• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lee May RIP

Placed in MVP voting six times, 11 straight seasons of more than 20 homers, reached 2,000 hits for his career. Not a bad ballplayer.

Also, by all accounts, one hell of a good dude.
 
Kobie said:
Placed in MVP voting six times, 11 straight seasons of more than 20 homers, reached 2,000 hits for his career. Not a bad ballplayer.

Also, by all accounts, one hell of a good dude.
Click to expand...

yeah, of course here in SW Ohio this is getting lots of press ink: just about everyone is saying he was a guy everyone liked, great personality, never lost his cool. a totally class act. I remember when he was traded, people thought the Reds were nuts. However, getting Joe Morgan was probably why the Reds went from being a very good team (two world series losses in the early 70s, to maybe-for a couple years, the greatest team ever with that line through the middle (Bench at Catcher, Concepcion at short, Morgan at Second and Cesaer Geronimo (I watched him throw a guy out from the deepest part of centerfield to Bench at the plate-greatest throw I ever saw) in Center. Lots of experts claim that defensively was the best ever.

Lee still remained really popular in Cincinnati even after people realized that his trade was what created the best version of the Big Red Machine
 
The only problem with Lee May is that he landed with Baltimore and my Yankees needed to play against him.
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah, of course here in SW Ohio this is getting lots of press ink: just about everyone is saying he was a guy everyone liked, great personality, never lost his cool. a totally class act. I remember when he was traded, people thought the Reds were nuts. However, getting Joe Morgan was probably why the Reds went from being a very good team (two world series losses in the early 70s, to maybe-for a couple years, the greatest team ever with that line through the middle (Bench at Catcher, Concepcion at short, Morgan at Second and Cesaer Geronimo (I watched him throw a guy out from the deepest part of centerfield to Bench at the plate-greatest throw I ever saw) in Center. Lots of experts claim that defensively was the best ever.

Lee still remained really popular in Cincinnati even after people realized that his trade was what created the best version of the Big Red Machine
Click to expand...

The most interesting thing to me about the BRM is that they won without a traditional ace pitcher. The starting staff of the 1975-76 Reds was pretty nondescript.

In '75, their top starters were Gary Nolan, Jack Billingham, Fred Norman, Don Gullett and Pat Darcy. In '76, they added Pat Zachry and Santo Alaca. Rawly Eastwick was their closer, for crying out loud. None of them were bad pitchers, per se, but they didn't get Seaver until 1978, once the BRM had started its decline.

I defy anyone to find me a team that won consecutive World Series with more "meh" pitching than the mid-70s Reds. Hell, my 92-93 Blue Jays were never known for their pitching, and their staff blows the BRM's out of the water.
 
Kobie said:
The most interesting thing to me about the BRM is that they won without a traditional ace pitcher. The starting staff of the 1975-76 Reds was pretty nondescript.

In '75, their top starters were Gary Nolan, Jack Billingham, Fred Norman, Don Gullett and Pat Darcy. In '76, they added Pat Zachry and Santo Alaca. Rawly Eastwick was their closer, for crying out loud. None of them were bad pitchers, per se, but they didn't get Seaver until 1978, once the BRM had started its decline.

I defy anyone to find me a team that won consecutive World Series with more "meh" pitching than the mid-70s Reds. Hell, my 92-93 Blue Jays were never known for their pitching, and their staff blows the BRM's out of the water.
Click to expand...

good point. Nolan was considered a budding superstar but he had a nagging injury that never allowed him to be as good as predicted
 
Kobie said:
The most interesting thing to me about the BRM is that they won without a traditional ace pitcher. The starting staff of the 1975-76 Reds was pretty nondescript.

In '75, their top starters were Gary Nolan, Jack Billingham, Fred Norman, Don Gullett and Pat Darcy. In '76, they added Pat Zachry and Santo Alaca. Rawly Eastwick was their closer, for crying out loud. None of them were bad pitchers, per se, but they didn't get Seaver until 1978, once the BRM had started its decline.

I defy anyone to find me a team that won consecutive World Series with more "meh" pitching than the mid-70s Reds. Hell, my 92-93 Blue Jays were never known for their pitching, and their staff blows the BRM's out of the water.
Click to expand...
On the flipside, the Cubs had some of the best pitchers of the era throwing for them and couldnt win squat during those years: Holtzman, Jenkins, Sutter and, a few years later, Maddox.

Go figure.
 
Kobie said:
The most interesting thing to me about the BRM is that they won without a traditional ace pitcher. The starting staff of the 1975-76 Reds was pretty nondescript.

In '75, their top starters were Gary Nolan, Jack Billingham, Fred Norman, Don Gullett and Pat Darcy. In '76, they added Pat Zachry and Santo Alaca. Rawly Eastwick was their closer, for crying out loud. None of them were bad pitchers, per se, but they didn't get Seaver until 1978, once the BRM had started its decline.

I defy anyone to find me a team that won consecutive World Series with more "meh" pitching than the mid-70s Reds. Hell, my 92-93 Blue Jays were never known for their pitching, and their staff blows the BRM's out of the water.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's one thing that always amazed me about that Red team. That had a mess of good pitchers, but no real star. I'd say that some of the Yankee dynasty teams from the 20's were like that. Though their pitchers may have had good records, that was mostly due to the team's offense. Their pitchers were decent, but they didn't have a Lefty Grove or Walter Johnson. Waite Hoyt was good, but he wasn't really a star.
 
TurtleDude said:
good point. Nolan was considered a budding superstar but he had a nagging injury that never allowed him to be as good as predicted
Click to expand...

In '72, when Steve Carlton had that monstrous season. Nolan, from an ERA standpoint, was just a tiny bit behind him.
 
Lee May also had a brother, Carlos. It's interesting... Carlos was considered far more naturally talented than Lee... but Lee worked and Carlos was lazy, so Lee did better.
 
calamity said:
On the flipside, the Cubs had some of the best pitchers of the era throwing for them and couldnt win squat during those years: Holtzman, Jenkins, Sutter and, a few years later, Maddox.

Go figure.
Click to expand...

In some respects, the Cubs of the early 70's had the best pitching staff in baseball. At one point that had Holtzman, Jenkins, Pappas, and Hands; the first 3 could have been the aces of a staff, and Bill Hands, though not an ace, was solid.
 
calamity said:
On the flipside, the Cubs had some of the best pitchers of the era throwing for them and couldnt win squat during those years: Holtzman, Jenkins, Sutter and, a few years later, Maddox.

Go figure.
Click to expand...

Maddux was like 12 years later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom