Well, the point is that, throughout baseball history, guys who are great outfielders play CF. The exception is when they have teammates that are even better in CF (Ichiro in Seattle when Mike Cameron played CF). CF is a significantly more valuable position so the next guys play there. LF is far and away the easiest of the three positions. If a guy is playing LF, and the guy in CF isn't great, it's probably a safe bet that the guy in LF isn't great either.
@Tabe said:
Well, the point is that, throughout baseball history, guys who are great outfielders play CF. The exception is when they have teammates that are even better in CF (Ichiro in Seattle when Mike Cameron played CF). CF is a significantly more valuable position so the next guys play there. LF is far and away the easiest of the three positions. If a guy is playing LF, and the guy in CF isn't great, it's probably a safe bet that the guy in LF isn't great either.
I find it incredibly sad that this concept had to be explained at all, but you explained it well. And a great outfielder does occasionally get "trapped" in RF because there is an even better outfielder who, obviously, plays CF. Ichiro is one example, and Clemente is another (Bill Virdon in CF). I am not aware of any great outfielder who played LF (possible exception for Fenway where left field requires unique skills). The outfielders that jump to mind as really bad - Dave Kingman, Rico Carty, Greg Luzinski, etc. - all played LF, or sometimes some LF and some RF; they never set foot in CF.
Conversely, there are outfielders who can't hit who can hang on for years and years if they're good enough to play CF really well, like Ken Berry, Omar Moreno, and Tony Scott. Players who hit like Berry/Moreno/Scott are gone in a week if they play LF, no matter how well they play it.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1970s said:
Centerfield is occupied by the guy with the quickest speed and the weakest arm.
This made me laugh. It made Lou Brock, Jose Cruz, Tim Raines, Rickey Henderson, Lonnie Smith, and Barry Bonds laugh, too. Allowing that the person with the quickest speed is not always the same person as the one with the weakest arm, what you posted is as good a definition of a left fielder as you can get.
Outfielders need three basic skills: speed, arm strength, and what I'll call "instinct" (getting a jump on the ball, knowing when to stop chasing and wait for the bounce off the wall, etc.). The outfielder with the greatest total combination of these skills will be the center fielder - there are no meaningful exceptions to that rule. Rarely, if ever, has a center fielder been significantly deficient in any one of those three skills. Once CF is filled, RF is then generally filled with the remaining outfielder with the strongest arm. And since arm strength is the least important of the three skills needed, the RF will often have the strongest arm on the team. The best remaining outfielder goes to LF. It is possible for the LF to be an overall better fielder than the RF, but with a weaker arm. It is not possible, absent a really, really bad manager, for the LF to be an overall better fielder than the CF. (Again, allowing for the possibility of an exception in Fenway, where LF is unique.)
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1970s said:
Centerfield is occupied by the guy with the quickest speed and the weakest arm.
This made me laugh. It made Lou Brock, Jose Cruz, Tim Raines, Rickey Henderson, Lonnie Smith, and Barry Bonds laugh, too. Allowing that the person with the quickest speed is not always the same person as the one with the weakest arm, what you posted is as good a definition of a left fielder as you can get.
Outfielders need three basic skills: speed, arm strength, and what I'll call "instinct" (getting a jump on the ball, knowing when to stop chasing and wait for the bounce off the wall, etc.). The outfielder with the greatest total combination of these skills will be the center fielder - there are no meaningful exceptions to that rule.
OMG.
2018 Boston Red Sox
Stolen Bases by outfielders
Mookie Betts 30
Andrew Benintendi 21
Jackie Bradley Jr. 17
Andrew Benintendi and Mookie Betts both finish with a higher fielding percentage than
Jackie Bradley Jr.
@1970s said:
Centerfield is occupied by the guy with the quickest speed and the weakest arm.
