Steve Garvey

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by rats60

Garvey was also 3rd in TZR 3 of his 4 gold glove seasons. So how is someone 3rd in one category and 1st in 2 others unworthy of gold glove? I can also throw out that he was playing the most games at 1b, so that durability adds value. He had good seasons at 1b when he won gold gloves, saving 5 and 6 runs. If he had brought that level of defense his whole career, he would be near the top of your list. Gold glove is a yearly award, so having good defensive seasons and winning gold gloves doesn't mean you have to be good defensively over your whole career and if you aren't they take them away and give them to someone else. Garvey did deserve to win.

You rate players by WAR. Garvey was the best player on the Dodgers from 74-81. He doesn't fair well in WAR because He didn't walk a lot. He just got a lot of hits and drove in a lot of runs. I know some of you guys don't like RBIs, but at some point reality has to kick in. To win games one of your players has to actually get hits with RISP, having a high WAR doesn't win anything.

I don't ignore WAR, but at some point actual on field accomplishments have to come into play. There are some players who the stat doesn't fit well, such as Steve Garvey and Bobby Grich. I lived in LA at the time. If you had asked anyone at the park, who was the better player, it would have been unanimous for Garvey. That is probably why Grich only got 11 votes for the HOF and Garvey got 176 the next year when he appeared on the ballot.

That's the problem with the "eye test". Never tells the whole story and often does not tell the correct one. Bobby Grich is one of the ten best players at his position in history. I would put him top 8. Ahead of many many HOFers at the position. Legitimate HOFers I might add. Garvey is way WAY down the list at 1B. How many HOF 1B is Garvey better than? Two. Bottomley and Kelly. Kelly certainly doesn't belong there and Bottomley is borderline at very best.

Tom C

Edit: And you are correct that Garvey was pretty decent in three of the four years he won the gold glove. But being third best in the league in TZR doesn't mean that your gold glove was merited. The last two, certainly, when Hernandez played full seasons in no way shape or form should Garvey have won. I'll be kind and say that he wasn't a terrible selection for the first two years, and that the next two were honorary.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

That's the problem with the "eye test". Never tells the whole story and often does not tell the correct one. Bobby Grich is one of the ten best players at his position in history. I would put him top 8. Ahead of many many HOFers at the position. Legitimate HOFers I might add. Garvey is way WAY down the list at 1B. How many HOF 1B is Garvey better than? Two. Bottomley and Kelly. Kelly certainly doesn't belong there and Bottomley is borderline at very best.

Tom C

Edit: And you are correct that Garvey was pretty decent in three of the four years he won the gold glove. But being third best in the league in TZR doesn't mean that your gold glove was merited. The last two, certainly, when Hernandez played full seasons in no way shape or form should Garvey have won. I'll be kind and say that he wasn't a terrible selection for the first two years, and that the next two were honorary.

And that's the problem Sabermetrics. The "eye test" is more important than any "formula." If you take advanced statistics, that is one of the first things that you are taught. With sabermaticians, they say if your observations don't fit their formula, ignore them. That is unscientific. Scientists make their formulas fit their observations.

I disagree on Grich. Like Simmons, he is better than mistakes in the HOF. He is not top 10 in my opinion. He is not even the best 2b not in the HOF, that is Lou Whitaker. He is not a slam dunk, but I am fine with him in or out of HOF once Whitaker and Garvey are in.

We do agree that Garvey would be towards the bottom of the 1st basemen in the HOF. I just have him a lot higher than you. I have him only behind Keith Hernandez, who along with Alan Trammell are my 2 slam dunks. If we are taking guys who in my mind are marginal candidates, I would take a winner like Garvey and guys who had higher peaks like Mattingly and Murphy. Guys who everyone knew were superstars, but just were not for long enough. It is the Hall of Fame with emphasis on fame, not being above average for a long time.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by rats60

And that's the problem Sabermetrics. The "eye test" is more important than any "formula." If you take advanced statistics, that is one of the first things that you are taught. With sabermaticians, they say if your observations don't fit their formula, ignore them. That is unscientific. Scientists make their formulas fit their observations.

