Stanley Turrentine

[JSngry]

Well, I couldn't tell, because I don't know what batting at 0.285 means...

MG

Is a batting average, a baseball staistic. Hits/Official At Bats. A batting average of 0.285 means that of all the times he had an Official At bat, the batter got a hit 28.5% of the time. (now, "official at bat" is a little bit of a tricky proposition for soembody who doesn't know the game, but you get the idea, I hope).

More details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batting_average

http://www.ehow.com/how_9730_calculate-batting-average.html

A .285 hitter is a darn good hitter, possible even great if included in those hits are "power" and/or "clutch" hits. You definitely don't disrespect a .285 hitter.

But you usually don't fear him either, unless he is a known "power hitter", sombody whose hits are predominately ones that create disruption and/or scoring. Teams all want .285 hitters, but teams are willing to trade them to get even better hitters and/or to fill other needs.

To give some perspective, a .300 hitter is considered a "star", and anything over, say... .325 or .330 is considered spectacular. Do that consistently, and a player becomes a "superstar". Do it consistently enough and you become a Legend Of The Game.

A lifetime .285 hitter will (unless, again, they were a proven power hitter, an exceptional defensive player, or otherwise had some unique skill(s) ) be remembered fondly and respectfully by the game's cognoscenti and those who were around then, but to the general public they will become yet another faceless name, one of many others who played the game through the years, were known in their time, and now....aren't..

A final note, to give some historical/statistical perspective - The last person to hit .400, once a not uncommon (if far from common) was Ted Williams, in 1941. He hit .406. Players since havd threatened to repeat that feat, some more seriously than others, but inevitably fade as the season goes on.

[Dan Gould]

Considering how intelligent baseball analysis ("sabermetrics") is moving away from BA because it is one of the most variable of all hitting statistics, I am really wondering what Stanley's OBP (on-base percentage) and SLG (slugging percentage) was, so I can determine his all-important OPS (On-base plus slugging).

Better yet, how did he do away from his "home field" of RVG's studio? If you want a true picture of the man in full context, you have to control for the effects of recording at Rudy's, (I'm going to call that statistic "RVG+") and if you really want to get the very fullest measure of the player, you've got to control for the fact that he played and recorded in an era in which brilliant recordings were a workaday habit for many (to keep up the belabored baseball metaphor, I'll call that one "ERA+").

It is my considered opinion that Mr. T's ERA+ was a very solid .870. Borderline Hall of Fame credentials but unfortunately some voters place too much emphasis on the decade of the Seventies, where his ERA+ admittedly slipped to .790.

[Dan Gould]

Now that I've had my fun, let me just say that I think Jim overestimates the talent of a .285 hitter. .285 hitters are in almost all cases, nothing more than solid major leaguers. Chances are that if they hit with power (and are therefore more "valuable") they don't hit for as high an average. A .285 hitter is interchangeable with about 60% of the league, won't ever get a sniff of the Hall of Fame, and is generally forgotten by everybody as soon as he retires.

Stanley Turrentine was most assuredly not a ".285 hitter".

IMHOP, he was a perennial All-Star, save for the career dip he took in the Fantasy years.

[Matthew]

Let me add a dissenting voice here. Not only did Turrentine record a good deal of boring stuff, he sometimes did not play that well live. I saw him several times in the 1977--83 period. Sometimes he was O.K., not a world beater but enjoyable enough. Sometimes he was barely mailing it in, visibly going through the motions onstage.

I agree that many of his recordings before and through the CTI "Sugar" album were quite good. I just think that the unanimous, effusive praise for Turrentine on this thread makes me think that I am reading a thread about Lester Young or someone of that level, and it wasn't exactly like that.

You know how there are some artists you just don't get all the praise they receive? for me Turrentine is one of those. I must have pig-iron ears because I've never liked his tone, his approach, or his timing. Yes, I know, a lot of what we hear is personal to ourselves, but for me, Turrentine is not even third tier. People here really like his tone? I always considered it weak, and I found a lot of his solos uninteresting. This really is a case where YMMV.

Edited November 24, 2007 by Matthew

[JSngry]

Now that I've had my fun, let me just say that I think Jim overestimates the talent of a .285 hitter. .285 hitters are in almost all cases, nothing more than solid major leaguers.

But... a "solid major leaguer" is still a damn good ballplayer, no?

Even with the dilution of talent that's been going on since the first wave of expansion back in 1961, and even allowing that there have been more than a few players who've made the bigs since that never would have when it wa still a 16 tem affair, don't you think that to be a career major league .285 hitter is something that less than, oh...1% of everybody who's played the game professionally at any level could muster?

Dude, if you look for 'em, you can find all sorts of cats who played ball in college, or semi-pro, or even in the low level minors who are very, very solid players at any but a major league level. If you had them on your recreational league team, you'd be accused of having a ringer, know what I mean? But these guys couldn't even get to the higher monors, much less to the majors, much less put together a .285 season when they got there, much less maintain that for a career.

