Thought I should get this up before the postseason for prelims.

Wow, I'm surprised that Trout and Kershaw finished dead even in bWAR. I came over here expecting to be in line for a Kershaw coronation; guess it'll be a fight after all.

I feel icky even posting Win Shares for 2014. The metric is just so obviously wrong on pitcher value.

For those interested in advanced stats for catchers, because it may matter:

Per BP, Lucroy is the #1 defensive catcher in MLB, with 185 extra strike calls worth 27.5 FR runs added by calls. He's also close to average at passed balls/wild pitches, giving back only 0.4 runs there.

Martin is ranked #3,with 154 extra strikes, worth 23 fr runs gifting back 2.1 runs in PB/WP.

Posey's #9, a decent framer worth 15 extra strikes for 18.6 fr runs added by call giving back 2.3 in PB/WP.

Sorry-that entry for Posey should say 125 extra strikes

Some RA+ equivalent records.

Old style (not including team defense):

F. Hernandez: 18-9
Kluber: 17-9
Sale: 14-6
Sherzer: 15-9
Keuchel: 14-8
Richards: 12-6

Kershaw: 17-5 (OK hitter)
Cueto: 22-7 (weaker hitter)
Wainwright: 17-8 (OK hitter)
Hamels: 15-7 (OK hitter)
Bumgarner: 13-11 (great hitter, for a pitcher)

Bumgarner's pitching stats do not rank with the likes of Kershaw or Cueto, but I included him just so I could comment on his 113 OPS+.

I have a newer style, which does acknowledge defensive support and quality of teams faced. I'm not sure I completely trust it.

Kluber: 18-8
Hernandez: 18-8
Sale: 14-5
Scherzer: 16-8
Keuchel: 14-8
Richards: 12-6

Kershaw: 17-5
Hamels: 16-7
Cueto: 18-10
Wainwright: 16-9
Bumgarner: 14-10 (with the same comments about hitting as above)

I saw a letter to the editor to the LA Times that basically said, "Yes, Kershaw had a good year, but don't you dare compare him to Koufax. I saw Koufax and there's no comparison." I'm trying to piece together possible reactions to such a sentiment; I don't have all the evidence I want yet.

Best in the bullpen.

DL - I'm not completely sure I get your reasoning in comment #3. Win Shares says that the best 4 pitchers were Wainwright, Cueto, Kluber, and Kershaw. Kershaw is probably dropped some because he didn't pitch quite as many innings as Wainwright or Cueto. I don't agree with Win Shares on this - I think Kershaw is the clear NL Cy Young - but it's not totally out of whack. WAR has Kershaw first, which is a plus, but Wainwright 4th, and Cueto 8th. If forced to use one of the two ordinals, I'd choose Win Shares on this one. But I don't see any real, serious problem with either system's top group, except that I just don't buy Cueto as low as 8th. What is the horror that you're seeing? - Brock Hanke

I think he is talking about the relative value of the pitchers to the hitters. Kershaw has the same WAR as trout but half the Win Shares.

Personally I go Kershaw over Trout here.

shoewizard - You may be right about DL's issue, and I thank you for bringing it up. Many years ago (in the 1990s), I realized that there were a lot of things in baseball that followed similar curves over time. That curve starts out very high (or very low), and drops (or rises) very quickly until it "turns the corner" at about 1900, whereupon it continues, but much more slowly. Fielding percentage does that, so strongly that I tend to use it as my example of the "canonical" curve. Actually, with fielding percentage, there's an actual asymptote for the curve - 1.000. You can't make any fewer errors than zero, so the gain is very slow now. Regarding pitchers, there are two curves, working against each other. One is the drop in the number of IP in a pitcher season. This got as high as 680 (Will White, 1879, IIRC), but now it's not common to see anyone get over 250. The curve working the other way is the percentage of the game that is pitching, as opposed to hitting and fielding. Hitting (offense) is half the game. Defense is the other half. Because of the continual rise in the Three True Outcomes, more of modern defense is pitching and less of it is fielding. But the change in the percentage of the game that is pitching has been much slower than the drop in the number of IP that individual pitchers accumulate now.

