Steve Garvey

[rats60]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Boog Powell played on four pennant winners and two championship teams. Had 109 and 114 RBI on the two championship teams. Was league MVP in a championship year. Also had a second place and third place MVP seasons. Career OPS+ of 134 (versus Garvey at 117).

Garvey had to hit .300 because otherwise he was almost never on base. His MVP was a joke. He wasn't even the best player on his own team, and was likely about sixth or seventh best in the league that year. His gold gloves likewise were jokes. He won those because of his offense. His defense was good in as much as he didn't fumble what he got to. But his arm was a joke. He was a 10x all star during an era especially weak for NL first basemen.

Boog Powell was quite a bit better than Steve Garvey.

Tom C

Garvey's MVP was no more a joke than Powell's. Powell wasn't the best player on his team either. He won his MVP award because he drove in a lot of runs on a pennant winner. He wasn't even top 10 in WAR among position players, Their difference in OPS is all walks. Garvey had 2.46 MVP shares to Powell's 1.95.

Garvey's gold gloves were a product of leading the league in fielding percentage 3 of those 4 seasons and 2nd the other. He was 1st in range factor/game twice and 2nd twice in those 4 seasons. Those gold gloves were deserved and he would have won more if not for Keith Hernandez.

On Garvey's 10 AS team's, the following 1b were his teammates: Pete Rose 4 times, Tony Perez 3 times, Keith Hernandez 3 times and Willie Stargell 1 time. I wouldn't call that a weak era for 1b.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Garvey has to be at or near the top of the list of players with the biggest disparity between the perception of those who saw him play and the assessment of the modern stats. Especially with those 6 200 hits seasons and 5 100 RBI seasons, but ranking only 51st at his position, WTF is that?

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Garvey has to be at or near the top of the list of players with the biggest disparity between the perception of those who saw him play and the assessment of the modern stats. Especially with those 6 200 hits seasons and 5 100 RBI seasons, but ranking only 51st at his position, WTF is that?

The RBI seasons are a product of his team full of players on base.

He had to get a bunch of hits because otherwise he would have never been on base. His plate discipline was horrific.

His defense was average (see above post).

At least three of his all star selections were pretty much honorary that he in no way deserved. It could be argued that there were two better first basemen than him in the NL in all but two of his all star years.

He does get bonus points for being a good hitter in a pitchers park and he was a post season monster.

Aside from that, again, Ron Fairly was his equal.

Tom C

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by rats60

Garvey's MVP was no more a joke than Powell's. Powell wasn't the best player on his team either. He won his MVP award because he drove in a lot of runs on a pennant winner. He wasn't even top 10 in WAR among position players, Their difference in OPS is all walks. Garvey had 2.46 MVP shares to Powell's 1.95.

Garvey's gold gloves were a product of leading the league in fielding percentage 3 of those 4 seasons and 2nd the other. He was 1st in range factor/game twice and 2nd twice in those 4 seasons. Those gold gloves were deserved and he would have won more if not for Keith Hernandez.

On Garvey's 10 AS team's, the following 1b were his teammates: Pete Rose 4 times, Tony Perez 3 times, Keith Hernandez 3 times and Willie Stargell 1 time. I wouldn't call that a weak era for 1b.

Powell was the best offensive player on his team by any and every measure you wish to choose. I suppose if you just go by WAR then Jim Palmer was more valuable, but I doubt you want to bring WAR up, seeing as Steve Garvey in 1974 was FOURTH on his own team in WAR. Garvey was not the best offensive player on his own team by any measure you wish to use that year. He was far down the list in oWAR in 1974, ranking no better than 11th in the league from what I can tell. In WAR he wasn't in the top 20 in the league. Boog was fifth in oWAR in 1970, so while his being named MVP wasn't the best idea in the world (especially with a traditional stats monster yuear from Yaz), it wasn't nearly the joke that Garvey's 1974 selection was.