This made me laugh. It made Lou Brock, Jose Cruz, Tim Raines, Rickey Henderson, Lonnie Smith, and Barry Bonds laugh, too. Allowing that the person with the quickest speed is not always the same person as the one with the weakest arm, what you posted is as good a definition of a left fielder as you can get.
Outfielders need three basic skills: speed, arm strength, and what I'll call "instinct" (getting a jump on the ball, knowing when to stop chasing and wait for the bounce off the wall, etc.). The outfielder with the greatest total combination of these skills will be the center fielder - there are no meaningful exceptions to that rule.
OMG.
2018 Boston Red Sox
Stolen Bases by outfielders
Mookie Betts 30
Andrew Benintendi 21
Jackie Bradley Jr. 17
Andrew Benintendi and Mookie Betts both finish with a higher fielding percentage than
Jackie Bradley Jr.
@LarkinCollector said:
Don't forget completely ignoring the (repeatedly) stated exception for Fenway.
Forget? He would have to have understood it and remembered it before he could forget it. My guess is that 1970s brain is several crinkles short of the ability to process something as complicated as an exception to a rule. That he tried to refute my general point with a single exception, and that single exception was the one I had already identified as an exception was either terribly funny or terribly sad. I'm still leaning towards terribly funny, but I have to admit that pointing out his cognitive challenges is getting a bit too easy to be much fun anymore.
If there is anyone else who disagrees with the general proposition that CF=best overall, RF = best arm after CF is filled, LF = whoever is still available after LF and RF are filled (with the Fenway exception), by all means say so and provide some reasonable data to refute it. I'm happy to have an intelligent debate and learn something, but I think I'm done with 1970s, in this thread at least.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Tabe said:
Well, the point is that, throughout baseball history, guys who are great outfielders play CF. The exception is when they have teammates that are even better in CF (Ichiro in Seattle when Mike Cameron played CF). CF is a significantly more valuable position so the next guys play there. LF is far and away the easiest of the three positions. If a guy is playing LF, and the guy in CF isn't great, it's probably a safe bet that the guy in LF isn't great either.
OMG.
Centerfield is occupied by the guy with the quickest speed and the weakest arm. If speed is equal in the outfield, the guy with the weakest arm goes to center, and the guys with the strongest arms go to right or left. From Mickey Rivers to Johnny Damon, guys with good speed and weak arms are always given priority in center field.
Tell me, which position has the strongest arms in the outfield ? Answer ? Right field. Dave Parker. Dewey Evans. Aaron Judge, etc. etc. Why ? Because that and left is the part of the field where runners can get thrown out the most from. Center fielders play deeper than right and left, and the strong arm isn't a priority.
Why did Yaz play left field ? Because he played the wall like no one else. Why did Evans play right ? Because he
had a rocket arm. Why was Lynn in center ? Not because he was faster than Yaz or Evans (probably Yaz), but because
he didn't have the arm that Evans had. If Lynn had the arm of Evans, he'd be in right.
So Tabe, now you're saying that because 2nd baseman and 3rd baseman don't play shortstop, that means
they weren't as good fielding as the shortstop ? Because outside of the catcher position, shortstop is deemed the
most important in the infield. Are you saying that ?
Your point of view is mind numbing, and shows that you and dallas have very little understanding of the game of
baseball. Like I said, stick to sequencing rack packs instead.
LOL. You're the one arguing the best outfielder doesn't play CF but I don't understand baseball? That's hilarious.
@maxdome said:
There are no meaningful exceptions to that rule was stated first.
Then, after 1970s points out his error, he then says "except for Fenway".
If you can find someone who knows how to read to read this thread to you, what you'll find is that the first person to mention Fenway, or indeed anyone on the Red Sox, was me. I had mentioned Fenway twice, both times in the context of allowing that in that park a great outfielder could conceivably be asked to play LF, when you chimed in with an example involving the Red Sox. You pointed out an error, of sorts, except it was not an error I had made.
You wrote: Then, after 1970s points out his error, he then says "except for Fenway".
