Steve Garvey

[gus72]

If I was a 5 time National League champion, a World Series champion, I played in an unbelievable 1207 consecutive games, I had 2599 major league hits, was National League MVP, a 10-Time All-Star, 188 consecutive games without an error at first base!, and had the good sense to retire as soon as my skills diminished unlike other Hall of Famers (Carlton, Sutton, Henderson etc.) I would be Hall of Famer Steve Garvey. By the way from 1974-1980 He had 192 hits or better every year and played in every single game. People that did that over a 7 year span.....? Is it his fault that the Dodgers did not recognize his talent and play him every day untill he was 25! Had they started him at 23 even he would have had 3000 hits. So why is he not in the hall and Kirby Puckett is?

[Cougar]

He makes my cut, but as the other thread indicates, there are a lot of guys in front of him in line.

[Jose Tartabul]

One never knows about these things, but perhaps the fact that one of his extra-cirricular activities was beating the crap out of his wife on a regular basis, all the while maintaining his Mr Clean image on the feild and with the media has perhaps soured some HOF voters on his selection.

[Cougar]

I thought Garvey was a philanderer rather than a wife-beater.

(Not to defend either.)

[The Commissioner]

Garvey would get my vote for the Hall.

I also have to back up what Cougar mentioned. He may have cheated on his wife, but I don't believe has ever been accused of beating her.

[abolishthedh]

On all accounts, I agree. However, this is the first forum in which I have seen supporters for Garvey on this matter. He seems to have paid a Draconian price over a common mistake. I collect baseball yearbooks and annual magazine issues, and Garvey is often mentioned as a future HoF'er in these publications.

[The Commissioner]

I also think that part of the problem with Garvey may be that the press somehow feels betrayed by him. He was always presented as such a clean cut all-around good guy, that when the truth surfaced that he is human they may have felt as if they had one pulled over on them. If they hadn't put Garvey on such a high pedetal to begin with in their minds and helped perpetuate that image through their writing, they might not feel so let down about it. Then again, they might just not vote for him then because they didn't like him as person as they are doing with Jim Rice.

[McNick]

Steve Garvey is not my Padre!
Gotta vote "No!" on this one.

[Brad Harris]

Garvey was the Mark Grace of his time. A fine fielder and singles hitter who played many years without injury.

His black ink score is well below the average Hall of Famer. His gray ink score is a little below the average Hall of Famer. He meets only 31.5% of the Hall of Fame standards (relative to an average Hall of Famer meeting 50%.)

He never walked more than 50 times in a season, had a terrible 56% success rate in 145 attempts, and his park-adjusted OPS is only 16% better than league average which, quite frankly is very unimpressive for a first base candidate for the Hall of Fame.

Garvey's all-star selections and MVP finishes are better explained by his popularity and good public image (certainly assisted, in part, by the overall Dodger public image at that time.)

Despite 200 hits in 6 different seasons, Garvey only led the league in hits twice and only finished his career with 2,599 hits. He had a 0.48 walk-to-strikeout ratio.

His consecutive games streak is nice, but not a serious argument for induction.

He had only five seasons of 100+ RBI, which seems poor for a #3 hitter making an argument for Cooperstown.

I'm not saying that he's unqualified. I am saying he's far from the most qualified first baseman waiting his turn.

[Brad Harris]

Steve Garvey played from 1969-87. During that time he was responsible for creating 1,225 runs. This may seem like an impressive total, but it represents only 163 runs over what an average player created giving as much playing time in the NL from '69 to '87. Even worse, it represents only 57 runs more than the average NL first baseman in that era.

Garvey's 1225 RC represent a paltry sum of 57 runs better than the average first baseman in his league and era. How does this stack up with other first basemen in history?

Rather poorly. It's the 89th highest total by a first baseman in the game's history.

Lou Gehrig's 989 RCAP are the most in history (if you don't count Stan Musial and his 992 RCAP at first base). All the all-time greats are there in the top 10 or 20 - Greenberg, Foxx, McGwire, Anson, McCovey, Brouthers, Connor, Mize, Killebrew, etc.

Where does Garvey rank? In the 89th slot. A few spots below such heralded players as Bill Skowron and Roy Sievers. About half as valuable a career as players like Alvin Davis, John Mayberry and Jim Gentile. About one-tenth as valuable as Frank Thomas's 553 career RCAP.

Here's a smattering of other candidates at first base, relative contemporaries:

553 Frank Thomas (6th all-time)
506 Jeff Bagwell (9th all-time)
503 Mark McGwire (10th all-time)
395 Dick Allen (13th all-time)
295 Norm Cash (21st all-time)
294 Will Clark (22nd all-time)
289 Fred McGriff (23rd all-time)
255 Keith Hernandez (28th all-time)
235 Pedro Guerrero (31st all-time)
221 Boog Powell (33rd all-time)
144 Bob Watson (48th all-time)
127 Don Mattingly (54th all-time)
113 Cecil Cooper/Mark Grace (tied 59th all-time)
93 Bill White (71st all-time)
66 Don Mincher (83rd all-time)

And then there's Garvey, with 57 RCAP, sitting at 89th all-time.

Garvey doesn't really have the muscle, so to speak, to power through to the head of the class.

I'm not sure if I'd draw the line above or right below Garvey. I'm a proponent of Mickey Vernon and Dick Allen (among old-timers) and I certainly advocate the election of Hernandez, but I'm unconvinced that Garvey really belongs in.

Both win shares and linear weights - more complete ratings than the RC derivations I'm using - rank Garvey in much the same way, well below the top dozen guys on this list. I'm inclined to believe that Garvey will remain out becaue the more time passes, the less "mystique" (or whatever it is) he'll have.

He is not a "sexy" candidate. (No pun intended.)

[Cougar]

That's actually a really devastating statistic for Garvey. Taken at face value, there's almost no way one can say anything but "No bleeping way!" to Garvey's candidacy.

But then I look things over & I get skeptical. These "runs created" stats generate all kinds of unexpected results, and with unexpected results, you've got to ask yourself -- are they valid?

Was Garvey's career really half as valuable as Alvin Davis' and John Mayberry's?

Was Garvey worth only one-tenth of Frank Thomas? I mean, Thomas is better -- way better, it's not even close -- but ten times better??