Sure, in the isolated context of the majors, .285 is "just" solid. But what it takes to be solid at that level relative to what "solid" means in the context of the game as a whole is a whole 'nother bag. Anybody who can consitently hit .285 in the bigs might not be a spectacular "major leaguer", but they're still a spectacular "baseball player".

Now, that of course leads to the psedo-need to categorize spectacular major leaguers as "super-spectacular" baseball players, or some nonsense like that, and as for that....yuck.

But it's the same thing as the James Spaulding thing - rating (where/when/if it needs to be done) is always going to be relative to context, and as "true" as it is to rate in a micr-context, then surely it is equally true to also consider rating in a macrto-context, if for no other reason than to fully appreciate exactly what it is that is getting micro-rated.

To simplify all I'm saying is that on a scale of 1-10. relative to all baseball players, a career .285 major league hitter rates a 9., what...8? Yeah, sure, 9.7, why not... But relative to all major league hitters, where the scale only runs from 9-10, that 9.8 is the equivalent to scoring a 80 on an exam - solid but not spectacular by any stretch of the imagination.

But hell dude, if I could hit .100 in the bigs, I'd be happier than tits in a tongue factory!

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

happier than tits in a tongue factory!

Thanks to you and Dan for that discussion, but particularly for that last image!

MG

[TedR]

Of course if you hit .100 in the majors, you better be a really good pitcher.

[T.D.]

Well, to bat .100 in the majors, you'd have to have at least 10 official ABs in "The Show", which would satisfy my sports fantasies (well, OK, that plus a few groupies...).

Wandering OT, I recall a Yankee pitcher named Bob Kammeyer. He had only 1 big-league appearance, in 1979. Got bombed, gave up 8 ER without retiring a batter, for a career ERA of infinity! I googled, and there are quite a few pitchers with such sorry records.

[Hot Ptah]

Let me add a dissenting voice here. Not only did Turrentine record a good deal of boring stuff, he sometimes did not play that well live. I saw him several times in the 1977--83 period. Sometimes he was O.K., not a world beater but enjoyable enough. Sometimes he was barely mailing it in, visibly going through the motions onstage.

I agree that many of his recordings before and through the CTI "Sugar" album were quite good. I just think that the unanimous, effusive praise for Turrentine on this thread makes me think that I am reading a thread about Lester Young or someone of that level, and it wasn't exactly like that.

You know how there are some artists you just don't get all the praise they receive? for me Turrentine is one of those. I must have pig-iron ears because I've never liked his tone, his approach, or his timing. Yes, I know, a lot of what we hear is personal to ourselves, but for me, Turrentine is not even third tier. People here really like his tone? I always considered it weak, and I found a lot of his solos uninteresting. This really is a case where YMMV.

I tend to agree with you. I never found his solos to be that interesting. To me, he is an O.K. tenor player. I agree with you--I never found his approach to music to be all that compelling.

[six string]

Great saxophonist. I love his sound. I don't think many people rave about him at all, even now. I been buying a lot of his albums lately. I love Sugar on CTI. His sound is in the class of Hank Mobley. Very soulful. How long was he married to Shirley? Did they ever split up?

I think they split up sometime around 1970, though I may be wrong.

Absolutely love Stanley's sound and playing. Instantly identifiable; BIG and soulful. Have you bought the Blue Hour sessions with Gene Harris and The Three Sounds? Some find it sleep-inducing but its tough to find a more soulful sounding Mr. T.

That was my first Stanley album. Bought it two years ago. It's pretty good.

Sugar was my first Stanley album too back in 1982. It was recomended by a friend of mine from New Zealand who lived in the same apartment complex. Nowadays I really prefer his early Bluenote stuff, but his tone is always great regardless of what he's doing. I bought the Mosaic box a while back and love it. I still need a copy of Live at Minton's vol.2. That album is really hard to find for some reason. In fact a lot of his early BN stuff isn't very readily available. I wonder why?

Of his later period, what can someone suggest as a purchase? I see his lps in the bends all the time but the covers scare me away!

[king ubu]

what the hell are you talking about?

[paul secor]

Stanley Turrentine was most assuredly not a ".285 hitter".

IMHOP, he was a perennial All-Star, save for the career dip he took in the Fantasy years.

I'm not much on baseball All-Star games. Liked them when I was a kid, but I much prefer to watch real teams play than two teams made up of stars play. But - since you brought it up - in the years when Stanley Turrentine was in his prime, there were a few other tenor players on the scene who, if Stanley Turrentine was an All-Star, might also have been considered All-Stars:

Hawk, Trane, Rollins, Ben, Jug, Getz, Ayler, Shepp, Mobley, Golson, Stitt, Zoot, Griffin, Budd Freeman, Budd Johnson, Rouse, Gonsalves, Ervin, Arnett Cobb, George Coleman, Sam Rivers.