What you meant to write was: After he said "except for Fenway" twice, then 1970s pointed out his error for not excepting Fenway.
I can't help that what you intended to write was so incredibly stupid, and I have no idea why you go to such monumental lengths to prove to me that you're an idiot. You can stop, your mission has been accomplished. I think Darin has a fresh bag of Cheetos; maybe you can succeed where he has failed and get them to go in one nostril and out the other.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1970s said:
I'd like to know if there was any other pitching duo in the history of major league baseball that was 13-2 over a three
year World Series championship run. Fingers was a big help to these guys as well.
They were so good that the series didn't last long enough to amass as many wins, but Lefty Gomez and Monte Pearson were 8-0 over a three series Stretch. Throw in Red Ruffing and they were 11-1.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@maxdome said:
The 76 Red's were better than the 76 A's. The 72,73 and 74 A's would of beat the 76 Red's . A's had a better all around team .
The 76 Reds would not have beat Catfish. Catfish in the playoffs from 72-74 was 7 wins and 1 loss in the postseason.
Holtzman from 72 to 74 was 6-1 in the postseason.
I'd like to know if there was any other pitching duo in the history of major league baseball that was 13-2 over a three
year World Series championship run. Fingers was a big help to these guys as well.
Oh, but the 76 Reds beat up on a Doyle Alexander and his 77 mph fastball, and a washed up, drugged up Doc Ellis, and a tired arm Catfish Hunter. Not impressive.
A's win.
72 A's took 7 games to beat 72 Reds. 76 Reds never lost a playoff or World Series game. They destroyed a 4X cy young winner in the playoffs. 76 Reds would've crushed 72 A's.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
72 A's took 7 games to beat 72 Reds. 76 Reds never lost a playoff or World Series game. They destroyed a 4X cy young winner in the playoffs. 76 Reds would've crushed 72 A's.
They scored 4 runs off Carlton in 7 IP. That's hardly "destroyed".
72 A's took 7 games to beat 72 Reds. 76 Reds never lost a playoff or World Series game. They destroyed a 4X cy young winner in the playoffs. 76 Reds would've crushed 72 A's.
They scored 4 runs off Carlton in 7 IP. That's hardly "destroyed".
Disagree. Carlton gave up 8 hits and a HR in 7 innings. Carlton 5.14 era and lost the game at veterans stadium....Not exactly one of his best starts
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Their 125-50 is the best record ever posted by a team that won the World Series. Not all Hall of Famers, obviously, but a pretty great collection of baseball players that could win games a lot of different ways. Versatile offense.
Chuck Knoblauch (2B)
Derek Jeter (SS)
Paul O’Neill (RF)
Bernie Williams (CF)
Tino Martinez (1B)
Daryl Strawberry (DH)
Scott Brosius (3B)
Jorge Posada (C)
Tim Raines (LF)
Alternates - DH Chili Davis, OF Ricky Ledee, Chad Curtis, C Joe Girardi,
1998-2000 Yankees are second to nobody as a team for sure
72 A's took 7 games to beat 72 Reds. 76 Reds never lost a playoff or World Series game. They destroyed a 4X cy young winner in the playoffs. 76 Reds would've crushed 72 A's.
They scored 4 runs off Carlton in 7 IP. That's hardly "destroyed".
Disagree. Carlton gave up 8 hits and a HR in 7 innings. Carlton 5.14 era and lost the game at veterans stadium....Not exactly one of his best starts
Big difference between "not one of his best" and "destroyed". "Destroyed" is what the Tigers did to Washburn in game 6 in 68 - 5 ER in 2 IP. 4 in 7? LOTS of guys have won games like that.
72 A's took 7 games to beat 72 Reds. 76 Reds never lost a playoff or World Series game. They destroyed a 4X cy young winner in the playoffs. 76 Reds would've crushed 72 A's.
They scored 4 runs off Carlton in 7 IP. That's hardly "destroyed".