Was Pedro Guerrero really twice as good -- twice as good! -- as Don Mattingly, Cecil Cooper, and Mark Grace?

These conclusions generated from this statistic just don't pass my BS detector. I mean, I know damn well that Don Mattingly was better than Pedro Guerrero. I was there. I saw them both play. In person.

Maybe some fancy statistical analysis could convince me that I'm missing something about Guerrero, and that he was a lot better than he looked, and I know Mattingly tailed off badly at the end and didn't walk enough...but Guerrero twice as good?? There's something wrong with the measuring stick.

I've never understood the RCAA statistic well. I know it doesn't account for defense, which accounts for part of the disconnect. All I know is that it claims to explain practically everything, and it generates some results that conflict with both common sense and some more transparent types of statistical measurement.

I actually have very little quibble with your conclusion that there are a lot of 1b better than Garvey who are not in the HOF. That's probably so, and there are several different methods by which one can come to that conclusion.

I am disputing the runs created statistic.

[Brad Harris]

(1) I saw Garvey play.
(2) "Physics and trigonometry" don't enter into how good a ballplayer Garvey was, which is much more objectively measured by a comprehensive accounting of his statistics than by anyone's eyesight/memory.

As for RCAP...
Here's how it was explained to me:

RCAA and RCAP are derivations of RC, one of the most commonly accepted sabermetric measurements over the last 20+ years.

While Runs Created (RC) is a flat out total of the number of runs the individual was responsible for creating, the others are relative measurements.

RCAA is a comparison of how many RC above the average player in the league.

RCAP is the same thing, but only relative to the average player at his position in the league.

These stats are not park adjusted - so there's a discrepancy - and Garvey (for one) would certainly rank higher considering the parks he played in during his career.

For more information on RCAA and RCAP, look
here. (http://www.netshrine.com/statglossary.html)

What an RCAP is saying is that Garvey produced only 57 runs more than the average NL first baseman "using the same number of outs" (as Garvey) during those seasons (1969-87).

Hence, an average first baseman during that time would have an RCAP of 0. So Garvey was worth 57 runs above average.

This looks really low because, frankly, first base is a high-offense position and Garvey didn't have that high an offense relative to others. Also the fact that you're talking about projecting this "average player" to the same number of outs used and that will hurt Garvey a little, too, because he simply had so many 162-game seasons.

As for saying something like "John Mayberry was a better first baseman than Steve Garvey" based on RCAP, I'm not sure that's entirely accurate.

What we can say, using RCAP, however is that Mayberry's 99 RCAP and Garvey's 57 RCAP tell us that Mayberry was a more dominant player at his position (worth 99 runs above the average first baseman in his league from 1968-82) than was Garvey.

So by saying Mayberry was (approximately) "twice as good" as Garvey, I'm saying he was twice as dominant.

Obviously this hampers a guy like A-Rod who plays in an era of great shortstops (Tejada, Nomar and Jeter being in the AL at the same time), but you'll find that great players always rise to the top anyhow.

As I said before, Garvey has a (fairly) long line ahead of him. There's no reason I can see for letting him cut in front. I would think the best argument for him could probably be made using the subjective questions list James derived and re-published in The Politics of Glory. (This early in the morning...I forget the name of the list.)

[Cougar]

Originally posted by Chancellor

(1) I saw Garvey play.
(2) "Physics and trigonometry" don't enter into how good a ballplayer Garvey was, which is much more objectively measured by a comprehensive accounting of his statistics than by anyone's eyesight/memory.

As for RCAP...
Here's how it was explained to me:

RCAA and RCAP are derivations of RC, one of the most commonly accepted sabermetric measurements over the last 20+ years.

Commonly used, OK. Commonly accepted...I don't know; there's a reason this has never caught on universally. Three, really:

1. It's hard to calculate, and even trickier to figure out how you got at the final figure.
2. No park adjustments, no accounting for defense, league.

I'll come back to the third.

Originally posted by Chancellor
While Runs Created (RC) is a flat out total of the number of runs the individual was responsible for creating, the others are relative measurements.

RCAA is a comparison of how many RC above the average player in the league.

RCAP is the same thing, but only relative to the average player at his position in the league.

These stats are not park adjusted - so there's a discrepancy - and Garvey (for one) would certainly rank higher considering the parks he played in during his career.

For more information on RCAA and RCAP, look
here. (http://www.netshrine.com/statglossary.html) .

I get all that; that's not the problem.

Here's the calculation from that source, although there are a few different variants on it floating around:

RC = ((H+BB+HBP-CS-GIDP) * (TB+ 0.26*(BB+HBP-IBB) + 0.52*(SB+SH+SF)))/(AB+BB+HBP+SH+SF)

The calculation is simple enough -- just plug in the data and turn the crank.

But why does this particular formula give us a magical figure that quantifies offensive performance so precisely? There's a reason Bill James, who originated this concept, has abandoned it.

Originally posted by Chancellor

What an RCAP is saying is that Garvey produced only 57 runs more than the average NL first baseman "using the same number of outs" (as Garvey) during those seasons (1969-87).

Hence, an average first baseman during that time would have an RCAP of 0. So Garvey was worth 57 runs above average.

This looks really low because, frankly, first base is a high-offense position and Garvey didn't have that high an offense relative to others. Also the fact that you're talking about projecting this "average player" to the same number of outs used and that will hurt Garvey a little, too, because he simply had so many 162-game seasons.

As for saying something like "John Mayberry was a better first baseman than Steve Garvey" based on RCAP, I'm not sure that's entirely accurate.

What we can say, using RCAP, however is that Mayberry's 99 RCAP and Garvey's 57 RCAP tell us that Mayberry was a more dominant player at his position (worth 99 runs above the average first baseman in his league from 1968-82) than was Garvey.

So by saying Mayberry was (approximately) "twice as good" as Garvey, I'm saying he was twice as dominant..

And here's reason #3: The concept (runs created) simply doesn't match the measurement (the formula). The formula measures some aspect of run creation, to be sure, but the end product doesn't really jibe with reality. There's no way on earth that Mayberry was twice as good, dominant, anything as Garvey. (Well, maybe twice as big toward the end of their careers.) :laugh

Garvey and Mayberry are almost perfect contemporaries (good choice). They were born about 3 months apart. Mayberry played in the AL, where offense was more plentiful (friendlier hitters parks at the time, the DH). They both played their prime years in extreme pitchers parks.

