 3b. The 3b play went completely away. So, technically, I am right that the first move was from primarily catcher to primarily 3b. But you are right in that, if you blink, you miss that one year of 3b. Let's call it a draw, because it isn't really worth arguing about. Taking a long view, you are certainly right. Tom was a catcher for several years, and then a second baseman for several years. He was a third baseman for one year in between. Hardly a big deal. - Brock
   31. DanG Posted: April 01, 2012 at 02:18 PM (#4094228)
the 1970s probably featured the greatest group of third basemen in the game's history. At the same time, you perhaps the weakest crop of shortstops ever
Most WAR, 500+ G at 3B 1969-80

Rk          Player WAR/pos OPSRfield   PA   Age
1     Mike Schmidt    60.3  144     98 5158 22
2        Sal Bando    56.3  121     30 7362 25
3        Pete Rose    54.4  128      2 8881 28
4    Graig Nettles    51.5  113    161 7074 24
5     George Brett    44.7  138     56 4330 20
6          Ron Cey    39.9  125     59 5122 23
7    Darrell Evans    35.8  117     24 6022 22
8       Buddy Bell    34.8  108    105 5343 20
9      Toby Harrah    33.4  114    
-61 5856 20-31
10   Richie Hebner    33.2  122    
-57 6082 21-32 

Most WAR, 500+ G at SS 1969-80

Rk            Player WAR/pos OPSRfield   PA   Age
1    Bert Campaneris    34.0   84     91 6493 27
2        Toby Harrah    33.4  114    
-61 5856 20-31
3      Mark Belanger    31.2   71    210 5628 25
4    Dave Concepcion    27.9   92     53 5864 22
5       Chris Speier    20.3   90     26 5687 21
6       Bill Russell    19.3   83     62 5921 20
7        Robin Yount    18.3   96     
-4 4142 18-24
8      Freddie Patek    17.7   79      6 5965 24
9        Roy Smalley    17.0  100     12 3579 22
10   Garry Templeton    15.8  104      5 2764 20

   32. lieiam Posted: April 01, 2012 at 08:20 PM (#4094400)
Regarding the baseball-reference WAR list above with thirdbase and shortstop,
remember that this is one of the major differences between b-rWAR and Dan Rosencheck's WARP.
drWARP adjusts replacement level specifically to position while (if I recall correctly) brWAR
adjusts it between infield and outfield. And the replacement level of shortstops DID drop drastically
in the time period in question. I don't have time now to do the list using Dan R WARP but hopefully
will do so soon. I don't know HOW different the numbers will be but I imagine it will be pretty big.
   33. DL from MN Posted: April 03, 2012 at 11:38 AM (#4095462)
I can't find my copy of the AFR stats. Anyone have those for Torre and Nettles in 1971?
   34. DL from MN Posted: April 04, 2012 at 02:11 PM (#4096721)
Nobody asked me for Dan R's pitching WAR numbers yet but here they are anyway

YEAR TEAM Lg playerid IP/162 DERA PWAA1 BWAA1 StdevAdj IPAdj TransIP PWAA2 BWAA2 Rep WARP2
1971 NY_-N NL seaveto01 286.7 2.61 7.6 -0.7 1.181 0.823 235.8 7.4 -0.6 -3.4 10.3
1971 CHI-A AL woodwi01 338 2.74 8.2 -2 1.182 0.823 278 8 -1.6 -4.1 10.5
1971 CHI-N NL jenkife01 325.4 3.3 5.1 0 1.181 0.823 267.7 4.9 0 -4 9
1971 OAK-A AL bluevi01 315.8 3.09 5.9 -1.8 1.182 0.823 259.7 5.7 -1.4 -3.9 8.2
1971 SD_-N NL roberda05 270.1 3.05 5.3 -0.8 1.181 0.823 222.1 5.1 -0.6 -3.2 7.7
1971 DET-A AL lolicmi01 380.5 3.64 4 -1.4 1.182 0.823 313 3.8 -1.1 -4.7 7.4
1971 BOS-A AL siebeso01 238.1 3.48 3 0.3 1.182 0.823 195.9 3 0.2 -3 6.1
1971 HOU-N NL wilsodo01 268.4 3.4 3.8 -1.3 1.181 0.823 220.7 3.7 -1 -3.2 5.9
1971 MIN-A AL blylebe01 281.6 3.56 3.3 -1.6 1.182 0.823 231.7 3.2 -1.2 -3.4 5.4
1971 CHI-A AL bradlto01 289.1 3.64 3 -1.4 1.182 0.823 237.8 2.9 -1.1 -3.6 5.4
1971 LA_-N NL suttodo01 265.7 3.79 2.2 -0.7 1.181 0.823 218.5 2.1 -0.6 -3.2 4.8
1971 MON-N NL stonebi01 295.1 3.84 2.2 -1.3 1.181 0.823 242.7 2.2 -1 -3.6 4.7
1971 DET-A AL colemjo05 289.4 3.79 2.4 -1.8 1.182 0.823 238.1 2.3 -1.4 -3.6 4.5
1971 PHI-N NL wiseri01 272.7 4.14 1 0 1.181 0.823 224.3 0.9 0 -3.3 4.3
1971 CHI-N NL pappami01 261.7 3.84 2 -1.2 1.181 0.823 215.2 1.9 -0.9 -3.2 4.2
1971 ATL-N NL niekrph01 269.1 3.85 2 -1.4 1.181 0.823 221.3 2 -1.1 -3.3 4.1
1971 STL-N NL gibsobo01 246 3.93 1.6 -0.8 1.181 0.823 202.4 1.5 -0.6 -3 4
1971 SD_-N NL kirbycl01 267.7 3.81 2.1 -1.6 1.181 0.823 220.2 2.1 -1.3 -3.2 4
1971 BAL-A AL palmeji01 285.4 4.02 1.4 -1.1 1.182 0.823 234.7 1.4 -0.9 -3.6 4.1
1971 KC_-A AL dragodi01 244.2 3.88 1.7 -1 1.182 0.823 200.9 1.6 -0.8 -3 3.9
1971 OAK-A AL hunteca01 277 4.49 -0.3 0.4 1.182 0.823 227.8 -0.3 0.4 -3.5 3.6
   35. sunnyday2 Posted: April 04, 2012 at 04:17 PM (#4096895)
Having lived through this period, now in hindsight I think I understand the problem with 2B and SS from this era.