What you end up with is the oddity of pitchING being more important to the game than ever, but the value of an individual pitchER is lower, and that drop has been much more sharp than the rise in the importance of pitchING. Because I've been working with this idea for about 25 years now, and it's held up as far as I can tell, I agree with Win Shares that individual pitchers are not as valuable as they used to be. You can track this, in almost any system, by checking the WAR, Win Shares or whatever that the best pitchers have compared to individual hitters. In the 1800s, the MVP of a league was almost certainly a pitcher, and it was not uncommon for the top 3 or 4 figures to be pitchers. But that drops as you pass through the 20th century, one of the results of which is that pitchers have pretty much stopped winning MVP awards (one of the reasons why the Cy Young award has become a bigger deal than it was to start with. Since pitchers are almost never win MVPs any more, it makes sense to give an award to the best pitcher).

Regarding this year, what I strongly suspect has happened is that Win Shares has weighed Wainwright and Cueto's IP advantages over Kershaw (which are significant) higher than Kershaw's performance per start (which is also significant). I think this is probably going too far. But that's not the question you raised. That question is whether the top pitchers pitched enough innings to compile as much value as the best hitters. I think those days are gone, so I actually didn't consider that the pitcher/hitter issue might be what DL was thinking of, until I read your comment. It's worth noting that an increase in schedule length favors individual hitters more than individual pitchers. Pitchers have a limit, different for each pitcher, but still a limit as to how many IP they can throw. There is nothing similar in hitting. Hitters can play every game, hit leadoff, and not end up in Tommy John land. That, too, is part of why the best hitters have gained ground on the best pitchers.

So that's where I'm coming from, but I probably should shut up now, at least until DL has had a chance to respond. - Brock Hanke

My big issue is Wade Davis scoring as high as Cole Hamels or Zach Britton as high as Madison Bumgarner. Win Shares is stealing value from starters and assigning it to relievers with it's crappy leverage bonuses.

DL - So neither I nor shoe wizard identified your problem there. Well, that was a pretty serious fail. Regarding the leverage bonus for relievers, I'm inclined to think you may be right, especially when it comes to top starters. In general, over a season, your top starters will leave a less-leveraged situation than your other starters, because the top guys get taken out of games after 7 innings, with the team ahead 6-2 or something, while the weak pitchers tend to leave after 4-6 innings, with the score 6-4 or something (and yes, I'm exaggerating for effect, and should mention that top starters also have fewer games where they leave when the team is behind than other starters). Weaker pitchers don't have that happen nearly as often. So I think that the leverage amount, no matter how you calculate it, should be adjusted for what leverage the starter left for the reliever to swipe. Good pitchers will end up with better numbers because they leave less leverage, and the weaker ones will have weaker numbers, because they leave more leverage behind them as they exit to the showers. The result will be that the top starters - the ones we look at here in the MMP - will catch up a little to the top hitters. Thanks for being polite in the process of telling me and shoe wizard that we were barking up the wrong trail. - Brock Hanke

Just looking roughly at the ratios it looks like it would be appropriate to multiply relief win shares by 3/4 and starter win shares by 4/3. The better way to do it would be to recalculate without the leverage bonuses.

Win Shares is scoring all the Cardinals higher because they outperformed their runs created / prevented.

DL - I'm not qualified to comment on just how much leverage bonus relievers should receive. I do, however, think that there is a separate issue, which is how much leverage a pitcher leaves the game with. That was what I was talking about. I've never seen that issue discussed before, and I thought maybe you had done that.

I very much agree with your last sentence. When I read Win Shares, I realized that, to use a hackneyed term, a paradigm had shifted in sabermetrics. Before that, you would do the best to match your formula's team runs scored to the actual runs scored by the team, but if there was a difference, you just went with your formula's numbers. Essentially, this is pretending that all the difference between your method and the actual results is due to luck, none to skill. Win Shares attributes those differences entirely to skill, nothing to luck. Neither, of course, is right, but, you know, welcome to statistics. If you could rigorously prove sabermetric stuff, you wouldn't be doing statistics any more. If you are doing statistics, you are inevitably going to run across differences, and you're going to have to decide what to do about them. Bill, in Win Shares, decided to try something that, as far as I know, no one had done before. I wasn't real sure about that, although I realized that, without it, Bill's defense numbers could not be made to work. However, as sabermetrics matures, the differences are going to get smaller and smaller, as people figure things out and can accurately account for them. This means that the percentage of the remaining differences that is due to skill is going down, leaving a higher percentage due to luck. So time is working against the Win Shares paradigm. I just don't know of any really reliable method for dealing with fielding. Win Shares seems to be about the best we have. - Brock