Old fashioned statistics -- here are their career lines (source: Baseball-reference.com):

Mayberry: 1620 G, 5447 AB, 733 R, 1379 H, 211 2B, 19 3B, 255 HR, 879 RBI, 20 SB, 17 CS, 881 BB, 810 K, .253 BA, .360 OBP .439 SLG, .799 OPS, 2393 TB, 10 SH, 53 SF, 106 IBB, 55 HBP, 108 GDP.

Garvey: 2332 G, 8835 AB, 1143 R, 2599 H, 440 2B, 43 3B, 272 HR, 1308 RBI, 83 SB, 62 CS, 479 BB, 1003 K, .294 BA, .329 OBP, .446 SLG, .775 OPS, 3941 TB, 33 SH, 90 SF, 113 IBB, 29 HBP, 251 GDP.

It's important to look at basic statistics because these are the ingredients of RC, and we understand very well where these numbers come from. If the derived statistic is really different from the sum of its parts, then it signals a problem.

In just about every category, Garvey has an advantage, either a little (HR, a trivial difference, really) or a lot (hits, doubles, and total bases, where Garvey's totals are large and about twice Mayberry's). The only ones he doesn't are in walks & HBP (which translate directly to the OBP and OPS stats) and GIDP.

The GIDP advantage should be weighted down a bit -- since Garvey has around 50% more AB, he should have a few more GIDP. Even adjusted for that, Mayberry had fewer GIDP. Conversely, Mayberry reached base a lot more in fewer plate appearances via walks and HBP; Garvey really didn't reach base via means other than a hit much, while Mayberry was surprisingly good at it.

Fine. Walks are good, making outs is bad. But lets look at the formula again:

RC = ((H+BB+HBP-CS-GIDP) * (TB+ 0.26*(BB+HBP-IBB) + 0.52*(SB+SH+SF)))/(AB+BB+HBP+SH+SF)

OK, now we see a bit of what's happening, I think:

1. Mayberry's getting a huge bump from the walks & HBP (in two places).
2. Garvey's taking a huge hit from the GIDP.
3. Garvey gets no credit for the substantial advantage in runs scored or RBI (Yeah, yeah, they're team dependent, but none whatsoever?)
4. Garvey's big advantages in stolen bases, sacrifice hits, sacrifice flies are taken into account, but discounted by the formula by almost half.
5. Garvey's big lead in IBB is discounted by almost three-quarters.
6. Garvey's penalized for his caught stealings at 100%, while only rewarded at 26% for successful steals. (So despite the fact that Garvey stole four times as many bases at a slightly better percentage than Mayberry, this formula punishes him for it -- pretty harshly.)

Now, I'm sure there are good empirical underpinnings for all these weightings, but the upshot is that the final scores are a function of these weightings. And the problem is that the formula tells us that Mayberry was twice the offensive force, twice as dominant, whatever, that Garvey was over his career.

Just subjectively, that would have seemed patently absurd at the time, and it sure seems wrong now. Garvey's long been a person who's at least been seen as someone worthy of HOF consideration. Mayberry was a fine player for a few years, but is a laughable candidate, frankly, then and now. (Or is there a Mayberry bandwagon I've not noticed?)

The RCAP scores look wrong when you look at the hit totals, the doubles, the total bases, etc....never mind the more team dependent or otherwise subjective stuff like runs and RBI, All-Star games, MVP votes, some of the other Jamesian HOF stats, etc. And we haven't even mentioned defense (4 GG, some putout records [partly a function of simple preference on Garvey's part]), postseason play (2 NLCS MVP's; only 1 series out of 11 where he played poorly), all-star game MVPs (2 -- fluky to be sure, but must be worth something) durability (NL record consecutive games streak), etc., all of which is hugely advantageous to Garvey.

(Durability is measured a little with the AB, but in the denominator [plate appearances, basically], where it actually hurts him rather than helps him [well, just by providing context to the counting stats, so it's not unfair per se, but there's no extra credit provided for longevity].)

Originally posted by Chancellor

Obviously this hampers a guy like A-Rod who plays in an era of great shortstops (Tejada, Nomar and Jeter being in the AL at the same time), but you'll find that great players always rise to the top anyhow.

As I said before, Garvey has a (fairly) long line ahead of him. There's no reason I can see for letting him cut in front. I would think the best argument for him could probably be made using the subjective questions list James derived and re-published in The Politics of Glory. (This early in the morning...I forget the name of the list.)

It's the Keltner list. Probably a good exercise to do in Garvey's case, but I'll leave that to someone else. I think someone did it on baseball-primer.com if I'm remembering right for the last HOF ballot; Garvey did OK but not great.

Again, there's at least a half-dozen first basemen alone that should be ahead of Garvey in the Cooperstown queue -- we don't disagree on that.

I just think the RC statistic and its derivatives systematically underrate some players and overrate others because of their factor loadings; Garvey is an example of someone who is hurt by the statistic unjustly. I don't think the statistic is completely useless; it's got some utility for putting players into gross groupings (there's a reason Musial and Gehrig are on top) -- but in terms of finely sorting players and drawing distinctions and conclusions from the totals, it's a very, very flawed measure.

[Cougar]

Here's a link to that article: http://www.baseballprimer.com/articles/malcolm_2003-01-04_0.shtml

The author was supposed to evaluate these guys according to the editor's premise, but he more or less rejects the Keltner List and focuses on Win Shares. Garvey fares worse than Mattingly, Hernandez, Dick Allen, or Eddie Murray in the study, and is the only one who the author believe ought never reach the HOF.

Garvey really needs an advocate; he'd do better on the Keltner list, I think.

And his 1974 MVP wasn't the worst pick I've ever seen -- it was sort of his year, with an MVP in the All-Star game, his first gold glove, 200 hits, 111 RBI, .312 BA., and LA having the best record in the league and winning the pennant.

There were a lot of other good candidates, but no classic guy who got overlooked, as happened in, say, 1987, (in both leagues!) Every decent team in the league seemed to have one or two candidates. Stargell might have been best, or Schmidt, or Brock stealing 118 bags, or Reggie Smith, or Cesar Cedeno, or Ralph Garr, or Al Oliver. Cincinnati's best candidate is Bench, but Morgan, Concepcion, and Rose could all enter the discussion. (All gold gloves up the middle -- man the Big Red Machine could pick it!)