I disagree on Grich. Like Simmons, he is better than mistakes in the HOF. He is not top 10 in my opinion. He is not even the best 2b not in the HOF, that is Lou Whitaker. He is not a slam dunk, but I am fine with him in or out of HOF once Whitaker and Garvey are in.

We do agree that Garvey would be towards the bottom of the 1st basemen in the HOF. I just have him a lot higher than you. I have him only behind Keith Hernandez, who along with Alan Trammell are my 2 slam dunks. If we are taking guys who in my mind are marginal candidates, I would take a winner like Garvey and guys who had higher peaks like Mattingly and Murphy. Guys who everyone knew were superstars, but just were not for long enough. It is the Hall of Fame with emphasis on fame, not being above average for a long time.

I can definitely see your point regarding players with a higher peak that could not sustain it for a lengthy period of time. As you said, guys like Murphy or Mattingly. No doubt they should be in the conversation. I also agree that Hernandez and Trammell should be in wthout a doubt. I have Whitaker a bit below Grich but Whitaker should be in as well. He is either top 10 or at worst top 12 all time for 2B.

I'll add a few pitchers I think should get some extra consideration. None are slam dunks but all should get much more of a look:

Kevin Brown
David Cone
Bille Pierce
Rick Reuschel
Bret Saberhagen
Dave Stieb

I also think that Willie Randolph should get more of a look than he has gotten.

Heinie Groh and Stan Hack and Darrell Evans should get more of a look. Graig Nettles should be in.

Minnie Minoso should be in. Jimmy Wynn should get more of a look. Dwight Evans should be in. Reggie Smith should be in. Dick Allen should be in. Gary Sheffield should get far more love than he has.

And Edgar Martinez needs to get in.

Tom C

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by rats60

And that's the problem Sabermetrics. The "eye test" is more important than any "formula." If you take advanced statistics, that is one of the first things that you are taught. With sabermaticians, they say if your observations don't fit their formula, ignore them. That is unscientific. Scientists make their formulas fit their observations.

I disagree on Grich. Like Simmons, he is better than mistakes in the HOF. He is not top 10 in my opinion. He is not even the best 2b not in the HOF, that is Lou Whitaker. He is not a slam dunk, but I am fine with him in or out of HOF once Whitaker and Garvey are in.

We do agree that Garvey would be towards the bottom of the 1st basemen in the HOF. I just have him a lot higher than you. I have him only behind Keith Hernandez, who along with Alan Trammell are my 2 slam dunks. If we are taking guys who in my mind are marginal candidates, I would take a winner like Garvey and guys who had higher peaks like Mattingly and Murphy. Guys who everyone knew were superstars, but just were not for long enough. It is the Hall of Fame with emphasis on fame, not being above average for a long time.

this is absolute nonsense.
the "eye test" HAS BEEN PROVEN to be garbage. confirmation bias (as exhibited by you) recency bias..etc skew reality for people.


Not to mention that a formula applied to everyone will result in an applicable ratio of production even if not an accurate one. so even if WAR didn't nail player's exact win value, it DOES give an accurate measure of production relative to each other.

[the 'stache]

Oh, come on, Ron Fairly on par with Steve Garvey is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Yes, their career advanced metrics are strikingly similar. Only because from age 32 on, Garvey's offensive performance fell off a cliff. From 1981 to 1986, the last six plus years of his career, his OPS + was 101. If 100 is league average, Garvey was a league average hitter. But from 1974 to 1980, his OPS + was 130. The thing is, Fairly was consistently average throughout his entire career, with a few clunkers thrown into the mix. But he had absolutely nowhere near the peak that Garvey had. Fairly never received a single MVP vote. Not one. Garvey was a league MVP, and had four other top ten finishes. Did he get those because he had great hair? No. He was one of the catalysts on one of the best teams in baseball. Maybe the old metrics have been shown to be inferior for judging players. But for the longest time, a .300 hitter with 200 hits, 20 + home runs, and 100 + RBI was considered a superstar. And that was Steve Garvey from '74 to '80. He averaged 161 games played a season; 88 runs scored, 201 hits, 32 doubles, 23 home runs, and a .311 average.