It's not so much that there was this big emphasis on defense. You didn't have to be a good defender. You just couldn't be a good hitter. You especially couldn't get on base very much. A BA around .230 was ideal. If you could do that and you were in the lineup, well, then you were in the lineup for your defense. And if you were in the lineup for your defense, then you must be a good defender. It didn't matter if you actually were. There just had to be no other excuse for you to be playing at all.

Sorta like Ron Gardenhire's philosophy today. You had to be a rallystopper.
   36. DL from MN Posted: April 04, 2012 at 09:02 PM (#4097305)
1971 DRA numbers
Nettles +36
Torre -36

They're all saying the same thing.

Killebrew -10
Brooks +12
Melton +11
   37. lieiam Posted: April 04, 2012 at 11:24 PM (#4097458)
Thanks for posting the old Dan R numbers, DL from MN!
I'm still building up my spreadsheet for 1971 so I haven't gotten far enough to ask you.
I do appreciate it.

And sunnyday2, your description of such bad hitters just reminds me of the Giants' shortstop form the early 80s, Johnny LeMaster.
I remember the announcers always talked about what a good defender he was... I think largely because, like in your scenario, he MUST
have been a good defender since he sure as hell wasn't a good hitter!
   38. bjhanke Posted: April 05, 2012 at 12:23 PM (#4097912)
Lieiam - If you're a Giants fan who wants to depress himself over no-hit shortstops,look up Hal Lanier. He's even worse than what the Cardinals tried, which was Dal Maxvill. - Brock
   39. OCF Posted: April 05, 2012 at 01:21 PM (#4098006)
My sense is that Maxvill did have the glove for real, at least during the '67-'68 pennant runs. On those teams, he batted 8th and they pinch hit for him frequently. And he didn't even hit all that badly, relatively speaking, in 1968. But by 1971, he was pretty close to toast. (He would hang on in the majors as a nomadic utility man until 1975.)
   40. Delorians Posted: April 05, 2012 at 02:00 PM (#4098137)
Long time lurker, may have posted sparingly in comments on HOM threads 2-3 years ago. The past few results threads have lamented the lack of ballots and stressed that complex systems are not needed for ballot eligibility. With that said, I have been pondering whether to submit a ballot for consideration to join this group. Let me stress that my life is busy, I may not have the time to devote to this that many of you may have, and I will not be using a complex system, will probably be a combination of OPS/WAR compared to actual balloting and adjusted if something doesn't seem right (and adjustment seems justified). So my ballot may not stray far from the consensus, but it will be an extra number to boost participation and I'll be open to considering comments after it is posted. First question, I see the 1971 voting deadline is April 18th - what is the deadline for submitting a ballot for review (particulary for a first timer like myself)?
   41. DL from MN Posted: April 05, 2012 at 02:40 PM (#4098267)
Welcome Delorians. Please post a preliminary ballot here by 4/16.
   42. SoCalDemon Posted: April 05, 2012 at 11:07 PM (#4099123)
So I don't see much to choose between the 4 big pitchers (Jenkins, Seaver, Wood, Blue). Taking a look at their unearned runs seems to bunch them up even more. Seaver had 5 UER plus his 194 ERA+, so with his strikeouts, even with pitching ONLY 286 innings, he's starting to look pretty good. Blue had 10 UERs (and bad hitting), Jenkins had 14 (and with his 142 ERA+ already substantially lower than all of the other 3, and he gave up the most home runs (29), but did have 7.1 SO/BB), and Wood 24, which, combined with his terrible hitting, makes him seem like the worst of the 4 to me. What does anybody else think?

Also, even with a lower replacement, none of the SS this year seem to be anywhere near the cut. However, I am suspicious of the large number of 3B, so might ding them a bit.

Ah, Hal Lanier. Belanger gets a bad rap sometimes, but he was so good defensively he was a genuine all-star or near all-star most years even with the poor hitting (68+; 77+ 1969-76; but 240 runs saved makes up for a lot). Come to think of it, his 4.5 bWAR in 1971 (97 OPS+!!!), adjusting for the high replacement, probably isn't enough to get him to 12th place, but I'll have to think about it. But there is just no way to salvage a 49 OPS+, especially when you are no Belanger with the glove.
   43. OCF Posted: April 05, 2012 at 11:24 PM (#4099130)
SoCalDemon: if you want to bring UER into it, why not just look at RA and RA+? That's exactly what I did in post 16. And while you mentioned the bad hitting of Blue and Wood, you didn't actually say anything about Jenkins with that bat. (Although I'm sure you're aware of that.)

I agree that they're not very far apart. I think my own order would be Seaver, Blue, Jenkins, Wood.
   44. lieiam Posted: April 05, 2012 at 11:28 PM (#4099136)
So I finished my spreadsheet and have my prelim ballot.
I'm not surprised but don't really like the fact that my TOP FOUR are all pitchers.
I try not to fiddle with the results my method comes up, figuring I'll just make things
worse. But I have to admit to being tempted in a situation like this. Still, I'll try
to refrain from doing so. But EVEN if I did, I don't think I could mess with my top 3
because they're quite a ways ahead of everyone else... Anyway, here's my prelim ballot:

seaver, tom 9062
jenkins, ferguson 8993
wood, wilbur 8967
blue, vida 7887
stargell, willie 7771
murcer, bobby 7461
torre, joe 7372
lolich, mickey 7038
white, roy 6947
aaron, hank 6827
roberts, dave 6721
jackson, reggie 6632
   45. SoCalDemon Posted: April 05, 2012 at 11:55 PM (#4099146)
Sorry, I did earlier in #11; he had a great year wit hthe bat (102 OPS+), which I think really helps him. And gotcha on 16; Seaver had a hell of a year.
   46. bjhanke Posted: April 06, 2012 at 04:20 AM (#4099186)
Delorians -

You sound like just the kind of voter we're trying to attract. We have guys with elaborate uberstats. We have guys who collect those uberstats and try to average them out. You sound like you'll provide a different perspective, and sometimes, that's just what the uberstats need. I seriously encourage you to do this. No one here is likely to nikpick you to death. - Brock Hanke
   47. Chris Fluit Posted: April 06, 2012 at 04:31 PM (#4099658)
1971 Prelim