Disagree. Carlton gave up 8 hits and a HR in 7 innings. Carlton 5.14 era and lost the game at veterans stadium....Not exactly one of his best starts
Big difference between "not one of his best" and "destroyed". "Destroyed" is what the Tigers did to Washburn in game 6 in 68 - 5 ER in 2 IP. 4 in 7? LOTS of guys have won games like that.
Well 5.14 era and having to leave the game in the middle of a inning because of getting hit on and walking batters...is not good.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
As per 76 Reds crushing 72 A's . A's were a better all around team . The A's won three in a row compared to the Reds only winning 2 in a row . The A's beat basically the same team in 72 and were without Reggie Jackson and Darold Knowles for the entire series due to injury.
Their 125-50 is the best record ever posted by a team that won the World Series. Not all Hall of Famers, obviously, but a pretty great collection of baseball players that could win games a lot of different ways. Versatile offense.
Chuck Knoblauch (2B)
Derek Jeter (SS)
Paul O’Neill (RF)
Bernie Williams (CF)
Tino Martinez (1B)
Daryl Strawberry (DH)
Scott Brosius (3B)
Jorge Posada (C)
Tim Raines (LF)
Alternates - DH Chili Davis, OF Ricky Ledee, Chad Curtis, C Joe Girardi,
1998-2000 Yankees are second to nobody as a team for sure
Great teams, none as good as the 76 Reds. They> @maxdome said:
As per 76 Reds crushing 72 A's . A's were a better all around team . The A's won three in a row compared to the Reds only winning 2 in a row . The A's beat basically the same team in 72 and were without Reggie Jackson and Darold Knowles for the entire series due to injury.
The same team? No...76 Reds scored 150 more runs than the 72 team.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Yes, basically same players. 1972 season was considered part of the 2nd dead ball period so of course they scored more in 1976 . In 1972 Reds were the second highest scoring team in MLB and barely missed being the highest scoring team . They scored way more than the A's but still couldn't beat a banged up A's squad. The 76 red were first in scoring but that wasn't against the A's pitching staff !
@maxdome said:
Yes, basically same players. 1972 season was considered part of the 2nd dead ball period so of course they scored more in 1976 . In 1972 Reds were the second highest scoring team in MLB and barely missed being the highest scoring team . They scored way more than the A's but still couldn't beat a banged up A's squad. The 76 red were first in scoring but that wasn't against the A's pitching staff !
1976 Phillies Pitching staff had a better pitcher than any of those A's pitchers. Plus a Pitcher who won 283 games.
Reds were undefeated in the playoffs in 76.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
The 1976 Reds scored a lot more runs than the 1972 Reds because they replaced Menke and Tolan with Foster and Griffey, and Concepcion went from absolutely putrid as a hitter to pretty good. The run context of the league didn't change from 1972 to 1976; there were 0.07 more runs per game in 1976, but that was mostly because the Reds got so much better (4.59 runs per game to 5.29 runs per game).
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Well 5.14 era and having to leave the game in the middle of a inning because of getting hit on and walking batters...is not good.
Didn't say it was good. But 2 ER through 7 IP is definitely not "destroyed". Giving up a double and a walk in the 8th and then leaving is not "destroyed". The game was 3-1 when he left it.
A's had a better pitching staff than 76 Phillies. Carlton was great but didn't have one of his best season's in 1976.
Team ERA for 76 Phillies 3.08 league average 3.51
Team ERA for 72 A's 2.58 league average 3.26. 73 A's 3.29 league average 3.74 . 74 A's 2.95 league average 3.62.
@maxdome said:
A's had a better pitching staff than 76 Phillies. Carlton was great but didn't have one of his best season's in 1976.
Team ERA for 76 Phillies 3.08 league average 3.51
Team ERA for 72 A's 2.58 league average 3.26. 73 A's 3.29 league average 3.74 . 74 A's 2.95 league average 3.62.