2014 Prelim Ballot

1. Mike Trout, CF, Los Angeles Angels: 167 OPS+ and AL-leading 137 runs created; edges out Kershaw by doing a lot of the little things (+2 baserunning, +2 avoiding double plays)
2. Clayton Kershaw, P, Los Angeles Dodgers: 197 ERA+ in 198 innings; a decent shot at first overall despite only playing for five months
3. Andrew McCutchen, CF, Pittsburgh Pirates: NL-leading 168 OPS+ and 130 runs created

When I first ran the numbers, I actually had Trout third behind Kershaw and McCutchen which, while unusual, seemed within the realm of possibility. Then, while posting the prelim, I noticed that I had a simple addition error. Based on the corrected math, Mike Trout should be first.

4. Felix Hernandez, P, Seattle Mariners: 170 ERA+ in 236 innings
5. Jonathan Lucroy, C, Milwaukee Brewers: 132 OPS+ and 101 Runs Created with +11 from behind the plate
6. Johnny Cueto, P, Cincinnati Reds: 160 ERA+ in 243 innings
7. Giancarlo Stanton, RF, Miami Marlins: 160 OPS+ and 120 Runs Created despite an early end to his season
8. Victor Martinez, DH, Detroit Tigers: while the mainstream press focused on his pursuit of the batting title, Martinez put up an AL second best OPS+ of 168 and RC of 126
9. Jose Altuve, 2B, Houston Astros: beat Martinez for the batting title, but makes the ballot on the strength of 134 OPS+, 114 RC and +8 baserunning
10. Adrian Beltre, 3B, Texas Rangers
11. Jose Abreu, 1B, Chicago White Sox: Altuve, Beltre and Abreu ended up tied after my initial ranking so they're listed on the ballot based on position
12. Adam Wainwright, P, St. Louis Cardinals: 154 ERA+ in 227 innings
13. Michael Brantley, LF/CF, Cleveland Indians: this year's most unsung/underrated player; 154 OPS+ and 122 runs created
14. Corey Kluber, P, Cleveland Indians: 152 ERA+ in 235 innings
15. Jose Bautista, RF, Toronto Blue Jays

16. Troy Tulowitzki, SS, Colorado Rockies: a 171 OPS+ in little more than half a season
17. Buster Posey, C, San Francisco Giants
18. Robinson Cano, 2B, Seattle Mariners
19. Jon Lester, P, Boston/Oakland
20. Chris Sale, P, Chicago White Sox
21. Anthony Rendon, 3B/2B, Washington Nationals
22. Anthony Rizzo, 1B, Chicago Cubs
23. Wade Davis, RP, Kansas City Royals- a better year for set-up men than closers (see also Betances)
24. Russell Martin, C, Pittsburgh Pirates
25. Josh Donaldson, 3B, Oakland Athletics

Here's my ranking; I've adjusted pitchers up a bit because I think they're too low based on my lacking access to numbers I usually use.

1 Trout, Mike 9969
2 Kershaw, Clayton 8075
3 McCutcheon, Andrew 8065
4 Brantley, Michael 7779
5 Kluber, Corey 7733
6 Lucroy, Jonathan 7569
7 Stanton, Giancarlo 7551
8 Cano, Robinson 7478
9 Donaldson, Josh 7259
10 Posey, Buster 7226
11 Hernandez, Felix 7178
12 Bautista, Jose 7165
13 Beltre, Adrian 7138
14 Abreu, Jose 7024
15 Altuve, Jose 6991

16 Rendon, Anthony 6856
17 Rizzo, Anthony 6838
18 Wainwright, Adam 6836
19 Martinez, Victor 6757
20 Gordon, Alex 6622

Where do you rank Cueto?

Cueto comes in 21st in my current assortment of systems for 2014... (I may make additional adjustments on my final ballot... if I find/make the time).

