Golden Era Hall of Fame Ballot announced

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How did Steve Garvey "dominate" his era? He won no batting titles, no HR or RBI titles, never led the league in doubles. Not to say he was not a great player, but dominant seems overstating it.

Garvey had 10 AS game appearances and 6 top 11 MVP finishes including 5 years in a row. How does that not indicate dominance in his era?

Plus his consecutive games played streak and multiple Gold Gloves.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Garvey had 10 AS game appearances and 6 top 11 MVP finishes including 5 years in a row. How does that not indicate dominance in his era?

Plus his consecutive games played streak and multiple Gold Gloves.

Bill Freehan was an eleven time all star with a 2 and a 3 MVP finish. I bet I could find many other examples you wouldn't consider to be dominant players with lots of "top 11" MVP finishes.

Different definitions of dominance I guess.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bill Freehan was an eleven time all star with a 2 and a 3 MVP finish. I bet I could find many other examples you wouldn't consider to be dominant players with lots of "top 11" MVP finishes.

Different definitions of dominance I guess.

Bill Freehan played a position in which he could routinely bat .230 and make an AS game. Garvey was a much superior hitter and finished with 1000 more hits. Not only did Garvey win an MVP but as I said, he was judged to be one of the top 11 players in the league 6 times and an AS 10 times. He was also the best player on a team that appeared in 4 World Series. His overall numbers may not bear it out but he was certainly one of the top players in his era as anyone who grew up in the 70s would recall.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Well now you have changed your tune. Yes he was one of the top players of his era. I absolutely agree. That, to me, does not equate to being a dominant player. Semantics perhaps.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well now you have changed your tune. Yes he was one of the top players of his era. I absolutely agree. That, to me, does not equate to being a dominant player. Semantics perhaps.

Too many players got into the HOF simply because they kept on playing, amassing stats. Garvey had a long period of years in which he was one of the top players in baseball -- that made him a dominant player of his era.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't disagree with you on some of the longevity stat guys. And there are many guys I just don't understand the reason for at all. To me, Garvey is still a step below. Dave Parker has 7 top 11 MVP finishes -- is he in? Not to mention more HR RBI and hits than Garvey.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't disagree with you on some of the longevity stat guys. And there are many guys I just don't understand the reason for at all. To me, Garvey is still a step below. Dave Parker has 7 top 11 MVP finishes -- is he in? Not to mention more HR RBI and hits than Garvey.

I agree on Parker -- another guy who was a dominant player of his era. His greatness was spread out a bit more than Garvey and he had drug issues which surely hurt his chances. Like Garvey, probably just a notch below immortal greatness. I think my issue is that with so many guys who got in due to playing forever, there should be more value placed on players who were better during shorter careers. Again, I come back to Don Sutton who cannot truly be argued had a better career than Garvey by any measurement -- and they were a part of the same team during the same era. Can anyone claim that Sutton was the more important player to that team?

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Too many players got into the HOF simply because they kept on playing, amassing stats.

+1

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

+1

If "amassing stats" is just something an ordinary ballplayer does then why are not hundreds of more ball players joining those great milestone clubs? Isn't consistency something to be celebrated?