All of that is an illusion caused by the fact that Oakland was a pitcher's park; everyone who pitched in Oakland, home team and visitors, saw their ERA's go down. bb-ref shows the ERA+ for the entire team: for the 1976 Phillies it was 115 (15% better than league average), 1972 A's - 111; 1973 A's - 109; 1974 A's - 113. The A"s pitching staff was very good for that stretch, but the 1976 Phillies staff was a little bit better.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1970s said:
What Dallas and some of you fail to realize is that some players throughout the history of major league baseball had the ABILITY to come up huge in the postseason. They brought that little bit of extra when the moment mattered the most.
What Dallas can do is read, and understand context. If you could read the post I was responding to, you'd see that it referenced the regular season stats of the A's and Phillies, so my reply addressed that.
I can't remember if you asked me to let you know when it happened or not, but yes, your stalking of me is starting to cross the line to "creepy". Not sure if that's a problem or if that was your goal, but forewarned is forearmed.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
1972 World Series in which only 3 of the seven games was played in Oakland.
Player AVG HR RBI
Bench .261 1 1 League MVP and had one of the best seasons ever for a catcher
Morgan .125 0 1 One of the greatest
@maxdome said:
1972 World Series in which only 3 of the seven games was played in Oakland.
Player AVG HR RBI
Bench .261 1 1 League MVP and had one of the best seasons ever for a catcher
Morgan .125 0 1 One of the greatest
Rose .214 1 2 All time hits leader
No match for the A's pitching !
Took the A's 5 games in 72 to beat the Tigers. 76 Reds were unstoppable. Slim chance A's wouldve taken 1 game.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
@garnettstyle said:
Great pitching dont always win championships. The 1979 Baltimore Orioles staff had 3 Cy Young winners, and lost to the Lumber Company.
But great pitching usually does beat great hitting, and everyone here knows it.
However, there are a few mushroom eaters here who are grasping at straws. Everyone here
is enjoying their folly, so please, carry on.
Great pitching didnt beat the Reds awesome lineup in 75 and 76.
Atlanta Braves only won 1 championship in the 90's.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
@1970s said:
What Dallas and some of you fail to realize is that some players throughout the history of major league baseball had the ABILITY to come up huge in the postseason. They brought that little bit of extra when the moment mattered the most.
What Dallas can do is read, and understand context. If you could read the post I was responding to, you'd see that it referenced the regular season stats of the A's and Phillies, so my reply addressed that.
I can't remember if you asked me to let you know when it happened or not, but yes, your stalking of me is starting to cross the line to "creepy". Not sure if that's a problem or if that was your goal, but forewarned is forearmed.
When one is losing a discussion, one tends to stray away from the subject on hand.
Please stick to the subject.
Oh that's right, you have nothing left to offer. All your bullets are blanks. Your efforts futile.
Swing and a miss. A three putt. Wide right. Mike Schmidt in the postseason.
Comments
76 reds were better.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
He does. What he doesn't believe is that you know how to tie your own shoes. You clearly don't know how to construct a valid analogy.
Well, the point is that, throughout baseball history, guys who are great outfielders play CF. The exception is when they have teammates that are even better in CF (Ichiro in Seattle when Mike Cameron played CF). CF is a significantly more valuable position so the next guys play there. LF is far and away the easiest of the three positions. If a guy is playing LF, and the guy in CF isn't great, it's probably a safe bet that the guy in LF isn't great either.
I find it incredibly sad that this concept had to be explained at all, but you explained it well. And a great outfielder does occasionally get "trapped" in RF because there is an even better outfielder who, obviously, plays CF. Ichiro is one example, and Clemente is another (Bill Virdon in CF). I am not aware of any great outfielder who played LF (possible exception for Fenway where left field requires unique skills). The outfielders that jump to mind as really bad - Dave Kingman, Rico Carty, Greg Luzinski, etc. - all played LF, or sometimes some LF and some RF; they never set foot in CF.