2014 prelim

Still sorting out the off-ballot but it looks like this so far

1) Mike Trout - closer to the pack than the last two years but still the best player in baseball
2) Jonathon Lucroy - Any larger C bonus makes him #1. Very close to Trout because of Trout's middling CF defense
3) Clayton Kershaw - best P, needs more IP.
4) Corey Kluber - lots of IP
5) Josh Donaldson - good D
6) Adrian Beltre
7) Russell Martin
8) Cole Hamels
9) Andrew McCutchen
10) Chris Sale
11) Felix Hernandez
12) Michael Brantley - never heard of this guy before this year
13) Johnny Cueto
14) Buster Posey - several good C this year
15) Robinson Cano

16-20) Adam Wainwright, Anthony Rendon, Jhonny Peralta, Jose Altuve, Troy Tulowitzki
21-24) Max Scherzer, Giancarlo Stanton, Devin Mesoraco, Alex Gordon

This is Brock Hanke’s FINAL Ballot for 2014. I need to do this now so that I can shove all my baseball time into the Hall of Merit. DL, thanks for putting this discussion thread up even before the post-season is over, and also thanks for being willing to do things like shuttling someone’s ballot from the Discussion to the Ballot thread (obviously, there are no adjustments for the post-season here).

As probably everybody knows by now, I start by taking the lists that DL puts up in the Discussion thread header, sort them by WAR and then by Win Shares, add together the two ordinals from those sorts, and then tweak. I’ve been complaining for some “years” now about WAR ranking pitchers much higher than Win Shares does, because I agree with Win Shares on this topic.

My general opinion is that I think there have been two trends throughout baseball history that affect pitchers. One is that the value of pitchING has slowly increased, tracking Three True Outcomes. The other is that the number of innings that ONE pitcher can handle in a season has been going down. I am firmly of the opinion that the trend lowering individual innings has overtaken the trend towards pitching having more value, all of which is stolen from fielding. WAR does not seem to agree with me.

There are other differences between the two systems, and this year, they were as wide as ever, perhaps even wider. WAR, for example, has Clayton Kershaw tied for the MVP award in all of baseball, with Mike Trout. That would make Kershaw the NL MVP. Unless I’ve just missed someone (possible), the last pitcher to win a MVP was Dennis Eckersley, with Oakland, in a decision that I think no one agrees with any more. Before that, there is Roger Clemens, who does have a case because he pitched boatloads of innings, Vida Blue, whose case is much dicier, and then Bob Gibson. Gibson holds an odd record that year, 1968. Most people think the record is for lowest ERA by a non-19th century full-time starter. This is false. That record belongs to Three-Finger Brown. Gibson’s record is for the lowest ERA by a non-19th century player PITCHING OVER 300 INNINGS. Kershaw pitched nothing like 300 innings, since it is no longer the late 1960s or the early 1970s. In fact, Win Shares, which places more value on IP than WAR does, ranks Kershaw right behind Adam Wainwright and Johnny Cueto. Kershaw certainly pitched better than those two per IP, but both of them had significantly more IP than Kershaw. I do think that Win Shares has gone wrong a little here, and that Kershaw did have more impact than Wainwright or Cueto, but large season IP differences are hard to ignore. WAR says that Chris Sale is the 8th best player, at any position, in all of baseball this year. Sale pitched 174 innings all year. They were one hell of a 174 IP, but still, that’s a REALLY light workoad to be competing with Jonathon Lucroy and Andrew McCutcheon, who bookend Sale.

There are some equally wide splits among position players, but I’m not willing to go down through the whole list. Instead, as I’ve done before, I’m going to make my list, and follow each player’s name with his Win Shares ordinal, his WAR ordinal, and the sum of those two. Might make for fun disagreements, but those will have to wait until the HoM ballot is done. Anyway, enough of this: here’s the ballot.

1. Mike Trout 1+1 = 2
2. Andrew McCutcheon 2+9 = 11
3. Michael Brantley 6+5 = 11
4. Giancarlo Stanton 5+10 = 15
5. Josh Donaldson 15+3 = 18
6. Robinson Cano 3+15 = 18
7. Jonathon Lucroy 13+7 = 20
8. Adrian Beltre 16+6 = 22
9. Jose Altuve 4+20 = 24
10. Anthony Rendon 17+11 = 28
11. Kyle Seager 10+22 = 32
12. Jose Bautista 11+23 = 33
13. Clayton Kershaw 35+2 = 27 (best NL pitcher)
14. Jose Abreu 7+30 = 37
15. Corey Kluber 34+4 = 38 (best AL pitcher)

The next ten would be, in order: Victor Martinez, Alex Gordon, Adam Wainwright, Yasiel Puig, Buster Posey tied with Johnny Peralta, then Johnny Cueto tied with Howard Kendrick, then Jason Heyward, and Felix Hernandez. NOTE: Win Shares REALLY doesn’t like Chris Sale’s IP, and it REALLY, REALLY doesn’t like Cole Hamels, for reasons I’m not sure of, compared to where WAR has him (14th).

