Quote:
Originally Posted by rats60
Drove in runs. If you have 2nd and 3rd with two outs, do you want your star to try to draw a walk or try to get a hit? Garvey hit .373 in those situations. You win by scoring the most runs not by drawing the most walks.
Garvey was clutch at getting big hits, driving in runs and winning games. OBP is for losers. How many World Series has Mike Trout led his team too?
I don't understand the obsession with drawing walks. You don't make an out, but now you are asking a worse player to get a hit to drive in runs and win the game. Pitchers intentionally walk batters to do exactly the same thing. That should tell you how little value a walk can have.
|
The logical issues here should be immediately apparent.
1) If driving in runs is what matters, how is a player supposed to drive in runs if getting on base is irrelevant and "for losers"?
2) The only way to score a run without first getting on base is to hit a home run, which Garvey was not very good at either. So this doesn't seem to help his case.
3) No player has single handedly taken his team to a championship title. By the standard of winning games, backups on the Yankees are some of the very best players of all time and Ted Williams sucks. Does this make sense?
4) There is a very strong correlation and causation between A) getting on base and B) runs being scored by that players team because it is a pre-requisite for the vast majority of runs scored in any time period of the game. A home run with the bases empty is the only way to score without first being on base.
5) If getting on base is "for losers" and Garvey's lack of home run power is also not a problem, then there appears to be literally no offensive standard of production to be a hall of famer.
6) If by driving in runs we mean RBI's are the key metric, then getting on base cannot be for "losers" as a players RBI's come from his teammates getting on base.
7) If we completely ignore the direct contradiction in 6, and say RBI's is what matters even though getting on base is irrelevant and for losers, Garvey ranks 109th with dozens of non-HOF players ahead of him. Reuben Sierra, Garret Anderson, Chili Davis, Carlos Lee, and other legends of the game rank ahead of him. I guess we better elect all of them.
8) If RBI rate or productivity is what matters, Garvey fares even worse. He is 109th in RBI's, but 85th in all time at-bats, and many of those ahead of him were leadoff hitters not in an RBI position. He doesn't appear to actually be very good at driving in runs either.
Mike Trout's a loser, Charlie Silvera is great. On-base is for losers, home runs are irrelevant, driving in runs is king even though that can't possibly happen without players getting on base or hitting home runs. There may be a rational argument for Steve Garvey. This is obviously not it.