Range factor and fielding percentage as measures of defensive ability at first base? That's cherry picking nearly useless stats. If the player is from post 1953, Total Zone Runs needs to be the metric used. Historically speaking, let's look at the players whom I have always thought to be outstanding defensive first baseman and the TZR figure:

Keith Hernandez 114
John Olerud 89
George Scott 87
Mark Grace 84
Vic Power 59
Eddie Murray 59
Bill White 55
Rafael Palmeiro 48
Gil Hodges 41 (only 1953-on)
Wes Parker 29
Don Mattingly 29

So even though Parker and Donnie Baseball seem a bit low, overall the best of the best are recognized as such.

How about the worst defensive first basemen? How do they rank?

Frank Thomas (Chi) -61
Dick Stuart -59
Mo Vaughn -43
Jason Giambi -36 (with solid .992 career fielding % - go figure!)
Adam Dunn -34 (in just 528 games)
Dave Kingman -22 (in just 603 games)
Frank Howard -14 (tough in just 334 games)

So TZR does its job as you would expect it to as a metric for defense at first base.

Steve Garvey?

Career TZR at first base?

Negative two.

Not exactly gold glove caliber.

In 1975-1977 as Garvey was winning gold gloves, you know who was also playing first base in the NL? Keith Hernandez. Arguably the greatest fielding first baseman of all time. But sure. Steve Garvey totally earned those gold gloves.

Pete Rose didn't become a first baseman until age 38 in 1979. During and after which he had two solid seasons. Just two. The rest of the time he was pretty bad.

Tony Perez had some consistently decent seasons, but his post 1973 high for OPS+ was 124. So, solid but not great for a 1B for sure.

Keith Hernandez I will grant you.

Willie Stargell was good post 1974 but constantly injured. Over 500 AB in a season just once.

Tom C

[rats60]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Powell was the best offensive player on his team by any and every measure you wish to choose. I suppose if you just go by WAR then Jim Palmer was more valuable, but I doubt you want to bring WAR up, seeing as Steve Garvey in 1974 was FOURTH on his own team in WAR. Garvey was not the best offensive player on his own team by any measure you wish to use that year. He was far down the list in oWAR in 1974, ranking no better than 11th in the league from what I can tell. In WAR he wasn't in the top 20 in the league. Boog was fifth in oWAR in 1970, so while his being named MVP wasn't the best idea in the world (especially with a traditional stats monster yuear from Yaz), it wasn't nearly the joke that Garvey's 1974 selection was.

Range factor and fielding percentage as measures of defensive ability at first base? That's cherry picking nearly useless stats. If the player is from post 1953, Total Zone Runs needs to be the metric used. Historically speaking, let's look at the players whom I have always thought to be outstanding defensive first baseman and the TZR figure:

Keith Hernandez 114
John Olerud 89
George Scott 87
Mark Grace 84
Vic Power 59
Eddie Murray 59
Bill White 55
Rafael Palmeiro 48
Gil Hodges 41 (only 1953-on)
Wes Parker 29
Don Mattingly 29

So even though Parker and Donnie Baseball seem a bit low, overall the best of the best are recognized as such.

How about the worst defensive first basemen? How do they rank?

Frank Thomas (Chi) -61
Dick Stuart -59
Mo Vaughn -43
Jason Giambi -36 (with solid .992 career fielding % - go figure!)
Adam Dunn -34 (in just 528 games)
Dave Kingman -22 (in just 603 games)
Frank Howard -14 (tough in just 334 games)

So TZR does its job as you would expect it to as a metric for defense at first base.

Steve Garvey?

Career TZR at first base?

Negative two.

Not exactly gold glove caliber.

In 1975-1977 as Garvey was winning gold gloves, you know who was also playing first base in the NL? Keith Hernandez. Arguably the greatest fielding first baseman of all time. But sure. Steve Garvey totally earned those gold gloves.

Pete Rose didn't become a first baseman until age 38 in 1979. During and after which he had two solid seasons. Just two. The rest of the time he was pretty bad.

Tony Perez had some consistently decent seasons, but his post 1973 high for OPS+ was 124. So, solid but not great for a 1B for sure.

Keith Hernandez I will grant you.

Willie Stargell was good post 1974 but constantly injured. Over 500 AB in a season just once.

Tom C

Garvey was also 3rd in TZR 3 of his 4 gold glove seasons. So how is someone 3rd in one catagory 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.

[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.

[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.