The most damning thing was that Garvey probably was only at best the 3rd best candidate on his team: Mike Marshall and Jimmy Wynn both being clearly better. Lopes, Cey, Messersmith, and Sutton weren't chopped liver either. I imagine no one knew exactly what to make of Marshall, and Wynn was underrated because the value of a base on balls was not yet fully appreciated. Plus, Garvey had that whole all-American boy thing going for him.

30 years later, I'm far from clear on who had the clutch hits, who had the big September, leadership, clubhouse scuttlebutt, etc. Looking back today...I'd probably vote for Jimmy Wynn, but I could be talked into Bench or Stargell or Marshall. But no one had such a clear cut case that a vote for Garvey was absurd.

I suspect Bench would have won if he hadn't had two already.

[Brad Harris]

Originally posted by Hay Fever
In what seasons did you see Steve Garvey play?

Almost exclusively as a Padre.

[trosmok]

We had a thread many moons ago about dirty rotten scoundrels, and I also thought Garvey was a misogynist. Cindy claimed he would go for weeks, living in the same house, and he wouldn't speak to her, nor even acknowledge her presence. That alone is not enough to keep him out of Cooperstown, but his playing days are not enough to get him elected. He was a member of the decade long intact infield, Lopes, Russell, and Cey all started together for as long as any infield since the Dodgers moved from Brooklyn. I always thought Garvey was the weakest link, and was glad to see him take his act to San Diego, but even more excited to see La Penguina make the move to Chicago. Steve G. was campaigning for HOF honors for years while he was still an active player, and his sucking up to the media for so long was very tiresome. Personally I wouldn't even include him in my top 50 first basemen, he had no range, no arm, no speed and very little pop in his bat. He happened to play for some of the most pitching laden teams for a long, long, time, in one of the most glamorous towns in the seventies.:p

[Captain Cold Nose]

Originally posted by trosmok
Personally I wouldn't even include him in my top 50 first basemen, he had no range, no arm, no speed and very little pop in his bat. He happened to play for some of the most pitching laden teams for a long, long, time, in one of the most glamorous towns in the seventies.:p

That is pretty much why I do not personally endorse his candidacy. He was a very popular player whose image well exceeded his greatness.

I don't take too much stock in Cindy Garvey, though. She has long struck me as a very bitter ex-wife who is in Gloria Allred's league of man-hating. This was prevalent in her assessment of OJ after he went to trial rolleyes:. Garvey was not a saint, his treatment of the fairer sex left a bit to be desired, but my view is from others' opinons, not from Cindy.

Is there a term for the opposite of misogynist?:

[Cougar]

Originally posted by Captain Cold Nose
That is pretty much why I do not personally endorse his candidacy. He was a very popular player whose image well exceeded his greatness.

I don't take too much stock in Cindy Garvey, though. She has long struck me as a very bitter ex-wife who is in Gloria Allred's league of man-hating. This was prevalent in her assessment of OJ after he went to trial rolleyes:. Garvey was not a saint, his treatment of the fairer sex left a bit to be desired, but my view is from others' opinons, not from Cindy.

Is there a term for the opposite of misogynist?:

Misandry is the hatred of men; I've never seen it in the form "misandrist" but I imagine it would be grammatically unobjectionable.

[razors]

Originally posted by bluezebra

Steve Garvey still holds the record for:

FATHERING THE MOST CHILDREN BY WOMEN OTHER THAN HIS

WIFE.

Bob.


this chap doesn't seem to have exemplary character...still as long as he didn't get caught gambling with anything other than his health, marriage and the happiness of those around him he should fit into the hall perfectly - were he ever to be deemed qualified (and the jury is still out on that per this thread)...



razors

[Cougar]

Gloria Allred is a well-known crusading liberal-feminist celebrity attorney based in Los Angeles.

Can't really speak to the other stuff.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Originally posted by Hay Fever
Captain Cold Nose, I don't get what you mean by this. Why do you discredit Cindy? And what did Cindy say during the O.J. trial? And who is Gloria Allred? :confused:

Cindy, during the OJ trial, suddenly became an expert on how men think and "knew" what OJ was thinking before the crimes were committed. She was on several interview shows talking about a man's psyche and how Simpson seemed so troubled and looking like he would do something bad later. To clarify, she attended the same children's recital that OJ and Nicole were at the day of the murders.

I've seen her on several talk shows. Whatever Garvey did to her really, really jaded her, apparently. Or maybe it is all her. I've heard others talk about her the same way.

I'm not defending him at all, and mistreatment of a spouse, mate, whatever, period, is inexcusable. But what Cindy wrote in her book and has said subsequently for me is not the true judgement of her ex-husband's character.

[Etheridge2]

What do
Keith Hernandez
Don Mattingly
Mark Grace
All have in common???

Answer they are/were all better then Garvey and none belong in Cooperstown

[The Commissioner]

Originally posted by Chancellor
Garvey's all-star selections and MVP finishes are better explained by his popularity and good public image (certainly assisted, in part, by the overall Dodger public image at that time.)


How about by the fact that he helped the Dodgers contend each season? He was one of the leaders on a perrenial winner. During his tenure there they won 4 pennants including one World Series. That's why he finished so high in the MVP races, not some publicity machine.

With 272 career homers he has to be considered more than simply a "singles hitter".

"Despite 200 hits in 6 different seasons..."?? Chancellor, how can you say that with a straight face? That is a MAJOR accomplishment and can't simply be brushed aside like that. 200 hits in 6 different seasons is a huge deal. There are only 18 men in the history of baseball to ever collect 200+ hits on more than 4 separate occasions: Pete Rose(10), Ty Cobb (9) Lou Gehrig (8), Willie Keeler (8),Paul Waner (8),Wade Boggs (7),Charlie Gehringer (7),Rogers Hornsby (7),Jesse Burkett (6), Steve Garvey (6), Stan Musial (6), Sam Rice (6), Al Simmons (6), George Sisler (6), Bill Terry (6), Tony Gwynn (5), Chuck Klein(5), Kirby Puckett (5). Notice anything they all have in common (or will have in a couple of years anyway)? Heck of the only 14 more players that accomplished that feat four or more times only Joe Jackson, Vada Pinson, and Jack Tobin are not in the Hall of Fame. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that single fact alone merits Hall induction. However, when someone has as many 200 hit seasons as Hank Aaron,Willie Mays, Joe DiMaggio, and Ted Williams combined it cannot be overlooked so easily.