1. Wilbur Wood, Chicago White Sox P: 189 ERA+ in 334 innings
2. Tom Seaver, New York Mets P: 194 ERA+ in 286 innings
3. Hank Aaron, Atlanta Braves RF: 194 OPS+ and 137 runs created
4. Vida Blue, Oakland Athletics P: 184 ERA+ in 312 innings
5. Willie Stargell, Pittsburgh Pirates LF: 185 OPS+ and 131 runs created
6. Joe Torre, St. Louis Cardinals 3B: positional bonus basically canceled out by poor play
7. Mickey Lolich, Detroit Tigers P: 125 ERA+ isn't great but those 376 innings are impressive
8. Fergie Jenkins, Chicago Cubs P: 142 ERA+ in 325 innings and a 102 OPS+ as a pitcher
9. Bobby Murcer, New York Yankees CF: best position player in the AL
10. Dave Roberts, San Diego Padres P: plus he stole the base that sparked the rally
11. Bobby Bonds, San Francisco Giants LF: 144 OPS+ and 115 runs created
12. Roy White, New York Yankees LF: 149 OPS+ and 103 runs created

after the cutoff
13. Rusty Staub
14. Reggie Jackson
15. Graig Nettles
16. Sal Bando
17. Bill Melton
18. Tug McGraw
19. Roberto Clemente
20. Merv Rettenmund
   48. Mr. C Posted: April 06, 2012 at 04:44 PM (#4099672)
Preliminary Ballot

Score are Wins Above Reduced Replacemnt; Have given more detail in other threads.

Like others I was quite surprised at how dominate pitchers were in 1971. Many oF the better hitters did not play defense well so position players were not .

1. Tom Seaver 9.77
2. Ferguson Jenkins 8.95 Jenkins rated ahead of Wood because of his superior hitting abilities.
3. Wibur Wood 8.91
4. Vida Blue 7.76
5. Graig Nettles 7.47 Fielding was certainly a major reason for a rating this high, but did have a 124 wRC+ as a 3B.
6. Mickey Lolich 6.71
7. Dave Roberts 6.66
8. Willie Stargell 6.19
9. Roy White 5.99
10. Bert Blyleven 5.59
11. Bill Melton 5.5
12. Hank Aaron 5.39

Rest of top 20
13. Don Wilson
14. Roberto Clemente
15.Wille Mays
16. Merv Rettenmund
17. Bobby Bonds
18. Joe Torre
19. Amos Otis
20. Dick Allen

   49. lieiam Posted: April 08, 2012 at 12:40 AM (#4100168)
And now I'm finally able to get to what I talked about doing in post 32 (in response to Dan G's list in post 31).

Using the same players, I pulled their numbers for the same time frame (1969-1980) using Dan Rosenheck's WARP1.
I was especially curious because a differing view of thirdbasemen and shortstops seems to be one of the main differences
between these two specific player rating systems, so I was expecting there to be quite a bit of difference in their numbers,
namely an improvement for shortstops and a decrease for third basemen.

schmidt, mike 58.2
rose, pete 56.9
nettles, graig 53.1
evans, darrell 46
cey, ron 44
bando, sal 43.5
harrah, toby 41.5
brett, george 41.2
hebner, richie 30.9
bell, buddy 30

campaneris, bert 44.9
concepcion, dave 43.9
harrah, toby 41.5
speier, chris 35.4
belanger, mark 34.2
patek, freddie 30.1
smalley, roy 27.6
yount, robin 25
russell, bill 23.2
templeton, garry 21.3

As I expected the shortstop numbers are up (cumulative from 234.9 to 327.1) but I was
surprised that the numbers for 3B overall were basically the same (actually increasing
from 444.3 to 445.3). Anyway, I thought that was interesting... so there you go.
   50. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: April 08, 2012 at 06:29 AM (#4100200)
Try it with 1B, 2B, and DH too, lieiam. Remember, Sean takes as an axiom that IF and OF are equal (not sure what he does for C), and then determines the replacement levels within each group by looking at position-switchers. So the SS underperformance is going to be evenly distributed among 1B, 2B, and 3B. Also, I think his DH replacement level is much lower since he includes a "DH penalty" for it supposedly being harder to hit if you don't field.
   51. Howie Menckel Posted: April 08, 2012 at 09:40 AM (#4100227)

"It's not so much that there was this big emphasis on defense. You didn't have to be a good defender. You just couldn't be a good hitter. You especially couldn't get on base very much. A BA around .230 was ideal. If you could do that and you were in the lineup, well, then you were in the lineup for your defense. And if you were in the lineup for your defense, then you must be a good defender. It didn't matter if you actually were. There just had to be no other excuse for you to be playing at all."

So, so true. Like backup catchers - the worse they hit, the more management tells themselves what a great "game management guy" he is.
   52. TomH Posted: April 09, 2012 at 11:32 AM (#4101018)
(from a guy not participating anymore due to time contraints....)

Is any work being done on pitcher W-L records vis a vis run support as an analysis tool in this exercise? Rob W, you had a bayesian backwards boot-strapping method years ago that attemtped to match the actuals with expected to measure clutchness; do you still have that, use it, and make it available? Just looking at how close the various uber-arms are, I wondered if something like this would be helpful.

   53. Rob_Wood Posted: April 09, 2012 at 03:27 PM (#4101376)
Tom, Good to hear from you and I really hope you can find the small amount of time needed to post a ballot. Yes, I do have a method that looks at a pitcher's value on a game-by-game basis (I called it "Win Values"). Honestly, I cannot remember for which years I calculated the stat (I did the work around 10 years ago and it relied upon complete Retrosheet game data) and I am currently away from my home. I will look for it once I get back home in a week or so. Rob
   54. Howie Menckel Posted: April 10, 2012 at 10:52 PM (#4103605)

off the beaten path, but.....

was looking at my 1901-68 year-by-year, team-by-team lists, and would not have guessed that Jake Beckley in the 1998 election would be the 2nd-to-last player from that "modern but pre-divisional) era that we've elected to date. (That was in real time May 2007, btw, so almost five real years ago).

since then we've elected guys like Nolan Ryan and Graig Nettles and Reggie Smith and (on the other end) John McGraw, but combined they only have 3 seasons as regulars in 1901-68.

the lone real exception is Roger Bresnahan, a 2007 electee who played almost his whole career in the 1900s decade. and thanks to the talent-heavy ballots these days, this should be it for quite a while.

the NL dominated 1901, but the leagues were about even 1902-06.
AL started to gain an edge, but it also often evened out until the late 1910s, when AL started leading more consistently. the lead is often 2 to 7 until the late 1930s, when the AL nearly starts to have twice as many HOMers (around 19 to 10 or so).

