Big Papi, Hall of Famer

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

The 1975 team was pretty damm good in their own right. They didn’t win a WS, but stopped the A’s run of 3 championships in a row, and almost took down the Big Red Machine without Rice who was hurt at the time.

 

It's hard to win the World Series without your home run leader in the heart of the order, and Rice led the '75 club with 22. But Yaz was so good playing left field in the postseason -- where he moved from first base to fill in for Rice -- that it didn't seem at the time that the Sox could've done any better.

 

At least, it didn't feel that way... except when Cecil Cooper batted. Coop, who had an underrated season (.311 BA, .899 OPS), was Yaz' replacement at first base and the worst hitter in the World Series: 1-for-19.

[Old Red]

 

I became a Sox fan in 1972, so the '67 season was not part of my life.

 

Great season, though! I can see how that one tops 1075 for many older Sox fans.

 

67 was the start of Red Sox Nation, which also livened up Fenway Park, which before was a pretty dead place at least in the early 60’s.

[notin]

The 1978 team didn’t win anything, except 99 games, which was the most at the time for the Sox since 1946. The team also boasted 4 Hall of Famers (Rice, Yaz, Fisk, Eck’s) and a couple other very noteworthy candidates in Tiant and Evans…

[Old Red]

The 1978 team didn’t win anything, except 99 games, which was the most at the time for the Sox since 1946. The team also boasted 4 Hall of Famers (Rice, Yaz, Fisk, Eck’s) and a couple other very noteworthy candidates in Tiant and Evans…

 

Another very talented team that just came up a little short.

[Bellhorn04]

It's hard to win the World Series without your home run leader in the heart of the order, and Rice led the '75 club with 22.

 

Although the A's won in 1972 without Reggie.

 

Plus we were ahead 3-0 in Game 7 in 1975.

[Bellhorn04]

The 1978 team didn’t win anything, except 99 games, which was the most at the time for the Sox since 1946. The team also boasted 4 Hall of Famers (Rice, Yaz, Fisk, Eck’s) and a couple other very noteworthy candidates in Tiant and Evans…

 

And another pretty good player in Lynn.

[mvp 78]

And another pretty good player in Lynn.

 

Cecil Cooper? I feel like he is always massively underappreciated.

[moonslav59]

 

67 was the start of Red Sox Nation, which also livened up Fenway Park, which before was a pretty dead place at least in the early 60’s.

 

Yes, I know the history. I just did not "live" that history.

 

'67 woke up the dormant Sox fans.

[Old Red]

Although the A's won in 1972 without Reggie.

 

Plus we were ahead 3-0 in Game 7 in 1975.

 

Lee threw one to many blooper pitches to Perez.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Although the A's won in 1972 without Reggie.

 

Plus we were ahead 3-0 in Game 7 in 1975.

 

Three runs on five total hits in Game 7; still would've been nice to have Rice swinging against Gullett and McEnaney...

 

That A's club pre-free agency had the best supporting cast in the business, and are somewhat underrated by history, despite winning three rings in a row vs. the Red Machine's two. Though Cincy in '72 didn't have all its parts, either, before Foster and Griffey became stars in '75.

 

And yet, who led the AL in bWAR from '69 through '74? Hint: Jackson was second, Yaz third.

[moonslav59]

Lee threw one to many blooper pitches to Perez.

 

Reggie Cleveland allowed 2 HRs to Perez, but yes, that one off Lee was the killer.

[Old Red]

Reggie Cleveland allowed 2 HRs to Perez, but yes, that one off Lee was the killer.

 

I don’t think Cleveland gave up 2 HR’s to Perez in game 7. Lee gave up three runs in a 4-3 game.

[moonslav59]

Three runs on five total hits in Game 7; still would've been nice to have Rice swinging against Gullett and McEnaney...

 

That A's club pre-free agency had the best supporting cast in the business, and are somewhat underrated by history, despite winning three rings in a row vs. the Red Machine's two. Though Cincy in '72 didn't have all its parts, either, before Foster and Griffey became stars in '75.

 

And yet, who led the AL in bWAR from '69 through '74? Hint: Jackson was second, Yaz third.

 

I'll go with Bench, but Morgan was great, too.

[moonslav59]

I don’t think Cleveland gave up 2 HR’s to Perez in game 7. Lee gave up three runs in a 4-3 game.

 

No, it was another game. I think they lost that one something like 6-2.

 

I was just making an observation about Perez & HRs not related to game 7.

[notin]

Cecil Cooper? I feel like he is always massively underappreciated.

 

 

But he wasn’t on the 1978 team, which the post was responding about…

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

ESPN did a Top 100 MLB Players of All Time list, and ranked Big Papi #63, two spots behind Yaz. They haven't released their Top 50 yet, but we can assume Ted Williams will be in there somewhere.

 

Some would argue Ortiz is the most important and impactful Red Sox player of all time, as the linchpin in three World Series titles. His career WAR as a DH lags at 55.3 bWAR, compared to Yastrzemski's 96.5.

 

For those who think Captain Carl was overrated as an all-around player, it's worth noting that he led the American League in WAR for two decades, 1961-79...

[notin]

ESPN did a Top 100 MLB Players of All Time list, and ranked Big Papi #63, two spots behind Yaz. They haven't released their Top 50 yet, but we can assume Ted Williams will be in there somewhere.