[Brad Harris]

I remain unimpressed (so far as it relates to his candidacy for the Hall of Fame.) 200 hits in six seasons is simply one of those things you can pull out in order to put him in an exclusive group. The implication is that 200 hits six times is a Hall of Fame qualifier. As you point out: who the heck is Jack Tobin and why isn't he in the Hall of Fame for this?

Garvey had a career slugging percentage of .446 and never once had a .500 or better SLG in any of his 19 seasons!!! He never had 40 doubles in a single season and had only one season (1977) where he hit more than 28 home runs.

You want to put Garvey in a grouping? Try this one:

Garvey had 20+ home runs only six times in his 19-year career. 178 major leaguers have accomplished that feat. There are 14 active players who could join that group this year. (Andruw Jones, Nomar Garciaparra and Vladimir Guerrero among them.)

It gets worse here. (And I admit this is just picking a "random" cut-off.) Garvey only had 3 seasons of 22+ home runs. He's one of 299 players who've accomplished that.

Need another example? In 19 years, Garvey had only 5 seasons of 100+ RBI. How often has that happened? Garvey's one of 104 players to have done that 5 times.

And Garvey had only one other season of 90+ RBI, giving him 6 (total) of those. 137 players have done that. Vic Wertz did that. Darryl Strawberry did that. Danny Tartabull and Rusty Staub did that.

The point is that trying to use that as an exclusionary group (especially when it's not that rare) is a little misleading. The other players who had 200 hits six times have much more significant qualifications than being members of that group.

387 major league players have hit at least 39 doubles in a single season, something Steve Garvey was never able to do.

919 major league players have hit at least 10 triples in a single season, something Garvey was never able to do.

210 major league players have hit at least 34 home runs in a single season, something Garvey was never able to do.

71% of Garvey's 2,599 career hits were singles. Only 29% were for extra bases.

Garvey's 272 career home runs (which is evidently proof to some he was not just a "singles hitter" averages out to a mere 14 home runs per season in his 19-year career. Perhaps if Garvey had played shortstop, we'd consider him a "power hitter" instead? :laugh

Garvey's career totals (and seasonal totals) are more a product of his amazing health/consistency. Besides his NL-record consecutive games streak, Garvey is one of only 6 men to have at least 10 seasons of 600+ at bats. FYI, the list is below:

Pete Rose - 17 seasons of 600+ AB
Cal Ripken - 13
Nellie Fox - 12
Lou Brock - 11
Hank Aaron - 10
Steve Garvey - 10

Garvey simply had a great deal of playing time. Garvey's 8,835 career at bats are the 65th highest total in history. Despite that much playing time, Garvey - a first-baseman nonetheless - had only 272 career dingers.

Doesn't blow your socks off.

I'm afraid Garvey was primarily a singles hitter and not a particularly outstanding one at that. Those hits were a product of his many 162-game seasons. There are many hitters throughout history who's 180 or 190 hits could easily have been 200 if not for a handful of missed games here and there. Garvey isn't someone a better hitter than, say, Rod Carew, simply because he had more playing time each season.

Garvey only led his league in hits twice. He never won a batting title. But he led in games played six times.

As for the fact that he was a contributor to a contending team...so what? Where's the Ron Cey bandwagon? Haven't seen many "Davey Lopes for Cooperstown" signs lately. Mike Marshall won a Cy Young Award for one of those contending teams and he hardly drew any support from the veterans committee - many of which had to face him on the field - this year.

Will Paul O'Neill or Tino Martinez be strong candidates because they contributed to their team's success? Surely their teams won more pennants/World Championships than Garvey's.

Garvey played for a winning team, sure. But Los Angeles is the number two media market in the country. You're going to tell me that being the golden boy of the most popular team on the West Coast didn't garner Garvey some votes?

The year Garvey won his MVP (1974), teammates Marshall and Jimmy Wynn also finished in the top five in voting. Lou Brock garnered 8 first-place votes to Garvey's 13. It wasn't exactly a run-away. In fact, one could make a strong case that Wynn was the more valuable Dodger that season. Garvey was the "popular" guy. He's the one the press courted. He was the primary "spokesman" for the Dodger image back then. Whenever he had a reasonably good season, the writers did what they could for him. Simple as that.

[Brad Harris]

It took me a minute to look this up, but here's what win shares has to say about that 1974 MVP...

Best player in NL was Mike Schmidt (39 ws)
Garvey won the MVP Award (with only 27 ws)

That's a difference of 12 win shares. In short, Schimdt's performance was worth 44% more than Garvey's. I think somebody got stiffed.

A look at Garvey's career (using win shares):

1969: Garvey debuted, played briefly, no value to his 3 AB.

1970: Garvey (a third baseman) appeared in 34 games (a September call-up?) but the Dodgers's regular third baseman (Billy Grabarkewitz) was the best player on the team that year.

1971: Garvey saw limited playing time (225 at bats in 81 games) largely because he was stuck behind the new Dodger 3Bman (Dick Allen), who was the best player on the team in '71.

1972: Garvey got the full-time job at third. 8 win shares (barely a "starter's" worth of value.)

1973: Wes Parker retired (at age 32) after a 9-year career, opening 1B up for Garvey, who splits time with a young Bill Buckner. Both players (Garvey and Buckner) get 11 win shares, but manager Walt Alston moves Buckner to left field and gives Garvey the first base job.

1974: Garvey's first full-time year is a breakout season (at age 25) and he wins the MVP Award after a season where the Dodgers win the pennant for the first time in almost a decade. Garvey's 27 ws is the 8th highest total in the league. (There are 2 more players who are tied with Garvey.) Jimmy Wynn's 32 ws make him the MVD (Most Valuable Dodger).

1975: 25 ws make Garvey the third best player on the Dodgers (behind Messersmith and Cey and tied with Lopes.)

1976: Again, Cey is better than Garvey (26 ws). For the first time since before '74, Garvey isn't the best 1Bman in the league. Bob Watson's 31 ws rate him much higher.