I know that I'm leaving people out, but these players came to mind. I know that some of these folks might not be All-Stars to some, and some might not be considered All-Stars to anyone. And that's the point. All of these tenor saxophonists played music that I enjoy listening to, and when I'm listening to one of them I don't start thinking about how their playing compares to other people's. All that matters is their music at that moment. I would include the best of Stanley Turrentine's playing with the people I listed above. I guess in that sense, he's an All-Star.

Edited November 26, 2007 by paul secor

[Hot Ptah]

I think that Turrentine at his best was a good, solid player, often quite enjoyable, who contributed to some fine recordings. He deserves, in my opinion only, a series of posts with moderate praise. The effusive adulation on this thread just strikes me as excessive.

To carry the baseball metaphor further, Hank Aaron and Willie Mays were great players and deserve high praise. Gus Bell was a good player, but not one of the all time greats. If a baseball thread was started in which member after member called Gus Bell one of the all time great outfielders, it would strike me as odd.

[John L]

I think that Turrentine at his best was a good, solid player, often quite enjoyable, who contributed to some fine recordings. He deserves, in my opinion only, a series of posts with moderate praise. The effusive adulation on this thread just strikes me as excessive.

To carry the baseball metaphor further, Hank Aaron and Willie Mays were great players and deserve high praise. Gus Bell was a good player, but not one of the all time greats. If a baseball thread was started in which member after member called Gus Bell one of the all time great outfielders, it would strike me as odd.

The baseball analogy has its limitations. Music is not sports. If you had a healthy Aaron or Mays, you would never want to play Gus Bell in their place. But the fact that we have lots of recordings by Pres, Trane, and Rollins doesn't mean that we don't want to hear Turrentine. On the contrary. When it comes to music, variety is part of the spice of life. Maybe a better analogy would be sexual partners... :D

The "effusive adulation" by myself and others is admittedly subjective, but it is nevertheless real. Turrentine has the power to move some of us deeply.

Edited November 26, 2007 by John L

[Jim Alfredson]

A big to the post above.

[Dan Gould]

A big to the post above.

That goes double for me.

[DMP]

Well, he was better than the current team from his hometown, maybe at any position. (Althought the Pirates were pretty good in the '60's and '70's, so he might have been used as a pinch hitter back then.)

[Daniel A]

Do you think it would be possible to use some other sports as the basis for an analogy? Golf?

[Hot Ptah]

I recall a letter to down beat magazine years ago which called Cootie Williams "the Roberto Clemente of the trumpet."

[Dan Gould]

I recall a letter to down beat magazine years ago which called Cootie Williams "the Roberto Clemente of the trumpet."

Cuz he was stuck on 3000 hits? Cuz he was a humanitarian who died trying to aid his countrymen?

[Randy Twizzle]

I recall a letter to down beat magazine years ago which called Cootie Williams "the Roberto Clemente of the trumpet."

Cuz he was stuck on 3000 hits? Cuz he was a humanitarian who died trying to aid his countrymen?

Nothing to do with Cootie, but about three years ago during a charity telethon ancient NY radio personality Cousin Bruce Morrow asked Roberto Clemente Jr. "How's your dad?"

[Shawn]

Why is it necessary to compare Turrentine to baseball or to downgrade him to an "okay" player standing in shadows of countless others whose talent far exceeds his own? (that sounds like a Lovecraft quote)

It's not. Give the man some credit for having a fucking VOICE! Turrentine was always Turrentine, he was real, regardless of the situation, personnel, producer or commercial viability...underneath it all, the man was definitely real. I could care less about chops or ground-breaking or whatever...Turrentine creates JOY (yes, I said joy). His playing makes you wanna get up and dance or drink or screw or just go nuts. It's music for motion and for emotion. You can't teach soul like he had...

[JSngry]

Why is it necessary to compare Turrentine to baseball or to downgrade him to an "okay" player standing in shadows of countless others whose talent far exceeds his own? (that sounds like a Lovecraft quote)

It's not. Give the man some credit for having a fucking VOICE! Turrentine was always Turrentine, he was real, regardless of the situation, personnel, producer or commercial viability...underneath it all, the man was definitely real. I could care less about chops or ground-breaking or whatever...Turrentine creates JOY (yes, I said joy). His playing makes you wanna get up and dance or drink or screw or just go nuts. It's music for motion and for emotion. You can't teach soul like he had...

A big to the post above.

[clifford_thornton]

No disagreement from me.

Stan was "The Man" on many occasions, even if the album of that title isn't one of my favorites of his.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Of his later period, what can someone suggest as a purchase? I see his lps in the bends all the time but the covers scare me away!

If you only want "great" albums in your collection, don't bother. If you don't mind forking out small beer for an album that's merely enjoyable, and honest though commercial, pick up "Everybody come on out" or "Use the stairs" both on Fantasy LPs which I'm sure you can find cheap, or "More than a mood" (Music Masters), which is straight ahead stuff with Freddie Hubbard (and that one's deleted, too).

MG