Powell and Carl Yastrzemski were both first basemen, and Yaz was
clearly the better player. Yastrzemski led the league in runs scored, total bases and OPS, and missed winning the batting title by less than a
percentage point. Powell
didn't lead the league in anything. He ranked third in RBI and OPS, fifth in home runs and total bases.
I have to believe that Yastrzemski was a
better player then Powell. I am also going to choose Tony Oliva ahead
of Powell as well. Oliva's percentages are not as good as Powell's, but
he produced more runs, was a much better defensive player, played almost
every game, and led the Twins to a division title.
Not that Powell wasn't a good player. John
Wesley Powell was a big lefty who hit 339 home runs in his career. He
played for 17 years, most of them with the Orioles, and was an All-Star
four times. He was a good hitter who would draw some walks, but otherwise
his skills were limited, and his power numbers tended to fluctuate from
year to year. He was also a very popular player, and as I write this I
believe he still runs a restaurant near Camden Yards. But then, how could
a player named "Boog" not be popular?
Luis Aparicio was 36, and had
his best year at the plate. He also won a Gold Glove. Too bad his
team (the White Sox) lost 106 games. The best shortstop, and maybe
best infielder in the league, was likely Jim Fregosi. He hit well,
produced a lot of runs, played good defense, was durable, and
his team (the Angels) had a good year.
This was Thurman Munson's rookie year; he won the Rookie Of
The Year Award, and would go on to become one of the top catchers of the
decade. Another good young catcher was Ray Fosse, who was 23 years old and had his best season. In the
All Star Game, however, Fosse was hurt in a collision with Pete
Rose, who was trying to score the winning run. It was, and is, a
very controversial play (after all, it was only an All Star Game),
as both players were hurt, and Fosse never played very well again.
What's that? Pete Rose and controversy? I can't imagine...