WW II evens things out, but the AL then reclaims its comfy but not absurd lead into the 1950s.
finally the NL starts to take the lead in the mid-1950s (integration), and a growing lead turns into a record blowout in 1964 (27 to 10, counting any # of games).

(the blowout starts fading in 1971-72; I also have charts thru 2002)

years in which the NL has had more "regulars" from 1901-2000 (basically 162 IP or 35 G as pitcher, or start more than 50 pct of team's games as hitter. note that there were plenty of early and wartime ties):

1901 - 19/8

1905 - 12/10
1906 - 11/10

1952 - 12/11
1953 - 13/11
1954 - 15/11
1955 - 15/13
1956 - 17/12
1957 - 16/10
1958 - 14/11
1959 - 14/11
1960 - 14/13
1961 - 17/12
1962 - 17/11
1963 - 21/11
1964 - 22/9
1965 - 24/8
1966 - 23/9
1967 - 25/10
1968 - 22/11

1969 - 23/12
1970 - 23/11
1971 - 22/13
1972 - 20/18
1973 - 21/17

1976 - 20/19
1977 - 18/15
1978 - 22/19
1979 - 21/20

1999 - 7/6

AL utterly dominated most of the 1980s and 1990s, but that's a post for another day

NL's 1965 zenith, when they had triple the HOMers of AL (part-timers are asterisks and 10 G or fewer in parentheses not counted in the 24-8 edge):

1965 NL
Los Angeles - SP Sandy Koufax, SP Don Drysdale
San Francisco - SP Juan Marichal, SP-RP Gaylord Perry, SP Warren Spahn(2T), 1B Willie McCovey, OF Willie Mays
Pittsburgh - OF Roberto Clemente, OF Willie Stargell
Cincinnati - 2B Pete Rose, OF Frank Robinson
Milwaukee - RP Phil Niekro, C-1B Joe Torre, 3B Eddie Mathews, OF Hank Aaron
Philadelphia - SP Jim Bunning, 3B Richie Allen (Ferguson Jenkins 7 G)
St. Louis - SP Bob Gibson, RP Steve Carlton*, 3B Ken Boyer
Chicago - 3B Ron Santo, SS Ernie Banks, OF Billy Williams
Houston - SP Robin Roberts**(2T), 2B Joe Morgan, OF Jimmy Wynn (Nellie Fox 9 G)
New York - SP Warren Spahn(2T) (Yogi Berra 2 G)

1965 AL
Minnesota - 1B-3B Harmon Killebrew
Chicago - RP Hoyt Wilhelm
Baltimore - SP Robin Roberts**(2T), RP Jim Palmer*, 3B Brooks Robinson
Detroit - C Bill Freehan, OF Al Kaline
New York - SP Whitey Ford, OF Mickey Mantle
Boston - OF Carl Yastrzemski
Kansas City (Satchel Paige 1 G)

   55. sunnyday2 Posted: April 13, 2012 at 09:59 AM (#4105490)
As I started to say elsewhere 1971 was the greatest year ever for rock and roll. Just had to share.

1. Meddle--Pink Floyd. Their best work, yes, ahead of Dark Side.
2. What’s Going On--Marvin Gaye. I'm not a big Marvin Gaye guy but this is just incredible. The Pink Floyd and this are the soundtrack for the year.

3. Led Zeppelin 4--Led Zeppelin. Their best. I forgive Stairway, the rest still blows me away.
4. Aqualung--Jethro Tull. Their best. I saw them perform this entire LP in a 1,200 seat theatre.
5. Ride the Wind--The Youngbloods. I'm not a big Youngbloods guy but this is just fabulous.

6. Who’s Next--The Who. Their best.
7. Tupelo Honey--Van Morrison
8. Weasels Ripped My Flesh--Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention. Four words: Orange County Lumber Truck.
9. The Allman Brothers Band Live at Fillmore East. I saw essentially this set while Duane was still alive.
10. Sticky Fingers--The Rolling Stones. OK, I'm not a big Stones guy, but this was pretty much their peak.

11. The Yes Album--Yes
12. I Think We’re All Bozos on This Bus--Firesign Theatre. Rock n roll humor, must be heard to be believed.
13. American Pie--Don McLean. Killing me softly: I've got nothing on my hind, nothing to remember, nothing to forget.
14. Imagine--John Lennon. My head says this rates higher, but my heart isn't in it.
15. Summer Side of Life--Gordon Lightfoot, My heart says, higher, but I can't get my head around it.

   56. Kiko Sakata Posted: April 13, 2012 at 12:25 PM (#4105655)
I've put together my own system of Player won-lost records based on Retrosheet play-by-play data, and built a website for it here. I'll discuss it a bit in my next comment. This is my starting point for my preliminary ballot, which is here. I'll discuss this in a bit more detail in another comment below (I didn't want to overwhelm people with paragraphs and paragraphs in a single comment).

1. Joe Torre
2. Fergie Jenkins
3. Vida Blue
4. Tom Seaver
5. Jim Palmer
6. Willie Stargell
7. Roberto Clemente
8. Reggie Jackson
9. Wilbur Wood
10. Hank Aaron
11. Davey Johnson
12. Dick Dietz
13. Bert Campaneris
14. Don Sutton
15. Reggie Smith
16. Catfish Hunter
   57. Kiko Sakata Posted: April 13, 2012 at 12:30 PM (#4105661)
To try to explain my Player won-lost records, I calculate player won-lost records from play-by-play data. I calculate two sets, pWins, which tie to team wins and losses, and eWins, which adjust for context and teammate-quality. I then also calculate wins over positional average (WOPA), which I explain here and wins over replacement level (WORL), which I explain here.

My system's top 25 players in pWins/pWOPA/pWORL are here. My system's top 25 players in eWins/eWOPA/eWORL are here. The numbers in both of those lists include postseason games.
   58. Kiko Sakata Posted: April 13, 2012 at 12:37 PM (#4105669)
Given the two lists I link to in my last comment (Top 25 pWins, Top 25 eWins), I started with pWORL (pWins over Replacement Level) with a little bit of adjustments for WOPA (wins over positional average) and eWORL (expected wins - with context removed). The list ended up being very starting pitcher heavy - as others have noted. So, I downgraded starting pitchers in general a bit - which is how I get Torre ahead of Fergie.

I also gave extra credit for being the best player in the league at one's position - especially up-the-middle positions, which pushes Johnson (2B), Dietz (C), and Campaneris (SS) up the list a bit. I would have given a little boost for relief pitching, too, but the best relief pitcher according to my system is Ken Sanders, and he just wasn't that good.

Bobby Murcer and Willie Mays probably also deserve a close look as the two best CFs available. I might slot them in toward the bottom, maybe instead of Sutton and Hunter. I have to think about that.

I hope I'm not out of place bringing an entirely new system in here.
   59. DL from MN Posted: April 13, 2012 at 01:15 PM (#4105710)
55 - No love for Hunky Dory?!
   60. DL from MN Posted: April 13, 2012 at 01:19 PM (#4105713)
New systems are great. I have Murcer as the top position player in baseball so I agree that he needs consideration. I would be hesitant to downgrade pitchers just because they look good this year.

Do you do any adjustments for league strength?
   61. Kiko Sakata Posted: April 13, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4105730)
I would be hesitant to downgrade pitchers just because they look good this year.

Well, 4 of my top 5 are starting pitchers, so it's not a huge downgrade (more of a "tie-goes-to-the-position-player" thing).

I have Murcer as the top position player in baseball so I agree that he needs consideration.

I think I missed out on Murcer a bit in my initial list in #56. My system doesn't like his defense that year (-0.5 net fielding wins, which makes him the 3rd-worst fielding CF in MLB that year). Totalzone at BB-Ref seems to agree with me (-13 runs). But I have Murcer as a much better fielder in both 1970 and 1972 (top 5 in MLB both years), so I'm inclined to give him a little boost for that in 1971. I suspect he'll end up around #8 or so on my final ballot. If I give his fielding a little boost, he ends up really, really close to Clemente and Reggie Jackson.
   62. Kiko Sakata Posted: April 13, 2012 at 01:38 PM (#4105732)
Do you do any adjustments for league strength?

No. How much stronger is the NL this year? This is just a bit before my time.
   63. Rob_Wood Posted: April 14, 2012 at 07:20 PM (#4106726)
I think most analysts still have the NL the stronger league in 1971, but the difference is narrowing.

5-10% seems about right to me (though I may be on the high side of the consensus).
   64. lieiam Posted: April 14, 2012 at 09:08 PM (#4106761)
For me, 1971 was not a very good year for music, although a great year for me personally as I was born.
Still, for me, music was solid in the late 60s and then there's not that much until 1977 when punk rock was starting to go full steam. There's some stuff I like, but 1970-1976 there's not much compared to every year since (and the 5 or so years earlier).
I think I'd have to go with Songs Of Love And Hate by Leonard Cohen.
   65. sunnyday2 Posted: April 14, 2012 at 10:16 PM (#4106788)
Well, that's embarrassing. I love Leonard, and Songs of Love and Hate, along with The Future, are his best work. I did not have Love and Hate on my list of 1971 releases. For me I guess it would be #2 after Meddle. Much of Love and Hate was recorded live at the Isle of Wight, as I now know since the release of Leonard Cohen Live at the Isle of Wight. Great great stuff. I saw Leonard live myself for the 1st time about a year-and-a-half ago. One of the best.

As to Hunky Dory, no, sorry. I would be more likely to add Lola and Powerman to the list if it came to that.
   66. Howie Menckel Posted: April 15, 2012 at 09:53 PM (#4107353)

weird year: of the 9 men with 150 or better adj OPS+s, only 2 played more than 146 G - Torre (185 OPS+, 161 G) and Dick Allen (151 OPS+, 155 G). and both have big defensive issues. 5 of the 9 didn't even reach 140 G.

   67. Rob_Wood Posted: April 15, 2012 at 11:08 PM (#4107382)
Per TomH, I just located my "Win Values" research in which I valued all starting pitchers in each league using a new game-by-game methodology I developed (it is in the spirit of Win Probability Added). More details to follow. Anyway, I have my Win Values stat for each season in 1974-2001, so it will be awhile before I post Win Value stats in the respective discussion threads.
   68. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: April 15, 2012 at 11:17 PM (#4107387)
1. Meddle--Pink Floyd. Their best work, yes, ahead of Dark Side.

I love Meddle, but I like Obscured By Clouds more. Free Four and Wot's, Uh the Deal are probably my 2 favorite Floyd tracks, and Childhood's End is up there as well.
   69. Dag Nabbit: secretary of the World Banana Forum Posted: April 15, 2012 at 11:31 PM (#4107389)
As I started to say elsewhere 1971 was the greatest year ever for rock and roll. Just had to share.

Concur. There's also Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs by Derek and the Dominoes.
   70. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: April 15, 2012 at 11:40 PM (#4107399)
As I started to say elsewhere 1971 was the greatest year ever for rock and roll. Just had to share.

Concur. There's also Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs by Derek and the Dominoes.


Electric Warrior by T Rex

Muswell Hillbillies by the Kinks

Pearl By Janis Joplin

   71. Rob_Wood Posted: April 16, 2012 at 01:15 AM (#4107427)
Oh jeez, 1971 in pop/rock. Here are a few others that I fervently remember:

The Doors LA Woman (the first album I ever bought)

Santana III

Carole King Tapestry

Rod Stewart Every Picture Tells A Story

Traffic Low Spark of High Heeled Boys

Bread If

   72. Dag Nabbit: secretary of the World Banana Forum Posted: April 16, 2012 at 01:26 AM (#4107432)
More 1971:

Master of Reality album by Sabbath.

Lake Shore Drive single by ALiotta, Haynes & Jeremiah.

Hunky Dory album by Bowie.

