Walks, on base, home runs, slugging percentage. the stats being used against Garvey were known in his time.
WAR doesn’t think he was great too, but I’m not using that against him. There are a lot of first basemen with better old stats than Garvey, some of which have already been highlighted.
I’d still love to see a logical argument for Garvey using any math, old or new. Surely there is a decent case to be made since he has quite a bit of support.
He performed well in the post season, he gets points for showing up every day and playing 162 games which I frankly think is underrated and works to his benefit. The problem is why he is better than dozens of other players with similar batting stats? Why should he leapfrog numerous players with better stats, old and new, to merit HOF induction?
|