As has been mentioned, Garvey's career OPS takes a beating because he didn't walk. First basemen have historically been the guys to hit for power, and drive in runs. The table setters atop the lineup are the ones that get on base.

Look at Fairly's average production from the same ages-25 to 31, and compare the numbers to Garvey. Fairly, from '64 to '70, averaged 134 games played, 19 doubles, 11 home runs, 59 RBI, and hit .260.

On what planet are those two players equally valuable? Fairly is as good a player as Garvey because he sucked less later in his career? Give me a break.

Sometimes you have to inject a little common sense into statistical analysis. I'll take a guy that was a star performer at his peak over a first baseman that walked more.

[btcarfagno]

OPS+ seasons with more than 300 plate appearances in order highest to lowest:

Ron Fairly 146 142 142 131 131 124 124 120 120 119 115 115 114 88 84.
St. Garvey 138 134 133 130 130 125 124 122 115 110 109 109 101 91 91

Fairly looks better here but those two highest seasons for him were fairly low on plate appearances whereas with Garvey they were high on the plate appearances.

Still, again, very similar players.

One bunched up the seasons on great teams with great offensive teammates. The other spread out the very good seasons throughout his career mostly on expansion teams through no fault of his own.

Tom C

[btcarfagno]

Also not sure why you would choose the same age years to compare the two. What does that prove? Garvey was better during those ages? Absolutely. Do you have any idea what Fairly's OPS+ was for the seven year period from age 30 to age 36? 127.

Garvey had a seven year peak and not a whole lot else before and after.

Fairly was a roller coaster with partial seasons, a few clunkers, some outstanding years.

They took different paths to arrive at pretty much the same place.

Again, I rank Garvey higher for his post season accomplishments. But during the regular season, although they arrived there in very different ways, they are very similar players.

Tom C

[btcarfagno]

Norm Cash was a MUCH better player than Garvey. Like....laughably ridiculously better. Equal on defense at same position. FFFFAAAARRRRR better hitter than Garvey.

Norm Cash should not be a HOFer.

So.....

Tom C

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

this is absolute nonsense.
the "eye test" HAS BEEN PROVEN to be garbage. confirmation bias (as exhibited by you) recency bias..etc skew reality for people.


Not to mention that a formula applied to everyone will result in an applicable ratio of production even if not an accurate one. so even if WAR didn't nail player's exact win value, it DOES give an accurate measure of production relative to each other.

I would like to see that proof. Perhaps you can give me a link to that PhD dissertation that disproves thousands of years of scientific thought. I am sure the whole Statistics community would be interested, it would be revolutionary. I won't however accept a link to some BS on a website that anyone can post on the internet. It must be from someone with actual credentials and be confirmed by other experts in the field of statistics.

Your second statement is 100% false. If there are errors in the formula, which there obviously are (Do you really believe Johnny Bench and Lou Whitaker were equivalent players?), it is going to going to produce inaccurate results. In science we say garbage in garbage out. As some have commented before, it is the best we have, so I try to use it when I can. In the end it is one person's opinion (fangraphs disagrees with bb reference). In areas where my opinion differs based on 50 years of playing and studying the game and a Master's Degree in Statistics, I am going to trust my professors, not somebody I don't know with unknown credentials.

[bravos4evr]

appeal to authority logical fallacy.....

and argument from incredulity

try again cupcake

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

appeal to authority logical fallacy.....

and argument from incredulity

try again cupcake

Just what I thought, you have nothing but your opinion and insults.

[2dueces]

My only opinion on this subject is the Hall of Fame has become the Hall of pretty Good too often. I think it should be reserved for the best of the best of the best. It's been watered down so much that these conversations take on a life of their own. Even discussing the 51st best first baseman of all time shows it is true. BTW, I like Steve Garvey, but not a HOFer.