Let's talk about Hall of Fame candidates who have been "neglected"

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by tod41

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.

If he was truly dominant, the stats would reflect that. Dominant corner infielders don't hit 21 or fewer homers in 16 of their 19 seasons. They don't end up with a career .775 OPS. Dominant players have seasons over 140 OPS+ (Garvey: 0).

Garvey was a fine player but he was a (mostly) singles hitter at a position where power is the norm.

[tod41]

Originally Posted by Tabe

If he was truly dominant, the stats would reflect that. Dominant corner infielders don't hit 21 or fewer homers in 16 of their 19 seasons. They don't end up with a career .775 OPS. Dominant players have seasons over 140 OPS+ (Garvey: 0).

Garvey was a fine player but he was a (mostly) singles hitter at a position where power is the norm.

Consider the Era he played in. There were not many power hitting First Basemen like Rose, Hernandez, Chris Chambliss, Al Oliver, Rod Carew and others. Garvey has a higher OPS than Mantle in the post season. It should count for something. Garvey also had a 130 OPS+ five times including a 138+ in 1978.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by tod41

Consider the Era he played in. There were not many power hitting First Basemen like Rose, Hernandez, Chris Chambliss, Al Oliver, Rod Carew and others. Garvey has a higher OPS than Mantle in the post season. It should count for something. Garvey also had a 130 OPS+ five times including a 138+ in 1978.

Playing in an era of mediocre first basemen doesn't make Garvey any better. He had basically the same OPS as Dan Driessen. Funny that you left out Willie Stargell and Jason Thompson when naming his contemporaries.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Playing in an era of mediocre first basemen doesn't make Garvey any better. He had basically the same OPS as Dan Driessen. Funny that you left out Willie Stargell and Jason Thompson when naming his contemporaries.

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.

The metrics aren't so good for Gil Hodges either.

[Misunderestimated]

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

[TUM301]

Comparing Ozzie Smith and Omar Vizquel`s careers never really understood why one player is a hall of famer while the later barely gets 50% of the necessary votes. Omar`s numbers, minus the back flip, more than match up with Smith`s yet he rarely gets noticed.

[tod41]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Playing in an era of mediocre first basemen doesn't make Garvey any better. He had basically the same OPS as Dan Driessen. Funny that you left out Willie Stargell and Jason Thompson when naming his contemporaries.

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.

Stargell was essentially and usually exclusively a Left Fielder in his prime. He did not start playing first base exclusively until 1975 and then he never came close to playing a full season. The most games he played was 126 in his co-mvp year (which was a make-up for his 1973 season) and he often played far less then that. So I would not consider him a contemporary of Garvey at first base. The fact is that you have to look pretty hard to find the power hitting first baseman that you see in other eras. That's why I think you have to judge a player in the era they played and not compare to other times. When you do that, you have to search and find a Jason Thompson as opposed to a Jim Thome. So considering everything, Garvey compares favorably in my humble opinion..

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by tod41

Stargell was essentially and usually exclusively a Left Fielder in his prime. He did not start playing first base exclusively until 1975 and then he never came close to playing a full season. The most games he played was 126 in his co-mvp year (which was a make-up for his 1973 season) and he often played far less then that. So I would not consider him a contemporary of Garvey at first base. The fact is that you have to look pretty hard to find the power hitting first baseman that you see in other eras. That's why I think you have to judge a player in the era they played and not compare to other times. When you do that, you have to search and find a Jason Thompson as opposed to a Jim Thome. So considering everything, Garvey compares favorably in my humble opinion..

Eh, he was mostly a 1B as early as 1972.

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".

[Peter_Spaeth]

Garvey was a 10 time all star so I guess there is that. It seems like perhaps more than anyone in history, his metrics were crushed by not walking.

[moogpowell]

I'll add a wrinkle to the Garvey discussion. I think he suffers from dare I say a "branding" or perception issue. I think a strong case can be made that he deserves to be in the HOF. Garvey was SEEN as a slugger but his numbers do not show someone with abundant power. And yet Garvey had 6 seasons with 200 hits, 1 with 190 and 3 with 175+. He sported a career .294 avg. and batted over .300 7 times. So Garvey, when identified or compared to the prototypical "slugger" pales and yet his numbers paint him more as an excellent pure hitter who had impressive, but not incredible, power.

To make an investing comparison, he is a like a stock that is growing revenue/earnings far less than a stock like Amazon, so it won't fetch a generous valuation/multiple yet his relative power obscures how good a batsman he was so he doesn't get sufficient credit for that. In a sense he is in no man's land. Harmon Killebrew had a mediocre batting average but had power in spades (growth) and Rod Carew had hits and a high average (value). Falling into either profile I think makes it easier for people to judge someone's overall career. Granted, many all-time greats straddle both categories and have received proper recognition but that is because they were so accomplished there was nothing to debate — think Aaron, Mays, F. Robby, etc.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Eh, he was mostly a 1B as early as 1972.

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".

To Veterans Committee HOF picks. He received over 40% of the BBWAA votes 3 times including his 1st time on the ballot. That typically signals that a player will get in eventually. Like Curt Schilling, his case was hurt by negative publicity in his personal life when he was on the ballot.

Willie McCovey 6 time All Star. Tony Perez 7 time All Star. Steve Garvey 10 time All Star. His contemporaries thought he belonged in that group.

[bbcard1]

I for one wish there weren't executives in the hall of fame. It just clutters up the place and no one ever paid to see Morgan Bulkeley's plaque.

[tod41]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Eh, he was mostly a 1B as early as 1972.

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".

Not true. He played 1B in 72, before Garvey was a starter. He played amost exclusively in OF in 73 and 74. Not a valid comparison to Garvey.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by tod41

Not true. He played 1B in 72, before Garvey was a starter. He played amost exclusively in OF in 73 and 74. Not a valid comparison to Garvey.