Conversely, there are outfielders who can't hit who can hang on for years and years if they're good enough to play CF really well, like Ken Berry, Omar Moreno, and Tony Scott. Players who hit like Berry/Moreno/Scott are gone in a week if they play LF, no matter how well they play it.
This made me laugh. It made Lou Brock, Jose Cruz, Tim Raines, Rickey Henderson, Lonnie Smith, and Barry Bonds laugh, too. Allowing that the person with the quickest speed is not always the same person as the one with the weakest arm, what you posted is as good a definition of a left fielder as you can get.
Outfielders need three basic skills: speed, arm strength, and what I'll call "instinct" (getting a jump on the ball, knowing when to stop chasing and wait for the bounce off the wall, etc.). The outfielder with the greatest total combination of these skills will be the center fielder - there are no meaningful exceptions to that rule. Rarely, if ever, has a center fielder been significantly deficient in any one of those three skills. Once CF is filled, RF is then generally filled with the remaining outfielder with the strongest arm. And since arm strength is the least important of the three skills needed, the RF will often have the strongest arm on the team. The best remaining outfielder goes to LF. It is possible for the LF to be an overall better fielder than the RF, but with a weaker arm. It is not possible, absent a really, really bad manager, for the LF to be an overall better fielder than the CF. (Again, allowing for the possibility of an exception in Fenway, where LF is unique.)
I'm confused as to what stolen bases or fielding percentage have to do with anything.
Don't forget completely ignoring the (repeatedly) stated exception for Fenway.
Forget? He would have to have understood it and remembered it before he could forget it. My guess is that 1970s brain is several crinkles short of the ability to process something as complicated as an exception to a rule. That he tried to refute my general point with a single exception, and that single exception was the one I had already identified as an exception was either terribly funny or terribly sad. I'm still leaning towards terribly funny, but I have to admit that pointing out his cognitive challenges is getting a bit too easy to be much fun anymore.
If there is anyone else who disagrees with the general proposition that CF=best overall, RF = best arm after CF is filled, LF = whoever is still available after LF and RF are filled (with the Fenway exception), by all means say so and provide some reasonable data to refute it. I'm happy to have an intelligent debate and learn something, but I think I'm done with 1970s, in this thread at least.
The 72 A's were better than the 72 Red's...….but the 76 Red's were better than the 72 A's. IMHO
The 76 Red's were better than the 76 A's. The 72,73 and 74 A's would of beat the 76 Red's . A's had a better all around team .
LOL. You're the one arguing the best outfielder doesn't play CF but I don't understand baseball? That's hilarious.
If you can find someone who knows how to read to read this thread to you, what you'll find is that the first person to mention Fenway, or indeed anyone on the Red Sox, was me. I had mentioned Fenway twice, both times in the context of allowing that in that park a great outfielder could conceivably be asked to play LF, when you chimed in with an example involving the Red Sox. You pointed out an error, of sorts, except it was not an error I had made.
You wrote: Then, after 1970s points out his error, he then says "except for Fenway".
What you meant to write was: After he said "except for Fenway" twice, then 1970s pointed out his error for not excepting Fenway.
I can't help that what you intended to write was so incredibly stupid, and I have no idea why you go to such monumental lengths to prove to me that you're an idiot. You can stop, your mission has been accomplished. I think Darin has a fresh bag of Cheetos; maybe you can succeed where he has failed and get them to go in one nostril and out the other.
They were so good that the series didn't last long enough to amass as many wins, but Lefty Gomez and Monte Pearson were 8-0 over a three series Stretch. Throw in Red Ruffing and they were 11-1.
72 A's took 7 games to beat 72 Reds. 76 Reds never lost a playoff or World Series game. They destroyed a 4X cy young winner in the playoffs. 76 Reds would've crushed 72 A's.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Reds currently have a nine game winning streak in the World Series. Not sure what the record is.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
They scored 4 runs off Carlton in 7 IP. That's hardly "destroyed".
