5 Year Hall of Famers? Make your case

[Jason19th]

I think the barber gets forgotten - but from 1950-1954 he went 73-33

[Peter_Spaeth]

Don Newcombe was great for the first 5/6 years of his career and missed two peak years for military service.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by Jason19th

I think the barber gets forgotten - but from 1950-1954 he went 73-33

Don Mattingly is the poster boy for five year HOFer. Over the period from 1984-88 he batted about .330 with, on average, over 200 hits per year. He also hit for power and was one of the best fielding first basemen in the game.

[rats60]

I am surprised everyone missed the obvious for non Hall of Famers. Steve Garvey 1974-1980 .311 BA, 1408 hits, 160 Hrs, 730 RBI, 7 All Star, 5 top 6 MVP finishes, 4 Gold Gloves, 2 AS MVP, 1 NLCS MVP, 1 MVP. Only missed 8 games over 7 seasons. He was even better in 29 postseason games with .339 BA,. 585 SLG, 40 hits, 7 HE, 16 RBI leading his team to 3 World Series.

[KCRfan1]

I love Garvey! Great and obvious selection rats! I have had the privilege of working with him about 10 years ago and he couldn't have been more pleasant!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

I am surprised everyone missed the obvious for non Hall of Famers. Steve Garvey 1974-1980 .311 BA, 1408 hits, 160 Hrs, 730 RBI, 7 All Star, 5 top 6 MVP finishes, 4 Gold Gloves, 2 AS MVP, 1 NLCS MVP, 1 MVP. Only missed 8 games over 7 seasons. He was even better in 29 postseason games with .339 BA,. 585 SLG, 40 hits, 7 HE, 16 RBI leading his team to 3 World Series.

Back in the day I loved Garvey, and so did everyone else (as a player anyhow). I still can't really take on board the disparity between his career stats (his baseball reference numbers are really underwhelming; they rank him the 50th best ever at IB which to me is absurd) and my perception of how good he was, and not just for a relatively short period. I guess the lack of walks really hurt some of his metrics.

Dave Parker is also pretty high on that list of disparity between my perception and the numbers.

[Kenny Cole]

I am a huge Parker fan. i grew up watching Garvey and agree the there is a pretty huge disparity between the eye test at the time and the analytics, which is one of the reasons that I'm not too sold on analytics being anywhere close to the end-all and be-all of the determination. There are tons of things you see watching someone play that don't show up in the numbers crunching, which, by they way, will probably have morphed into a completely different analysis in a few more years. IMO, it is fine to use them as part of the analysis, but foolish to use them as the only basis upon which to make the decision.

Walker was a stud. Parker was too. Lots of people played in Colorado. Back then, Walker, and later Helton, did what they did. Yeah, there is a difference in the splits, but they are both pretty good. There's probably a split in the difference of everyone else who played there and who is in the HOF too. i would imagine that's the case in every ballpark that's s considered a hitter's ballpark, for example, Seattle. Yet a bunch of folks advocate for Edgar, who couldn't play defense at all , as a HOFer. He couldn't hold Walker's jock on the field. Oh yeah, he wasn't even there. Walker won 7 gold gloves in addition to his MVP and his 3 silver sluggers. Edgar had 5 silver sluggers and 0 gold gloves and 0 MVPs. Right. The comparison, IMO, isn't even close.

Apart from Walker and Helton, no one else came close to what they did in Colorado. I think that means something. Then, they also played pretty well everywhere else. Now you have Arenado, who is rapidly moving up on the list of best 3B of all time both offensively and defensively. He's a stud too. But he, obviously, is also in Colorado. Does that mean he can't get in? Or is the "humidor" effect, which IMO means nothing, the reason he's different?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Arenado's career home away splits to date.
108/376/.320
vs.
78/240/.263

Fairly dramatic.

[Kenny Cole]

And he's the best defensive 3B by far wherever he goes IMO. That is half the game -- the part that no one talks about unless its Brooks or maybe Schmidt. Makes me tired.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Back in the day I loved Garvey, and so did everyone else (as a player anyhow). I still can't really take on board the disparity between his career stats (his baseball reference numbers are really underwhelming; they rank him the 50th best ever at IB which to me is absurd) and my perception of how good he was, and not just for a relatively short period. I guess the lack of walks really hurt some of his metrics.

Dave Parker is also pretty high on that list of disparity between my perception and the numbers.

BB Reference and Fangaphs try to fit everyone into the same formula, but sometimes that formula just fails. Garvey is one of those guys. Those sites over value walks, especially for middle of the line up guys. All Garvey did was expand the strike zone to get more hits, 200+ per season, and drive in runs, 100+ per season.

In theory getting on base and not making outs is good, but not always. Sometimes you need to risk making outs to drive in runs instead of letting them pitch around you and get a weaker hitter out. In the real world, Garvey's approach led to 5 NL Championships and 1 World Championship.

Garvey also gets punished for being a 1st baseman. He went a whole season without making an error, but they claim that his defense was worth less a replacement player. There is no way that someone setting a record for most consecutive errorless games is not better than any average player.

10 time All Star, 4 Gold Gloves, 1 MVP, 2 NLCS MVP, 2 AS MVP, 5 NL Champion, 1 World Champion. That is a lot of Fame, seems to fit in with Hall of Fame a lot better than some that are already there.

[Laxcat]

I always thought Garvey was a lock. Until I met him. He is an effing a-hole. People still vote you in to the Hall and his attitude is a huge part of the reason he will never be in the HOF.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Laxcat

I always thought Garvey was a lock. Until I met him. He is an effing a-hole. People still vote you in to the Hall and his attitude is a huge part of the reason he will never be in the HOF.

Previously I noted that this thread has drifted from its original intent and that that was okay with me, but now another thread is being suggested.

Coming soon to a forum near you,

”The effing a-hole Hall of Fame thread”

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Laxcat

I always thought Garvey was a lock. Until I met him. He is an effing a-hole. People still vote you in to the Hall and his attitude is a huge part of the reason he will never be in the HOF.

I met Garvey a couple years ago at a Spokane Indians game. Actually, met him twice. After one game, he was standing in the concourse behind my seats - no one around. Got a picture with him. Knew he was going to be back the next night (he was being honored by the Indians) so I got the photo of us printed and brought it. My friend & I found Garvey before the game and talked with him for a good 15-20 minutes. He could not have been nicer. Answered all our questions, engaged with us, signed my photo, the whole nine yards.

The best part of the story? My friend wrote to Garvey when Steve was playing for Spokane. Garvey actually wrote him back and my buddy kept the letter all these years. He brought it to show Garvey and Garvey was OVER THE MOON at seeing it. Super-excited, grabbing people to show it to them, etc. Grabbed his camera and took a bunch of pictures of it. Then he signed the letter.

I have no doubt you had the experience you had. But mine with Steve Garvey was very different and so I have that autographed photo hanging on the wall behind me in my office as I type this.