In case it matters to those who care about down the stretch stats, post AS break, Posey went .354/.403/.575 with a wOBP of .425 and a league leading 181 wRC+.

Bumgarner is making his way up my list of pitchers. Lots of postseason IP.

Can anyone give me a rough WAR/WAA estimate of what Bumgarner's innings would be worth if they're added to his regular season totals?

Question for HOM voters who give extra credit for post season:

Is it like bonus questions on a test where you can increase your grade getting them right, but it doesnt hurt your score getting them wrong ?

Does Kershaws post season implosion hurt him as much as Bumgarners post season innings boost him ? Obviously much fewer innings for kershaw, but you get the gist of the question.

I zero out any postseason contributions that would detract.

DL

With all the variables that have to be considered when calculating WAR, it is not easy to produce an accurate post season WAR.

However, I did a very "poor" estimate by simply replacing Bumgarner's regular season pitching numbers in the NL data base with his totals including post season. I left all other things (opposition strength, park factors and defense) the same; which of course would not be the case. When I did that, his pitching WAR went from 3.94 to 4.9. So it would seem his post season pitching WAR would be worth about 1 WAR.

Another consideration:
In the regular season his batting WAR was 1.2, but he only got a walk in 16 PA in the post season. Therefore,his post season WAR would have to be reduced by his drop in batting WAR. So my best guess would be that the the extra post season WAR would be something less than 1 WAR.

DL

Egg on my face: it helps when I use the right numbers.

On recalculating, the WAR for Bumgarner's full season (assuming that he would have pitched the post season in exactly the same conditions as the regular season and assuming no one else pitched in the post season) would be about 6.25; about 2.25 WAR more than the regular season. With the poorer batter numbers, about 2 extra post season WAR would be my best guess.

Sorry about my previous post.

1959 Ballot

Batters: start with RAA (using value added runs), adjust for park, position and defense (using average of DRS and UZR) Convert adjusted RAA to wins. Add 60% of normal Runs above replacement to get WARR (wins above reduced replacement)

Pitchers: Calculate RAA using a pitchers FIP and calculate RAA using a pitcher's value added runs.

Calculate RAA, using a blend of RA9 and FIP from above, adjust for quality of opposition and park. Convert adjusted RAA to wins. Add 60% of normal runs above replacement to get WARR (wins above reduced replacement). Add Hitter WAR for overall WARR.

1. Mike Trout 6.92 WARR Must look carefully at this before the final ballot
2. Giancarlo Stanton 6.91 WARR
3. Jose Bautista 6.88 WARR
4. Josh Donaldson 6.78 WARR
5. Clayton Kershaw 6.59 WARR
6. Adrian Beltre 6.48 WARR
7. Miguel Cabrera 5.87 WARR
8. Felix Hernandez 5.87 WARR
9. Mickey Brantley 5.72 WARR
10. Andrew McCutchen WARR 5.68 WARR
11. Cory Kluber 5.66 WARR
12. Anthony Rendon 5.62 WARR
13. Russell Martin 5.55 WARR
14. Jhonny peralta 5.47 WARR
15. Jason Heyward 5.37 WARR

Rest of top 20

Adam Wainwright
Jonathan Lucroy
Victor Martinez
Troy Tulowitzki
Steve Pearce

MrC: no Posey?

Posey had a good year. In my system, he finished in 26th place: behind Rizzo, Mesoraco, Abreu, Gordon and Sale.