Disagree. Carlton gave up 8 hits and a HR in 7 innings. Carlton 5.14 era and lost the game at veterans stadium....Not exactly one of his best starts
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
1998-2000 Yankees are second to nobody as a team for sure
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Big difference between "not one of his best" and "destroyed". "Destroyed" is what the Tigers did to Washburn in game 6 in 68 - 5 ER in 2 IP. 4 in 7? LOTS of guys have won games like that.
Well 5.14 era and having to leave the game in the middle of a inning because of getting hit on and walking batters...is not good.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
As per 76 Reds crushing 72 A's . A's were a better all around team . The A's won three in a row compared to the Reds only winning 2 in a row . The A's beat basically the same team in 72 and were without Reggie Jackson and Darold Knowles for the entire series due to injury.
Great teams, none as good as the 76 Reds. They> @maxdome said:
The same team? No...76 Reds scored 150 more runs than the 72 team.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Yes, basically same players. 1972 season was considered part of the 2nd dead ball period so of course they scored more in 1976 . In 1972 Reds were the second highest scoring team in MLB and barely missed being the highest scoring team . They scored way more than the A's but still couldn't beat a banged up A's squad. The 76 red were first in scoring but that wasn't against the A's pitching staff !
1976 Phillies Pitching staff had a better pitcher than any of those A's pitchers. Plus a Pitcher who won 283 games.
Reds were undefeated in the playoffs in 76.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
The 1976 Reds scored a lot more runs than the 1972 Reds because they replaced Menke and Tolan with Foster and Griffey, and Concepcion went from absolutely putrid as a hitter to pretty good. The run context of the league didn't change from 1972 to 1976; there were 0.07 more runs per game in 1976, but that was mostly because the Reds got so much better (4.59 runs per game to 5.29 runs per game).
Didn't say it was good. But 2 ER through 7 IP is definitely not "destroyed". Giving up a double and a walk in the 8th and then leaving is not "destroyed". The game was 3-1 when he left it.
A's had a better pitching staff than 76 Phillies. Carlton was great but didn't have one of his best season's in 1976.
Team ERA for 76 Phillies 3.08 league average 3.51
Team ERA for 72 A's 2.58 league average 3.26. 73 A's 3.29 league average 3.74 . 74 A's 2.95 league average 3.62.
All of that is an illusion caused by the fact that Oakland was a pitcher's park; everyone who pitched in Oakland, home team and visitors, saw their ERA's go down. bb-ref shows the ERA+ for the entire team: for the 1976 Phillies it was 115 (15% better than league average), 1972 A's - 111; 1973 A's - 109; 1974 A's - 113. The A"s pitching staff was very good for that stretch, but the 1976 Phillies staff was a little bit better.
Talk all you want about illusions. A's won three straight World Series !
What Dallas can do is read, and understand context. If you could read the post I was responding to, you'd see that it referenced the regular season stats of the A's and Phillies, so my reply addressed that.
I can't remember if you asked me to let you know when it happened or not, but yes, your stalking of me is starting to cross the line to "creepy". Not sure if that's a problem or if that was your goal, but forewarned is forearmed.
1972 World Series in which only 3 of the seven games was played in Oakland.
Player AVG HR RBI
Bench .261 1 1 League MVP and had one of the best seasons ever for a catcher
Morgan .125 0 1 One of the greatest
Rose .214 1 2 All time hits leader
No match for the A's pitching !
Took the A's 5 games in 72 to beat the Tigers. 76 Reds were unstoppable. Slim chance A's wouldve taken 1 game.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Great pitching dont always win championships. The 1979 Baltimore Orioles staff had 3 Cy Young winners, and lost to the Lumber Company.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Great pitching didnt beat the Reds awesome lineup in 75 and 76.
Atlanta Braves only won 1 championship in the 90's.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
😂😂😂