1977: Garvey's 21 ws makes him the 5th best player on the team. Bob Watson and Keith Hernandez are better first basemen that season.

1978: Garvey's 25 ws make him 3rd best player on team and he is (again) the best 1Bman in NL.

1979: His 22 ws are 3rd best on team. Pete Rose (now in Philly) and Mike Ivie (of the Giants) are better first basemen this year.

1980: Same as above. Keith Hernandez and Lee Mazzilli (who evidently played first that year) are better at the position.

1981: Garvey's production drops significantly at age 32. Barely makes "starters level" (13 ws) in the only year he gets a World Championship ring.

1982: 15 ws puts him 9th on the team.

1983: 14 ws is 4th most on Padres (his new team) after Terry Kennedy, Alan Wiggins and Luis Salazar.

1984: 15 ws is 7th most on NL-pennant winners.

1985: 17 ws is 4th most in SD behind Gwynn, Garry Templeton and Carmelo Martinez.

1986: 10 ws as Garvey's decline increases rapidly.

1987: No value in his final season; first part-time season since '72. John Kruk is Padres first baseman.


Garvey, the 10-time All-Star
Selected to the ASG every year from 1974-81 and then again from 1984-85, Garvey went a total of 10 times.

That's funny because win shares shows Garvey as the best first baseman in the league only three times in his whole career. (1974, 1975 and 1978.)

Furthermore, win shares recognizes a 20+ ws season as being one of "all star" caliber performance. Garvey only had 7 such seasons (1974-80).

Garvey, the MVP
It's pretty clear that, despite a breakout season by his own standards, Garvey wasn't even the best player on his team, yet alone in the NL in 1974, when he won the MVP.

In 1976 and 1977, Garvey finished 6th in the voting. Cey was more valuable; at least 6 players more valuable throughout the league in 1976. 5th most valuable Dodger in '77, which should say it all.

In 1978, he finished 2nd. Teammates Lopes and Cey are among the 14 players who are at least as valuable as Garvey.

In 1980 he finished 6th. There are at least 15 NL players with more win shares, teammates Dusty Baker and Ron Cey being among them.

Garvey should never have won an MVP Award - he was never even close. Perhaps a 9th or 10th place showing once or twice might have been more in line with his actual performance.


Garvey, the Contributor to Contending Teams
Garvey's win shares in seasons when his teams won are as follows:

1974 (NL Pennant) - 27 ws
1977 (NL Pennant) - 21 ws
1978 (NL Pennant) - 25 ws
1981 (World Championship) - 13 ws
1984 (NL Pennant) - 15 ws

In the World Championship season, Garvey was barely performing at a starting level. He repeated that performance for the '84 pennant winning Padres.

His "all-star" level seasons for winning teams came in a 5-year period where the Dodgers finished in first place three times, all three seasons in which Garvey had between 21-27 win shares.

In not one of these seasons did Garvey have an "MVP caliber" year (30+ win shares). Nor, in any of those seasons, was Garvey the best player on the team.

Garvey might have stepped it up a notch in October - I won't argue with his two NLCS MVP Awards - but he wasn't the primary reason his teams got there. He was just one wheel on the vehicle. 40% of the time, he was more of a spare tire than anything else.


Garvey & Similarity Scores
The player who's career statistics are most similar to Garvey's is Al Oliver. Where's his Hall of Fame advocates? In fact, here's the complete list of Garvey's top ten comparisons:

Al Oliver
Bill Buckner
Mickey Vernon
Cecil Cooper
Chili Davis
Orlando Cepeda
Will Clark
Vada Pinson
Mark Grace
Paul O'Neill

Only one of those guys is in the Hall of Fame (and that, by way of the Veterans Committee). I would be remiss to point out that I, personally, don't consider at least one or two of those players to be reasonably qualified as Hall of Fame candidates. Of course, I think Garvey is a candidate. I just don't see him as a particularly good one, nor anywhere near those in the "most deserving" group.


Steve Garvey is nothing more than an overhyped player who had an extraordinarily hardy career, playing practically every game for a very long time and being blessed with very good teams for much of his career. He played for the most visible team in the National League, in the 2nd largest city in America and had a great public image.

It's obvious to me, at least, that Garvey didn't deserve as much recognition as he got in all-star and awards voting and that his reputation was (and continues to be by some) seriously overinflated.

There's nothing in Garvey's career that can reasonably demonstrate why the BBWAA ought to elect him.

[Etheridge2]

Originally posted by Chancellor
It took me a minute to look this up, but here's what win shares has to say about that 1974 MVP...

Best player in NL was Mike Schmidt (39 ws)
Garvey won the MVP Award (with only 27 ws)

That's a difference of 12 win shares. In short, Schimdt's performance was worth 44% more than Garvey's. I think somebody got stiffed.



Eh Mike Schmidt was ona sub .500 team and if you want to win an MVP playing for a loser you better put up some MONSTER numbers...I would say Johnny Bench had more claim to the prize in 1974 he had 204 RC(R+RBI-HR) Garvey had 185 and while both were GGers Garvey got his at first and Bench earned his behind the plate...I would have voted for Bench over Garvey

[Cougar]

Wow, lot to respond to there, Chancellor. I'll bullet point:

1. 1981 was the strike year; Garvey's 13 translates to 19 or 20 over a full season (at or near All-Star level).

2. Thrust of your/win share argument against SG is that he had too little power and too low an OBP as a first baseman. Fine; that's what Win Shares do, but we should understand that.

3. The fact that Garvey played so much to accumulate all those hits should be a point in his favor! That kind of durability is very rare and valuable.

4. In terms of raw counting stats, Garvey power totals are more impressive when you consider he played his best seasons in Chavez Ravine, probably the 2nd toughest ballpark for hitters in the majors in that era (Astrodome toughest; Busch Stadium also unforgiving). Win Shares adjusts for park effects, but there the lack of walks kill him.

5. OK, he only led the league in hits twice. That means he played in the same league as Pete Rose, among others. But he was in the top 3 five times and the top 10 ten times; in other words, he was always among the league leaders.

6. I think you're overselling his hype. Sure he was hyped, but that was 25 years ago. We're all over it now, but he's still got 2600 hits, a .294 average, and a bunch of GG's.