 

Some would argue Ortiz is the most important and impactful Red Sox player of all time, as the linchpin in three World Series titles. His career WAR as a DH lags at 55.3 bWAR, compared to Yastrzemski's 96.5.

 

For those who think Captain Carl was overrated as an all-around player, it's worth noting that he led the American League in WAR for two decades, 1961-79...

 

I wouldn’t rank Ortiz anywhere near Yastrzemski on an All Time list. But both were certainly great players. I do think Ortiz does get helped a lot by his personality…

[moonslav59]

I wouldn’t rank Ortiz anywhere near Yastrzemski on an All Time list. But both were certainly great players. I do think Ortiz does get helped a lot by his personality…

 

Yaz had such a bubbly and happy persona!

[mvp 78]

ESPN did a Top 100 MLB Players of All Time list, and ranked Big Papi #63, two spots behind Yaz. They haven't released their Top 50 yet, but we can assume Ted Williams will be in there somewhere.

 

Some would argue Ortiz is the most important and impactful Red Sox player of all time, as the linchpin in three World Series titles. His career WAR as a DH lags at 55.3 bWAR, compared to Yastrzemski's 96.5.

 

For those who think Captain Carl was overrated as an all-around player, it's worth noting that he led the American League in WAR for two decades, 1961-79...

 

I think you can say Yaz was a much better player, but that Ortiz was more impactful and important to the organization.

[Bellhorn04]

Yaz had such a bubbly and happy persona!

 

The thing that's endearing about Yaz is that he seems a 100% straight shooter.

[mvp 78]

I wouldn’t rank Ortiz anywhere near Yastrzemski on an All Time list. But both were certainly great players. I do think Ortiz does get helped a lot by his personality…

 

Was it his personality that hit all those walk offs and got 3 rings?

[Bellhorn04]

I think you can say Yaz was a much better player, but that Ortiz was more impactful and important to the organization.

 

Yaz helped put a moribund franchise back on its feet though. Which arguably paved the way to the glory years of Ortiz.

 

Comparisons like this are fun, but I don't think they're very meaningful.

[Bellhorn04]

Was it his personality that hit all those walk offs and got 3 rings?

 

Clutchness was part of his personality!

[mvp 78]

Yaz helped put a moribund franchise back on its feet though. Which arguably paved the way to the glory years of Ortiz.

 

Comparisons like this are fun, but I don't think they're very meaningful.

 

If it wasn't for Papi, we still may be in the Yaz era that was marked by being perennial losers.

 

67

75

78

86

88

90

95

98

99

 

The fellowship of the miserable wasn't exactly a fun place to be.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

If it wasn't for Papi, we still may be in the Yaz era that was marked by being perennial losers.

 

67

75

78

86

88

90

95

98

99

 

The fellowship of the miserable wasn't exactly a fun place to be.

 

I can't forget '74, either (as a horrified teenage fanatic at the time): Boston had a 7-game lead on August 23, still in first in September... but played 10-games below .500 and flopped into third place. Getting shutout four times in five days can do that to a club.

[moonslav59]

I can't forget '74, either (as a horrified teenage fanatic at the time): Boston had a 7-game lead on August 23, still in first in September... but played 10-games below .500 and flopped into third place. Getting shutout four times in five days can do that to a club.

 

'72 was awful, too.

 

We finished 1/2 game behind the Tigers due to an unbalanced schedule caused by a work stoppage.

 

That year, we won 4 in a row (going up 1.5) before losing 3 of the last 4, including 2 of 3 to Detroit.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Yaz helped put a moribund franchise back on its feet though. Which arguably paved the way to the glory years of Ortiz.

 

Comparisons like this are fun, but I don't think they're very meaningful.

 

Yep, but it beats talking about how good the Yankees project to be if they're ever good again.

[moonslav59]

If it wasn't for Papi, we still may be in the Yaz era that was marked by being perennial losers.

 

67

75

78

86

88

90

95

98

99

 

The fellowship of the miserable wasn't exactly a fun place to be.

 

If I had written this, you'd have nit-picked the fact that the Yaz "era" ended in 1983.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

'72 was awful, too.

 

We finished 1/2 game behind the Tigers due to an unbalanced schedule caused by a work stoppage.

 

That year, we won 4 in a row (going up 1.5) before losing 3 of the last 4, including 2 of 3 to Detroit.

 

I was just explaining that season to my son, who asks -- MLB take note -- every single day if the owners and players have an agreement yet and if there will be baseball soon...

 

'72 sucked, but the Tigers won fair and square, taking the first two of the final three vs. the Sox in Detroit; it was basically a best-of-three, and once the Tigers clinched, both teams rested regulars in the finale that Boston won to finish a half game back.

[Bellhorn04]

I was just explaining that season to my son, who asks -- MLB take note -- every single day if the owners and players have an agreement yet and if there will be baseball soon...

 

'72 sucked, but the Tigers won fair and square, taking the first two of the final three vs. the Sox in Detroit; it was basically a best-of-three, and once the Tigers clinched, both teams rested regulars in the finale that Boston won to finish a half game back.

 

Agreed.

 

Nonetheless it sucked that teams played 154-156 games that year instead of 162.

 

Will they do it to us again?