The Reds had been a consistently outstanding team since 1970, but also had been hopeless in the playoffs. This year, however, the "Big Red Machine" finally broke through, and won their first of back-to-back World Series. Their star second baseman Joe Morgan, already one of the game's top players, raised his playing level another notch and won the MVP.

        Morgan's numbers were amazing. He got on base almost half the time, hit for average and power, was a great base stealer, led the league in runs produced... he simply dominated the league.
        Joe was 32 years old this season; incredibly, he duplicated his numbers in 1976, winning another MVP and leading the Reds to another championship. Morgan was a little guy, only 5'7", but it is hard to find any flaws in his game. He hit for average, hit for power, had excellent plate discipline, was the greatest baserunner of his generation, played a demanding defensive position, was a leader of a championship team... the list goes on.
        When Joe retired at age 40, he had played for 22 seasons, and appeared in over 2500 games at second base. He also had over 2500 hits, over 1800 walks, hit 268 homers and stole 689 bases in his career. He won two World Series, two MVP Awards and played in 50 playoff games. Morgan ranks as perhaps the game's greatest second baseman, and one of its greatest players (and you know I think highly of him, because I've given him two additional MVP's!). Since retiring, he has remained in the game as a broadcaster and writer, and is one of the sport's most visible personalities.
        The top two catchers in the league were Johnny Bench and Ted Simmons. They are difficult to choose between; Simmons had slightly better numbers at the plate, but Bench was better defensively, and was perfect as a base stealer. Bench's team also won the pennant, so I will give him the edge.
        Simmons was one of the best players of his generation, but was never considered a major star, and was ignored when he became eligible for the Hall Of Fame, dropping off of the ballot after one year. Simmons debtued with the Cardinals in 1968, when he was 18 years old; two years later, he replaced Tim McCarver as the team's catcher. He played for 21 years, and caught over 1700 games. He was a career .285 hitter with over 2400 hits, spiked by 248 home runs and 1389 RBI. Simmons also played in eight All-Star Games, and acquired the popular nickname "Simba", in reference to his golden locks.
        His Hall Of Fame argument is a simple one. Simmons has more hits than any other catcher ever; the hit leaders at the other seven positions are all in the Hall Of Fame. And Simmons wasn't just a singles hitter; among catchers, he is also the leader in career doubles, and is among the leaders in homers and RBI. By any measure, Simmons is one of the greatest hitters ever to play behind the plate.
        So what kind of negatives would he have to have to not be worthy of the Hall Of Fame? He did not have a great defensive reputation, but there is no evidence that he was a terrible catcher. You don't play 1700 games behind the plate if you can't catch. Off the field, he once got into a feud with manager Whitey Herzog, but that's the only blemish on that part of his record. Since his retirement, Simmons has worked in front office as GM for the Pirates, and for both the Cardinals and Padres as a director of player development.
        It probably didn't help his argument that three other catchers from his generation (Bench, Fisk, Carter) were clearly better. Heck, at this writing, even Carter hasn't been inducted. But had Simmons played in almost any other era, he would very likely have become a Hall-Of-Famer.
         The top sluggers in the league included Greg Luzinski, who was an awesome hitter, and helped the Phillies win their division. But he was about as bad a defensive player as you're ever likely to see, and he couldn't run at all. Luzinski was runner-up in the MVP vote. Dave Parker had his first big year, and he could play defense, but he didn't produce a lot of runs. Steve Garvey and Rusty Staub were good but not MVP quality.
        Al Oliver played for 18 years; he was a wicked line drive hitter who banged out 2743 hits in his career, spiked by 529 doubles, and 219 home runs. He spent most of his career as an outfielder with Pittsburgh and Texas, and was an All-Star seven times. Oliver's biggest flaw was impatience at the plate; he rarely walked, and didn't get on base as much as you would expect from a .300 hitter.
         Oliver is one of a number of players from the 1970's who could be considered for the Hall Of Fame; his credentials are about the same as Tony Perez's and Rusty Staub's. At this writing, Perez is in, wihle the others are still waiting for the moods of the voters to change. I think Oliver would be a mediocre addition to the Hall Of Fame, though he would not be the worst player to be inducted. He was a consistently good player, but never a great one, and was not consistently among the very best players in the league.