7. You keep bringing up he's not the most deserving. I don't think anyone's arguing that point. Ignoring other candidates, looking at Garvey on his merits alone, is he deserving? Probably. That's a different, equally valid argument.

[The Commissioner]

Chancellor, the problem is that most of your argument seems to lie in accepting that Win Shares is a valid means of measurement to begin with. I don't buy either win shares or ink tests to begin with as a measure of performance. I know we'll always disagree on these points, but you're going to have to convince me using means other than Jamesian metrics.

While I definitely agree that certain stats can be picked out and lumped together in order to put someone into an exclusive group, 200 hit seasons doesn't happen to fall under that rubric. It's one thing to pull out a random stat such as "everybody that has ever stolen 20 bases, hit 20 homeruns, and has a fielding average above .996 ina season is in the Hall of Fame". That would be truly random because none of the factors have any correlation to one another and none of those numbers taken individually is enough to merit Hall selection. However, having 200+ hits for six seasons can in no way be referred to as "simply one of those things you can pull out in order to put him in an exclusive group". It demonstrates a level of recognized excellence over a sustained period of time.

As far as who the heck Jack Tobin is, first of all keep in mind that Garvey had two more 200+ seasons than him. Secondly, Tobin was someone who strung together a few great seaons with the St. Louis Browns in the '20s. He finished his career with only slightly over 1900 hits, but a career .309 BA. Had Tobin also had two more 200+ seasons we may very well be talking about him as a Hall of Famer. Right now, he's certainly not Hall worthy, but he's also not just some random bum that happened to be randomly clumped together with the rest of the other names on that list.

[Etheridge2]

Originally posted by The Commissioner


However, having 200+ hits for six seasons can in no way be referred to as "simply one of those things you can pull out in order to put him in an exclusive group". It demonstrates a level of recognized excellence over a sustained period of time.



Yes it can because 198 hits and 200 hits are essentially the same but 200 is a nice round number and we live in a society that likes nice round numbers i.e benchmarks
500HR, 3000Hits, 300wins, 3000K's I think a guy like Mark Grace or Keith hernandez are every bit as good if not better a hitter then Steve Garvey was in his prime...Grace has never had 200 hits and Hernandez only reached it once...but Garvey never hit .320 or better Grace did it 3 times and Hernandez twice, Will Clark did it three times despite never reaching 200 hits in a season once.

200 hits means you played a lot of games and got a lot of AB's unless the batting average was pretty high and Garvey's never really was

Garvey finished in the top 5 in hitting only twice in his entire career he was far from one of the baseball's best and he should not be in the hall of fame as anything other then a paying visitor

[The Commissioner]

Okay, if we want to caught up in a game of semantics we can, but I think the point that Chancellor was trying to make was a different one. That's fine lets' look at guys with 198+ hit seasons if that will make everyone jolly. What you are saying, Eth, about nice round numbers is a very valid point, but just not the one that is being argued here. I completely agree with you that too much is made over round numbers.( Afterall, does it make Kaline less of a ballplayer to have 399 career HR rather than 401?)The point is that collecting that many hits that many times is quite an accomplishment. It's not just something that happened by chance and you can say "Oh, wow, look at that quirky curiosity. Over 200 hits, six times. Say, that's kinda neat but doesn't really account for much." It takes a high level of playing ability over a sustained period of time. Now we can argue as to whether or not it is simply indicative of playing at a good level or playing at a great level. That is a fair and legitimate topic for debate. However to perceive this as some sort of insignificant random fact is beyond my comprehension.

[Stan The Man]

This goes back to earlier in the thread but this is from the Hall of Fame site on requirements for election....

5. Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

If I am not mistaken baseball is the only major sport to judge on character along with stats.

[Etheridge2]

Originally posted by The Commissioner
Okay, if we want to caught up in a game of semantics we can, but I think the point that Chancellor was trying to make was a different one. That's fine lets' look at guys with 198+ hit seasons if that will make everyone jolly. What you are saying, Eth, about nice round numbers is a very valid point, but just not the one that is being argued here. I completely agree with you that too much is made over round numbers.( Afterall, does it make Kaline less of a ballplayer to have 399 career HR rather than 401?)The point is that collecting that many hits that many times is quite an accomplishment. It's not just something that happened by chance and you can say "Oh, wow, look at that quirky curiosity. Over 200 hits, six times. Say, that's kinda neat but doesn't really account for much." It takes a high level of playing ability over a sustained period of time. Now we can argue as to whether or not it is simply indicative of playing at a good level or playing at a great level. That is a fair and legitimate topic for debate. However to perceive this as some sort of insignificant random fact is beyond my comprehension.

It isn't insignigicant or random but it isn't as important as people make it sound...and the signifigance of round numbers is precisley what is being argued/debated here. When a statement is made that player X is one of only X men to ever have X hits in X seasons you are placing a value on the number in this case 200 hits and saying that 200 hits is in fact greater then say 199 hits...If a player had 190+ hits 10 times but only topped 200 once he wouldn't make the list but might be just as good if not an even better hitter then the player with the 6 200 hit seasons

With all the hits Garvey was getting in those years his average didn't really reflect it as he never even hit .320

[Brad Harris]

Perhaps the dilemma is that, if Garvey is over the line, how much lower do we draw it? If he's Hall of Fame material, who else has a similar case/should be in and how do we distinguish between those people's cases and Garvey's?

It's easy to picture him as being the "worst" (electable) first baseman who'd be "in," but just as easily, he could be the best first baseman who doesn't deserve election.

Point being...on his own merits, I don't really feel the need to elect him until I've got a more orderly first baseman ranking. If, in the future, I can say with confidence that he's worse than Keith Hernandez, but better than Norm Cash (for example), then I'll be a lot more comfortable drawing the line below Garvey. Until then, I can wait. And so can he.

It's better to make the mistake of excluding a worthy candidate in the short term, until you're absolutely convinced he belongs, than it is to elect someone you have little confidence in. Right now, I don't have a whole lotta confidence in Garvey being a Hall of Famer.