Selected playoff performances

Player Name G  PA  AB  R  H  2B  3B  HR  RBI  SB  CS  BB  SO  BA  OBP  SLG  OPS
Mike Trout  3  15  12  1  1  0  0  1  1  0  1  3  2  .083  .267  .333  .600
Jo Donaldson 1  6  5  1  2  0  0  0  0  0  0  1  2  .400  .500  .400  .900
Rusll Martin 1  4  4  0  1  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  .250  .250  .250  .500
An McCutchen 1  4  3  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  1  1  .000  .250  .000  .250  
Antho Rendon 4  20  19  0  7  0  0  0  1  1  0  1  2  .368  .400  .368  .768
Alex Gordon 15  63  54  7  11  6  0  1  11  4  0  6  16  .204  .317  .370  .688
Buster Posey 17 77 69 5 17 0 0 0 7 0 1 6 7 .246 .312 .246 .558

Pitcher Name ERA  G  GS  GF  CG  SHO  SV  IP  H  R  ER  HR  BB  IBB  SO  HBP  BK  WP  BF  WHIP
Clayton Kershaw 7.82  2  2  0  0  0  0  12.2  12  11  11  3  2  0  19  0  0  1  51  1.105  
Adam Wainwright 5.63  3  3  0  0  0  0  16.0  21  11  10  2  6  0  14  1  0  1  76  1.12
Max Scherzer 6.14  1  1  0  0  0  0  7.1  7  5  5  2  1  0  6  1  0  0  29  1.091
Tanner Roark 3.38  2  0  1  0  0  0  2.2  3  1  1  1  0  0  3  0  0  0  12  1.125
Jordan Zimmermann 1.04  1  1  0  0  0  0  8.2  3  1  1  0  1  0  6  0  0  0  29  0.462
Zack Greinke 0.00  1  1  0  0  0  0  7.0  2  0  0  0  2  0  7  1  0  1  26  0.571
Doug Fister 0.00  1  1  0  0  0  0  7.0  4  0  0  0  3  0  3  0  0  0  27  1.000  
Jon Lester 7.36  1  1  0  0  0  0  7.1  8  6  6  0  2  0  5  0  0  0  31  1.364
Madison Bumgarner 1.03  7  6  3  2  2  1  52.2  28  7  6  3  6  0  45  2  0  0  195    0.46
Wade Davis 0.63  12  0  1  0  0  0  14.1  8  2  1  0  2  0  20  0  0  1  49  1.34

Why do I have Godlike mod powers in this thread?

My general opinion is that I think there have been two trends throughout baseball history that affect pitchers. One is that the value of pitchING has slowly increased, tracking Three True Outcomes. The other is that the number of innings that ONE pitcher can handle in a season has been going down. I am firmly of the opinion that the trend lowering individual innings has overtaken the trend towards pitching having more value, all of which is stolen from fielding. WAR does not seem to agree with me.

I agree with you, Brock, and have been stating something similar for quite a while.

That opinion is not shared by MLB general managers who are paying more for pitching WAR than position player WAR.

That opinion is not shared by MLB general managers who are paying more for pitching WAR than position player WAR.

...and years ago, MLB general managers paid more for BA than OBA or OPS. :-) IOW, their reliance on WAR doesn't necessarily mean they are doing the right thing.

For some reason the ballot thread is locked. I plan on closing at 4 eastern today unless I get an extension request.

We stopped doing this for the '50s ballots but I thought I'd bring it back for the current year.

My list for the best albums of 2014, in no particular order:

Bruce Springsteen, High Hopes: Bruce's album of recent rarities drew mixed reviews when it debuted back in January but I loved it right away. Every song was great and the album had a wonderful sense of variety and spontaneity. I'm glad that critics are coming around to my point of view. Rolling Stone named "High Hopes" its second best album of the year and Allmusic.com has it featured as one of its top albums for 2014.

Jack White, Lazaretto: White's second solo album is nearly as incredible as his first. It's got hard, driving guitars and lyrics that are alternately poignant and whimsical. His High Ball Stepper is one of the best instrumentals I've heard in years.

Lenny Kravitz, Strut: I got back on the Lenny Kravitz fan train after he reestablished himself on his last couple of albums (It Is Time for a Love Revolution, 2008, and Black and White America, 2011). Strut continues Lenny's winning streak with killer hooks, catchy lyrics and his inimitable sense of style. Strut, baby, strut!

Ed Sheeran, X: Sheeran may be the new favorite of teeny-boppers around the world but he's also an excellent songwriter who seamlessly combines rap and folk sensibilities. Sing, Don't, Nina, Tenerife Sea, Thinking Out Loud, Afire Love, X is packed with one great song after another. I also appreciate that Sheeran is expanding his lyrical vocabulary- singing about his grandfather's Alzheimer's on Afire Love as well as his usual fare about falling in and out of love.

New Pornographers, Brill Bruisers: I'm a latecomer to the New Pornographers but don't hold that against me. I love the lyrical energy of their latest album and the interplay between their many voices. This is an album I can play over and over, and I've already found myself anticipating the songs before they begin. The title track, Champions of Red Wine, Fantasy Fools, War on the East Coast, Wide Eyes, Dancehall Domine- this is another album packed with great tracks.

Leonard Cohen, Popular Problems: If you know me at all, you know that a new Leonard Cohen album is an automatic for a best of list. But Leonard isn't resting on his laurels here. Slow is a beautiful- and danceable- tune. Almost Like the Blues is excellent. Did I Ever Love You is haunting. Plus, Leonard is surprisingly optimistic on this album with the closing tune You Got Me Singing.

Chuck Prophet, Night Surfer: The obscure San Francisco rocker has become one of my favorite artists in recent years and I'm delighted to say that his latest album is another masterpiece. I already liked this album but after seeing him sing half of the songs in concert, I love it even more. Prophet is at his best on the mid-tempo songs when he's telling a story, as in Wish Me Luck, Tell Me Anything and Truth Will Out, but he's also great when he rocks out as on Countrified Inner City Technological Man and Ford Econoline.

The Pixies, Indie Cindy: My wife doesn't like this album because of the screaming distortion at the beginning and critics don't like either because it sounds too much or not enough like their old stuff, but I adore it. It's perfect for long car drives by yourself with its headbanging guitars, musical diversity and interesting lyrics.

Aloe Blacc, Lift Your Spirit: I haven't listened to this album as much as I would have liked because my wife sequestered it in her car but I like it more every time I hear it. The lead single, The Man, is one of the best songs of the year. But there's also surprising depth with Love is the Answer, Here Today and Ticking Bomb.

Chrissie Hynde, Stockholm: I was a little iffy about Hynde's first solo project when it was first announced but once I brought it home, I was wowed. Hynde combines killer hooks with world-weary lyrics that capture the ear and the imagination. I don't know why it's called Stockholm but other that that, I love everything about it.

Honorable Mentions:

John Mellencamp, Plain Spoken: There are some excellent thought-provoking songs on this album like Sometimes There's God, Freedom of Speech and The Courtesy of Kings, but for now, it's a little too similar-sounding to crack the top ten. Top eleven though? Yeah, that sounds about right.

Eric Church, The Outsiders: I don't listen to a lot of country music but Church made it onto my radar thanks to his rock 'n' roll and outlaw influences. The anthemic title track is amazing and the rest of the album is pretty good too. It's the best country album I've heard in a while, though Willie Nelson's Band of Brothers was another strong contender with its witty lyrics and barebones approach.

Important Disclosures:

U2, Songs of Innocence and Weezer, Everything Will Be Alright in the End: These two albums have been lauded by fans and critics alike as a return to form for two of my favorite bands. But, unlike everybody else apparently, I liked How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, No Line on the Horizon, Raditude and Hurley while the new albums haven't wowed me. They may win me over given time- it wouldn't be the first time an album grew on me after I was initially unimpressed- but for now, I'm the odd one out.

I'm sure there's plenty of good stuff I haven't come across (yet)...
Here's a list of some of my favorite albums of 2014 (not in order):

Soft Science- Detour
Maximo Park- Too Much Information
Nothing- Guilty Of Everything
Dead Horse One- Without Love We Perish
Allo Darlin'- We Come From The Same Place
Pale Lights- Before There Were Pictures
Alvvays- Alvvays
The Black Watch- Sugarplum Fairy, Sugarplum Fairy
Buzzcocks- The Way
The Hobbes Fanclub- Up At Lagrange

The Buzzcocks are still recording? I remember them from the 1980s. - Brock

Yes, Buzzcocks are still going! (With two original members: Pete Shelley and Steve Diggle).
Here's their studio album discography:
Another Music In A Different Kitchen (1978)
Love Bites (1978)
A Different Kind Of Tension (1979)
Trade Test Transmissions (1993)
All Set (1996)
Modern (1999)
Buzzcocks (2003)
Flat Pack Philosophy (2006)
The Way (2014)

The first 3 are all packed with classics. Of the 6 albums since they reformed, I'd say 4 of them are solid [Trade Test Transmissions, Buzzcocks, Flat Pack Philosophy, The Way].

Apologies if I went on a bit, but given the opportunity it's hard for me not to talk about them!