|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Garvey
I agree that his fielding stats are misleading. I remember from back in the day he would hardly stretch or go off the bag. If the throw was errant, too bad.
BUT I am hugely sympathetic to him possibly going in. For starters, he was a 10-time all star and fell just 401 hits short of 3,000. His career avg. was .294 and in post-season action he excelled, batting .338 in 55 post-season games with 11 home runs (which equates to a home run in 4.7% of plate appearances compared to his career average of 2.9%) and 31 RBIs. And look at this stat! Number of seasons with 200+ hits. Steve Garvey - 6 Tony Gwynn - 5 Rod Carew - 4 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Garvey was a great post season player. One of the best. He was a dominant player in his era. Sometimes the stats don't tell the true story. He should be in the Hall of Fame if Tony Perez and Harold Baines are in. Keith Hernandez should also be in based upon some of the past selections.
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Garvey was a fine player but he was a (mostly) singles hitter at a position where power is the norm. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Last edited by tod41; 07-01-2021 at 05:51 PM. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Yes, he was a very good postseason performer, beating out Mantle in OPS by .002, but that's not nearly enough to offset his simply "pretty good" regular season numbers. Yes, he topped 130 in OPS+ but that's not "dominant". It's good but it's not dominant. He had one season in top 10 for OPS (10th place in 1978). One season over 5 in WAR. Two seasons top 10 in slugging, none over .500. Garvey had a really nice career and I like the man. He was EXTREMELY nice to my friend & I when we met him a few years ago. But he wasn't dominant and he simply wasn't good enough for the Hall. Last edited by Tabe; 07-01-2021 at 08:42 PM. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Jack Glasscock - he would be the only 1880's SS in the HOF ... George Wright is a pioneer who was done by the 1870's. Great long career and he did most of it without a glove.
Bobby Caruthers - a great pitcher who could play everyday and hit really well .. I guess Ohtani is the modern version and it hasn't happened since Ruth in about 1920. JIm McCormick - He lost 40 in one season but his WAR is still higher than just about anyone eligible for the HOF (not named Clemens or Bonds).... and even higher than Mike Trout for the time being ... Bill Dahlen - Great player who was recognized as a big deal in his own era. Strange how he got missed in the 50's when it seemed like they were putting everyone from the early 20th Century in the HOF who was a little famous. Even stranger that they missed George Davis until Bill James seems to have recovered him. Davis is statistically near the very top of Shortstops all-time. Minnie Minoso - Buck O'Neil - A lifetime achievement award.... He was a very good player and a good manager/coach too. But it's the whole package. This is generally not something the HOF is good at crediting. They like to compartmentalize the candidates. Lou Whitaker |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
And Garvey compares favorably to who? In 1977, one of his best years, he was middle of the pack in OPS+ among 1B. His contemporaries also included Tony Perez, Willie McCovey, and others. Heck, Bill Robinson outhit him. The fact that Jason Thompson - a guy "you have to search and find" had a higher OPS+ than Garvey speaks volumes about Garvey being "dominant". |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The game is decided by who scores the most runs, not who hits the most HRs or what team has the highest OPS. Garvey did what it took to win games, not impress want to be Statisticians. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
I'm not sure what Garvey did to win games that does not appear in the stats. I'd be interested to hear from the Garvey side specifics here, what the available stats are not accounting for. What am I, specifically, missing by looking at his stats?
As far as I can tell, Garvey's OPS numbers are more hurt by the fact that he was not good at getting on base. His power is not that great for a 1B, but it's not that bad either. His on bae is bad. .329 is straight up terrible for a player in HOF discussion. He did not walk, he hit into a lot of double plays, his power is mediocre. And he did this while he played the least important defensive position and the strongest offensive production positions. He got a lot of hits because he hit .290-.300 and never walked. It's not really a good thing that he got a few more hits than some other guys in far more at bats. He should get some points for playing 160 games a year (consistently showing up like that certainly is a bonus to a team), but his annual hit totals are not because he was a super star contact hitter (.294), it's because he had a huge number of at bats because he player 160 games and never walked. For many reasons, I do not trust the advanced defensive statistics to be very accurate for past players, so I will leave that out of it. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 07-04-2021 at 11:46 AM. |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
As for Trout, maybe his not winning has something to do with playing for teams like the 2019 Angels that just barely missed being the first team to have no one throw 100 innings. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
In Garvey's case, he 'suffered through' the 1 for 4 against the tough RH pitcher instead of taking the day off and passing the 0 for 4 onto the backup that would be playing in his stead. So in that sense, Garvey did help his team win more than his stats show. However, your premise on walks is pretty flawed, especially since half of your at bats come with nobody on base and walking in those cases is every bit as good as a single. Walks have about 2/3 the value of a single when you take into account ALL the situations, including men on. Garvey did however do a good job hitting with men on base, and there is some merit for him getting a hit with men on instead of passing it to a lesser hitter behind him...if indeed there was a lesser hitter behind him. However, some hitters are soo good that the pitchers simply will not let the hitter get any good pitches to hit, and swinging at those pitches will simply play into the pitchers hand. So they walk a lot more than everyone else. That is a good thing. The bad thing is if the management is dumb enough to not get a good enough hitter or two behind them to take advantage of that rare ability to hit for power AND get on base at an elite level. Garvey was not elite like that. What is the case then if the hitter behind Garvey is just as good as him, and then he is passing it to the next hitter who now has MORE guys on base to hit? Those walks would take on even MORE value then. SOme years Garvey had some good hitters behind him where giving them more scoring opportunities would have helped win more, not less. Some years he had much lesser hitters behind him, but I don't think he ever had putrid hitters behind him. Certainly not like players who were batting 7th or 8th in the NL where the walks truly do mean less.
__________________
http://originaloldnewspapers.com |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 07-05-2021 at 10:49 AM. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
And FUTURE want to be statisticians, using as yet unheard of stats at that...
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
It's funny timing on this conversation, and that I didn't edit my post to be less player specific, because I meant my comment to be more of a general comment.
Night before last I had a conversation with a fellow baseball fan and said "I'm a Garvey guy, he's the entire reason I've been a Dodger fan since I was 10 years old, but sadly, I don't see him as a hall of famer, he's right there on the steps, but I can't let him in." Sorry Steve, I still love you. |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 07-05-2021 at 06:49 PM. |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Brian |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Baseball Hall of Fame "Shoebox Treasures" Exhibit | sixpointone | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 1 | 04-05-2019 03:21 PM |
1977 Exhibits "Baseball's Great Hall of Fame" | Bram99 | Live Auctions - Only 2-3 open, per member, at once. | 1 | 01-27-2019 09:39 PM |
1970 article on "Card Collector's Hall of Fame" | trdcrdkid | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 12 | 03-04-2016 02:12 PM |
SOLD!!!! "HALL of FAME HEROES" COMPLETE 44 CARD SET! Ends Sun 12-8! | GoldenAge50s | Live Auctions - Only 2-3 open, per member, at once. | 5 | 12-08-2013 08:24 PM |
2013 Hall of Fame "Special" Induction 7/28...any Net54 members attending? | orator1 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 21 | 07-28-2013 05:38 PM |