He was a 1B for 6 of the 8 years from 72 to 79. How is that not "mostly a 1B"?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Tabe

If he was truly dominant, the stats would reflect that. Dominant corner infielders don't hit 21 or fewer homers in 16 of their 19 seasons. They don't end up with a career .775 OPS. Dominant players have seasons over 140 OPS+ (Garvey: 0).

Garvey was a fine player but he was a (mostly) singles hitter at a position where power is the norm.

His home park was one of the toughest to hit home runs in. So what you are saying is if he played for the Braves and had exaggerated HR numbers, he would be a HoFer.

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.

[G1911]

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.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by G1911

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?

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.

[G1911]

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.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

You clearly didn't read my post. If you think your star player's job is to get on base and not drive in runs, your team is never going to win anything. If you can't count on your best player to drive in runs, who is going to do it? Ted Williams is 15th all time in RBIs, how you can come up with Ted Williams sucks out of my post?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

You clearly didn't read my post. If you think your star player's job is to get on base and not drive in runs, your team is never going to win anything. If you can't count on your best player to drive in runs, who is going to do it? Ted Williams is 15th all time in RBIs, how you can come up with Ted Williams sucks out of my post?

Ted took a huge amount of criticism from the press and fans for taking walks though. His philosophy was the one I articulated above -- he wasn't likely to have much success swinging at pitches out of the strike zone. His philosophy -- taught to him by Hornsby -- was get a good pitch to hit.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by rats60

You clearly didn't read my post. If you think your star player's job is to get on base and not drive in runs, your team is never going to win anything. If you can't count on your best player to drive in runs, who is going to do it? Ted Williams is 15th all time in RBIs, how you can come up with Ted Williams sucks out of my post?

It comes from when you said "OBP is for losers. How many World Series has Mike Trout led his team too?" Ted Williams, the career OBP record holder, led his team to 0 World Series titles. Maybe if Ted had gotten on base less, the Sox would have won one and broken the curse decades earlier.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

If pitches are not in the strike zone, the hitter's chance of success goes WAY down even if he's Ted Williams. This is why it's better to take the walk than to swing at ball four. As for the benefits of walks in general, read Bill James' analysis of substituting a batter who walked every time for Babe Ruth's best season. The team did better with the walker.

[Tabe]

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?

.

If Garvey was so great at driving runs, why did he drive them in at a rate 12% lower (91 per 162 vs 103 per 162) than Trout despite hitting 4th while Trout hits 2nd & 3rd? If Garvey was such a tremendous winner, why didn't he win more than 1 World Series? Why didn't he ever win one during a full season? Why are you blaming Trout for not winning a title in his first 9 seasons when it took Garvey 12 to win one?

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.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by rats60

His home park was one of the toughest to hit home runs in. So what you are saying is if he played for the Braves and had exaggerated HR numbers, he would be a HoFer.

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.

Garvey's biggest unsung attribute is that he played every game and didn't take days off against tough pitchers to save his percentages. Guys like Willie Stargell and McCovey in the second half of their careers routinely sat against left handers on their days off and that helped save their percentages.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

Garvey's biggest unsung attribute is that he played every game and didn't take days off against tough pitchers to save his percentages. Guys like Willie Stargell and McCovey in the second half of their careers routinely sat against left handers on their days off and that helped save their percentages.

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.

It's hard enough to hit pitches on the corners. When pitches are outside the strike zone, the pitcher has a HUGE advantage if the batter swings. Walks may be unglamorous, but hitters who lay off pitches out of the strike zone even when a hit would be much better than a walk are a huge asset. This is a key premise of SABRmetrics.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by rats60

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.

And FUTURE want to be statisticians, using as yet unheard of stats at that...

[G1911]

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?

[doug.goodman]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

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?

The argument really stems from memory and perception. Those of us who followed the game at the time, for better or worse, thought of Garvey as a superstar, fueled probably by the many 200 hit seasons and All Star selections, the All-American image and charisma (until that imploded), and his apparent clutch hitting ability. He surely was portrayed that way. And people weren't thinking SABRmetrically. I doubt anyone was thinking, man Garvey doesn't walk. Classic example of a player who suffered for the evolving understanding of statistics.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Classic example of a player who suffered for the evolving understanding of statistics.

That was the point I was trying to make (generally, not specifically about Garvey).

Thanx for Peter for wording it better than I was able to.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ah yes, I remember it well.

http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2012/...e-in-paradise/

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The argument really stems from memory and perception. Those of us who followed the game at the time, for better or worse, thought of Garvey as a superstar, fueled probably by the many 200 hit seasons and All Star selections, the All-American image and charisma (until that imploded), and his apparent clutch hitting ability. He surely was portrayed that way. And people weren't thinking SABRmetrically. I doubt anyone was thinking, man Garvey doesn't walk. Classic example of a player who suffered for the evolving understanding of statistics.

Sabermetrics are not what has kept Garvey out. When Garvey was up for election, it wasn't the sabermetric stats/voters that kept him out. He was being voted on during a time when the old school measurements were the deciding factor.

272 home runs just wasn't good enough for a corner position player. Several 200 hit seasons was certainly considered, but ending up with less than 3,000 hits and zero batting titles, those 200 hit seasons lost their luster a little, and weren't enough to make up for the non elite power.

He simply did not have the old school type counting stats and/or leaderboard stats to get in.

Garvey's peak wasn't good enough to overcome that. For example, Guys like George Foster and Greg Luzinski have hitting peaks that were as good or better better than Garvey's during that time. Pedro Guerrero has a better hitting peak too, though he was hurt a little more often.