Killer album by Alice Cooper

Strange Kind of Woman single by Deep Purple

A Nod Is As Good as a WInk to a Blind Horse by The Faces (featuring Stay w/ Me). Actually, they also had Long Player that year, too.

the Theme from Shaft. Can ya dig it?

Madman Across the Water album by Elton John

Do You Know What I Mean? by one hit wonder Lee Michaels.

Tupelo Honey ablum by Van Morrison (Wild Nights)

It Don't Come Easy single by Ringo

Just My Imagination by The Temptations
   73. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: April 16, 2012 at 01:32 AM (#4107437)
A huge proportion of the music referenced in this thread strikes me as . . . less than my favorite music.

I would take 1977:

Television, Marquee Moon
Cheap Trick, self-titled
Iggy Pop, The Idiot, Lust for Life
The Clash, self-titled
Elvis Costello, My Aim Is True
Talking Heads 77
Richard Hell & the Voidoids, Blank Generation
Sex Pistols, Nevermind the Bollocks . . .
The Jam, This Is the Modern World
Suicide, self-titled
Wire, Pink Flag

And that's just the stone classics. Considerably more listenable than 1971.
   74. bjhanke Posted: April 16, 2012 at 01:53 AM (#4107441)
Sunnyday (and Mizerlou and Rob Wood) -

I'm probably a bit older than you (born 1947), so my choices for the best albums by the acid rock groups on your list (I'm not into folk or ballad stuff at all, although I can tell when it's really well done, like Leonard Cohen and Yes) are all earlier. I'd have:

Zep - I
Tull - Benefit
Who - Tommy (The Who is my absolute favorite band of all time. Due to blind luck, I even go all the way back to their first single, "Can't Explain." I have a copy of that, and of "Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere" as the original 1964 SINGLES, I'm so obsessive.)
Mothers - We're only in it for the Money
Clapton - Live Cream, vol. II
Kinks - Preservation Society
Santana - II
The Doors - II
I don't have any Janis Joplin albums, but I have both Big Brother ones....

And I'll concede almost any Traffic album if you concede that Blind Faith may be Winwood's best work, just because of the "supporting cast."

Also, to me, it's "Jesse Colin Young and the Youngbloods", because Jesse was demanding that when I first got into them in 1967-8 or so ("Darkness, Darkness", to be exact). That was my strongest indication that you're not QUITE as old as I am.

Firesign Theater, BTW, is the one and only deliberately stoner comedy group I have ever heard. By "stoner comedy group", I mean that, if you're straight, the timing seems off and the albums aren't really that funny. Then, you get stoned (doesn't work with psychedelics, just with pot), and you're rolling on the ground with tears coming out of your eyes at "Nick Danger, Third Eye." Apparently, this was deliberate on their part, just like Cheech and Chong humor is deliberately timed for some of the gags to work better if you're stoned, but others work better if you're straight. So, Theater is the only one whose WHOLE albums are deliberate stoner work. Not, mind you, that I would actually suggest to anyone that they get hold of a copy of one of their albums and actually ingest illegal substances or anything.

And still, my best memories are not of albums, but of such 1968-9 concerts as
Joe Cocker AND Led Zeppelin AND The Who
Iron Butterfly AND Big Brother

Really. Those are two concert bills. They don't group A-list acts together like that any more. Costs too much, I assume.

Tull played some odd shows. I saw them at the Washington University Field House, where they had to play for five hours, exhausting their catalog and getting into Ian's earlier folk work, because they were technically opening for Ramsey Lewis, and Ramsey's plane was delayed. Show finally ended at 3 am.

- Brock Hanke (unreconstructed 1960s hippie). - BOY, were these posts off topic.
   75. sunnyday2 Posted: April 16, 2012 at 07:20 AM (#4107482)
Have to admit I have not heard the term acid rock much lately.... Agree that Blind Faith is Winwood's best work. BTW I saw Blind Faith close the show on Friday night and Led Zeppelin on Saturday night at the Milwaukee Pop Festival in 1969. Zeppelin was much much better. Jethro Tull was even better live.

Pink Floyd's Obscured by Clouds is pretty obscure, but I do have a copy and Wot's, Uh the Deal is hilarious. Still I would say 1) Meddle, 2) Dark Side, 3) The Wall.

As to Firesign Theatre, yup, you got it, except

doesn't work with psychedelics

That is incorrect.

As to Voxter's list from 1977, obviously there is a generational break in between there somewhere, though I do count myself as a Talking Heads fan. Remain in Light would be their best work, however. The Great Curve, specifically.
   76. Delorians Posted: April 16, 2012 at 09:33 AM (#4107541)
'Welcome Delorians. Please post a preliminary ballot here by 4/16.'

I have not been able to devote time to this yet; I will have to pass on this election and hopefully catch up next 'year'.
   77. DL from MN Posted: April 16, 2012 at 09:45 AM (#4107552)
A huge proportion of the music referenced in this thread strikes me as . . . less than my favorite music.

Agree. I'll take Hunky Dory over 2/3 of what has been referenced. I like the Who, Zeppelin, Stones, Marvin Gaye and Zappa but wouldn't mind at all if I went the rest of my life without hearing Don McLean.
   78. OCF Posted: April 16, 2012 at 11:09 AM (#4107629)
I was a high school senior and college freshman in 1971, so those sound a little bit familiar. But to be honest, I wasn't the one playing that stuff in the house. That would have been my older sister, so I'm probably more familiar with songs from 1968 or 1969.
   79. DL from MN Posted: April 16, 2012 at 11:57 AM (#4107717)
Oh - feel free to continue the off-topic music discussion in future threads for future years. Just wait until after we start the balloting.
   80. sunnyday2 Posted: April 16, 2012 at 03:26 PM (#4108089)
I don't really care all that much about hearing Don McLean again either, but this is about hearing him in 1971. American Pie of course got people's attention but then it was the other stuff that really stuck out. Vincent, Crossroads.

But obviously my claim that 1971 was the greatest year ever for rock and roll hardly depends on Don McLean, either.

P.S. Layla would of course be right near the top of the list (#2-3-4?) but it was released in December 1970. Granted that people were listening to it in 1971. But I did not have it on my 1971 list for that reason.
   81. bjhanke Posted: April 16, 2012 at 10:56 PM (#4108546)
Sunnyday says, "As to Firesign Theatre, yup, you got it, except

doesn't work with psychedelics

That is incorrect."

Huh. I tried mescaline, and couldn't stay focused on the album. Maybe less mescaline would have helped.

To me, Pink Floyd is a band headed by their founder (name won't come to me, "See Emily Play" is the song). When he left the band, the news did not leak out that he was in an asylum, so everybody I knew thought that the band had thrown him out for some reason. Made us all mad as hell, and most of us have trouble with Floyd after that. Sort of like Genesis after Peter Gabriel; I can't get into it, although I can get into Peter Gabriel's solo work any time, and I know that the split was at least partially Peter's fault.

If I could reliably sort out which albums are 1966, 67, 68, and 69, I might have a "best year ever." Instead, I just have a "best 5-year prime, 1965-69." Of course, everything for me is messed up by the FIRST time I heard each band, which meant the first time I'd ever heard anything like that band. Jimi Hendrix, for example, is The Experience to me, although I know full well that Electric Ladyland is the album you want if you want his best. There's just no way to overcome the FIRST time I heard Purple Haze.

Blind Faith, I agree, did not concert well. They were too busy trying to be precise, keeping up with Rick Grech's idea of timekeeping. But even Zep is not a band I'd put on a list of bands who concert much better than they record. Vanilla Fudge was wonderful on stage. So was Canned Heat. Blue Cheer was jaw-dropping. Their albums, now, are almost unlistenable, unless you're one of the metalheads who regard Cheer (very likely correctly) as the first metal-sounding band. The Dead, of course, but the concert was their entire thing.

And DL - Thanks. I promise not to go off on this tangent again except on a discussion thread AFTER the ballot thread has already gone up. - Brock
   82. DL from MN Posted: April 16, 2012 at 11:29 PM (#4108566)
Syd Barrett is the name you're trying to recall
   83. bjhanke Posted: April 17, 2012 at 03:47 AM (#4108639)
Why, yes, Syd is! Thanks. It's weird to think that there are two people on a baseball site who know who Syd Barrett is/was. And again, it's really the "first hearing" thing. For those of you who don't know, those of us who were actually music-aware by, say, 1966, spent the next five years getting our socks blown off by band after new band, with sounds we'd never heard before. There's no serious way to explain plunking down Jimi Hendrix's Are You Experienced if you'd never heard ANYTHING by Jimi before. But that lasted for only about a year. After that, anyone who bought their first Hendrix album had heard something by him on the radio, so the album wasn't so jaw-dropping. The same is true of most of the really good acid rock bands: Airplane, Doors, Iron Butterfly, Big Brother, Cream, etc. These people had been developing music in San Francisco or elsewhere since 1964, but it was only in 1966 that we in the midwest got to hear any of it. I just bought any album with one of "those" covers, assuming that I'd hear something I'd never dreamt of in my life. That particular period (67-68) is unique for that. Even in 1969, when I first heard Sun Ra, who is about as weird a jazz man as you can get, it didn't blow me away like that. I'd already heard a cut on KSHE radio, the acid rock station in STL, and which is now far too mainstream to play Sun Ra.

So, for me, Syd Barrett IS Pink Floyd. Floyd without Barrett is a band I heard on the radio that didn't sound like they did when they'd first blown my socks off. See Emily Play blew my socks off. Let me be clear here: The bias is silly. Pink Floyd has been an A-list band forever. But, because of the exact timing, it will always be Syd's band to ME. Anything else sounds just a little off. In the same way, Genesis, to me, IS Peter Gabriel in a fungus suit. I know they've been a great band for years after he left, but you only get one FIRST chance to blow my socks off. - Brock
   84. sunnyday2 Posted: April 17, 2012 at 07:37 AM (#4108664)
Apropos of Brock's thing about the FIRST time you heard somebody: The most shocking (in a good way) "experience" I ever had of that sort was hearing King Crimson's "21st Century Schizoid Man." Having never heard anything by King Crimson ever before in my life, that was the most mind-blowing new music ever. 2nd on that scale but in a different way, "Sultans of Swing." 3rd would be the 1st time I ever heard the Beatles which would have been "Please Please Me" I think in mid-1963, 6 months or so before the Ed Sullivan appearance. The most totally unexpected mind-blowing live show I ever saw (not the best but the most surprising) was the Allman Brothers, about whom I knew almost nothing when I saw them in between Xmas and New Year's 1969 along with a "crowd" of about 75 other people at the old Labor Temple in Minneapolis. (Springsteen would be #2 on that list, 1975 Born to Run tour.) And make that 3 who knew you were taking about Syd Barrett. Personally I think Pink Floyd came into their own after Barrett's departure and the subsequent liberation of Roger Waters and David Gilmour.
   85. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: April 17, 2012 at 07:51 AM (#4108669)
I kind of think that Pink Floyd stopped being good when Syd Barrett had his freakout.
   86. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: April 17, 2012 at 09:19 AM (#4108707)
And make that 3 who knew you were taking about Syd Barrett.

4, or maybe 5.

I'm too young (48) to have had your Syd Barrett experience. I first became aware of Floyd with dark Side, but have since come to appreciate (slightly) earlier stuff. Still can't get into most pre-Meddle tracks, the occasional See Emily Play, Astronomie Dominie, and Lucifer Sam notwithstanding. I've tried Atom Heart Mother, Ummagamma, Saucerfull... and just can't get into it.
   87. DL from MN Posted: April 17, 2012 at 09:58 AM (#4108720)
Pink Floyd stopped being good

No, they were still good but they clearly were not the same band.

Most of the bands I really like I didn't get or didn't like the first time I heard them. It is rare for me to be "ready" for a band that is one of my favorites.
   88. bjhanke Posted: April 17, 2012 at 03:03 PM (#4109024)
DL - That insight - about being "ready" for a band, is a TRULY important one in discussing how hippies approached acid rock when it first got going. The hippie mantra (well, MY hippie mantra, there were many) was "question authority." This included being open to ANY type of music. That was the actual driving force behind acid rock. You could go to a concert or festival and see a bill with the likes of Taj Majal followed by Linda Ronstadt and the Stone Ponies followed by The Who or somebody. I'm no jazz fan - it's beyond my musical ear - but I sure loved me that Sun Ra, and jazz people tell me that Sun Ra is to Ordette Coleman what Coleman is to John Coltrane, who is a REALLY advanced and weird jazz man. All I knew was that it was something I had never heard the likes of before. But that mental preset of being as open as possible to any type of music is a fundamental characteristic of people in college in and around 1967. If you understand that deliberately forced openness, you pretty much understand 1960s hippies. All you're missing, really, is the politics of civil rights and the Vietnam War, which is where questioning authority got its start. The psychedelic drugs were simply a way to get more and more open - "expand" your mind.

Sunnyday - You are SO right about King Crimson. I'm not really into their entire type of music (don't like, say, Emerson, Lake and Palmer, which is very similar), but "Schizoid Man" was certainly one of the tunes that blew my socks off because I'd never heard anything like it before. And your point about Floyd is correct, except for those of us who got their concept of what that band sounded like fixed by the first Syd Barrett album. The band obviously got better and better over the years, but I can't wean myself from Syd. Nor can I deal with Janis Joplin work after Big Brother. These are not correct musical opinions of the artists, but they are fixed opinions in my mind, just because of the timing. As DL says, they just weren't the same band.

- Brock
   89. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: April 17, 2012 at 03:12 PM (#4109034)
Just came back from a walk. Put Meddle on my iPod, and I've gotta say, Echoes is a terrific walking song. Just zone out and Bam, you've gone 2 miles.
   90. Yardape Posted: April 17, 2012 at 04:27 PM (#4109086)
I'm an on-again, off-again voter. I last voted in 1966, I think. I've been busy finishing up my master's degree, but I'm basically done now. So, I can submit a ballot. If you want to consider me a new voter, and so that therefore I've missed the prelim deadline, that's fine, and I'll start working on 1972. In the meantime, here's my prelim.

1. Tom Seaver A strong year of pitchers, and Seaver was the best.
2. Ferguson Jenkins
3. Vida Blue A strong postseason might have boosted him above Fergie.
4. Wilbur Wood
5. Willie Stargell Postseason play makes him the top position player, IMO
6. Roy White
7. Mickey Lolich
8. Bobby Murcer
9. Dave Roberts
10. Sonny Siebert
11. Roberto Clemente Another guy who benefits from a strong postseason performance.
12. Bobby Bonds

Wow, that is a pitcher-heavy ballot. Hank Aaron, Joe Torre, Graig Nettles and Willie Mays are among the closest who missed the ballot.
   91. DL from MN Posted: April 17, 2012 at 04:43 PM (#4109103)
Go ahead and vote, Yardape.
   92. sunnyday2 Posted: April 17, 2012 at 07:10 PM (#4109164)
I have a list dated 1999 of the top 100 songs of the rock era.

1. Desolation Row
2. Echoes
3. Us and Them
4. Little Red Corvette
5. Good Vibrations

Comfortably Numb is #12, Layla is #15, What's Going On is #18.
   93. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: April 17, 2012 at 08:16 PM (#4109224)
No, they were still good but they clearly were not the same band.

Or, alternately, they were terrible. I'm not a purist -- I just think Pink Floyd sucks.
   94. lieiam Posted: April 17, 2012 at 11:13 PM (#4109342)
Yeah, add me onto the Syd Barrett fan on a baseball site list!
My two favorite albums from 1970 have to be The Madcap Laughs and Barrett.
And EASILY my favorite Pink Floyd album is Piper At The Gates Of Dawn.
   95. bjhanke Posted: April 18, 2012 at 01:44 PM (#4109750)
#92 -

Those lists always drive me nuts. Either you get a list of songs by people who haven't heard all the old stuff (I, being a geezer, have never even heard of the top three on the list, that I remember), or you get a list of songs whose pioneering performance is at least as important as the song's formal musical quality. Being unable to judge formal music (I am slightly tone deaf), but going back to 1960 as a full-time rock fan, and having heard everything on some oldies show or other, I have this list, heavily weighted by the importance and influence of the song:

1. Good Vibrations (Brian Wilson, Van Dyke Parks, et al, operating under the name "Beach Boys")
2. Roll Over, Beethoven (Chuck Berry, perfectly summing up the attitude of rock and roll)
3. National Anthem / Purple Haze (The Jimi Hendrix Experience, demonstrating for the first time what you can do if you view playing electric guitar as an exercise in pushing electrons around, rather than just playing an instrument)
4. Now I Wanna Be Your Dog (Iggy and the Stooges - which was what they called themselves in 1969, inventing stripped down punk. Of course, all punk really derives from Louie Louie and Wild Thing in the final analysis)
5. Closer (Nine Inch Nails, showing what you can do using effects boards as instruments themselves, if you can combine industrial, funk, and a ballad)

A formal musician would probably only include my #1, but the others were groundbreaking as well as just plain good. - Brock
   96. fra paolo Posted: April 18, 2012 at 01:49 PM (#4109758)
People will remember the scandal I created when I revealed my system said Tony Perez was one of the better 3B with the glove in the 1969 NL. Well, in 1971 he did it again. He led NL 3Bs in Assists.

By the stats, he appears to be a better fielder than his reputation.
   97. DL from MN Posted: April 18, 2012 at 05:25 PM (#4109971)
Balloting has been extended by 1 day. Any of these voters are eligible to participate.

Rick A
Al Peterson
Dan R
John Murphy
   98. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 18, 2012 at 07:00 PM (#4110040)
Prelim (no postseason bonuses; no AL deductions any more):

1) Joe Torre
2) Bobby Murcer
3) Fergie Jenkins
4) Tom Seaver
5) Willie Stargell
6) Wilbur Wood
7) Hank Aaron
8) Vida Blue
9) Bobby Bonds
10) Reggie Jackson
   99. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 18, 2012 at 07:14 PM (#4110056)
11) Rusty Staub
12) Tug McGraw
   100. sunnyday2 Posted: April 18, 2012 at 11:41 PM (#4110275)
I, being a geezer, have never even heard of the top three on the list,


1. Bob Dylan from Hwy 61, 1965
2. Pink Floyd, 1971
3. Pink Floyd, 1972
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.



<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF


Thanks to
for his generous support.


You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.


Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats





Page rendered in 1.2606 seconds
49 querie(s) executed