[drayfan]

Hello all, I am a new site member, just discovered your board via baseball-almanac.com. I enjoyed reading this discussion and recently did a productivity comparison of several firstbase men because I was interested in the debate on whether Palmeiro and/or McGriff should be elected to the Hall upon their eligibility due solely to the 500 homerun acheivment. I came up with the following chart. I am using contemporary players who have been mentioned as Hall caliber players and who have played at least 10 years, players who are eligible but have not been inducted, and Hall of Famers already in, for comparison purposes. I am comparing first base to first base here, so all the players on my list are or were at that position for the majority of games throughout their careers, though they may have also played other positions. They are listed based on the runs created per 27 outs formula (a Bill James variation but the math and calculations or errors are mine) but any category sorting will produce more or less the same order. My take is that Garvey is clearly not a Hall of Fame caliber player. I did see him play many times, and as good a player as he was, he was never what I would consider great, though he may have had a great year or two. Of course "seeing" someone play is a totaly subjective judgement, so the arguement of "well I saw him play and he deserves the hall (or doesn't deserve the Hall)" is a unreliable measuring stick by which to judge players in my opinion. Baseball is a game of statistics, and while many stats can be manipulated to show just about anything someone wants, they are at least a solid tangible basis upon which to start to judge a players performance. There are 37 firstbase men on this list, past and present, and Garvey ranks statistically at or near the bottom of many of the major offensive categories. Of course he was a solid defensive player, but not of the keith Hernandez caliber (who is not in the Hall) so I don't think the arguement can be made that adding his defensive skills into the equation will put him over the top. Anyway my stats are at:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/drayfan/Baseball%20Musings/default.htm
All stats are of May 16th, 2003. Just thought I'd share my two cents worth as a new member.

[The Commissioner]

Chancellor and drayfan, while I can hear what you're saying about where they ranks historically and not wanting to put Gravey in until Hernandez is in, I guess where I differ greatly is on the notion that these players even can be ranked to begin with. First, an aside, not putting someone in because someone more deserving isn't in is a case of two wrongs attempting to make a Harry Wright. You don't exacerbate one error by adding another one to it. If Garvey doesn't desevre induction, then that's fine. However, that judgement should be based on his own merits or lack thereof and be independent of whether or not someone else has been overlooked. Personally, I see Garvey and Hernandez as both being Hall calibre.

In the case of ranking, I just don't buy into the concept that it is possible to rank players in such a finite fashion. Yes, certain rankings are obvious. If one asks "Which right fielder is more deserving of the Hall of Fame Babe Ruth or Al Kaline?", then a ranking is rather obvioius. However to attempt to rank "who is more deserving 1-5: Cobb, Williams, DiMaggio, Aaron, or Mays" becomes an exercize in the ridiculous. There is no clear way through any known methodology ever invented to satisfactorially settle that debate with a definitive answer. Along that same vein there is no known methodology that will allow us to rank the first basemen according to which one is more deserving. We can weigh various other stats, awards, recollections, observations, etc., but in the end there is just going to be a very blurry line separating the Hall of Famer worthy from the near misses. To attempt to figure out which side of that all too gray line some players deserve to be on is dificult enough. However to attempt to rank them in sort of definitive pecking order is not practical or even valid on any sort of serious level. There is no statistical formula that can tell us the answer to exactly where every player ranks and what rank merits Hall induction.

[drayfan]

I do agree that it is impossible given known variables to rank a player in some type of pecking order based on statistics as to whom is the best at any given position or all time. However the only way to evaluate a player even somewhat objectively is based on his statistics. If it is possible, to use your example, to rate Ruth as a better player and more deserving of the Hall than Kaline, then it is possible somehow to rank Kaline better or more deserving than say Elmer Flick. The ranking is based largely on statistical performance. You are 100% right when you say there is no statistical formula to determine whether or not a player belongs in the Hall, but we have to use the best tools available to us to help assist in that determination. I also agree that putting someone in because someone else with comparable stats is in is also wrong. Bill James devoted an entire book to trying to determine objectively through various statistical methods who deserved Hall induction, covering many of these arguements. The Hall's rules for induction state the following: "5. Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." So how do we determine given these factors who belongs in? All should be taken into account but ultimately it is the player's statistics that convey his worth to his team and thereby his worthiness as a Hall candidate. A given player may make extraordinary contributions to his community, be a great sportsman and an exemplary man of integrity and character, but if he doesn't have the stats to go along with these factors he doesn't go to the Hall. In my opinion if the Hall is to be used to acknowlege the greatest players in the game of all time neither Hernandez nor Garvey deserve to be in, based solely upon their qualifications as set down in the Hall rules, regardless of their statistical comparisons with other players. And I base my opinion largely on their statistical rankings and performances in the years in which they played. So while I do agree with much of what you say Commissioner I have to base many of my baseball opinions on the stats that the players put up in comparison with other players past and present, ergo their rankings compared statistically with these players. But of course this debate about the Hall has been going on since the first induction ceremony and probably won't ever be settled. In fact Lee Sinins, who is the author of the sabermetric baseball encyclopedia, has created what he calls the Baseball Immortals (http://www.baseballimmortals.net/players.shtml) as an alternative to the Hall because he feels that so many players have been inducted that are not deserving. Interesting reading for anyone interested in the debate.

[The Commissioner]

I think we're fairly close to the same page, just using different language. I'm definitely don't saying we can't use stats. On the contrary, I very much believe in stats as well. The question is a matter of which stats and how do you compare stats?For example
how do you weigh the higher batting average of one player against the higher home run totals for another? The Flick/Kaline comparison would be a perfect example. Ruth was, if not the greatest player ever, certainly one of the top five and his stats tower above those of Kaline in practically every category. While it could be said Kaline was a much better fielder, the arguments in Kaline's favor would soon fall apart. With Flick and Kaline how can you compare which player was better? One has twice as many at bats the other. One has a much higher batting average and more stolen bases the other the better homerun total. Most important of all, one played in the deadball era and one in the modern era. Frankly, I can't find any way of making any sort of reasonable ranking. They were both great players, they are both worthy of Cooperstown.

[drayfan]

You are right on about Flick and Kaline. I ran some stats and even a basic stat that theoretically should transcend era's, runs created, is misleading due to the unavailability of some statistics. RC/27 outs is 7.62 for Flick and 7.18 for Kaline and thier OPS is .837 for Flick and .856 for Kaline. The arguement could be made that kaline played more of his prime time in a pitchers era though, as much of his career was during the 1960's. Bill James gives Kaline 443 career Win Shares and Flick gets 291, but the problem that I see with Win Shares is exactly this in that it works against players such as Flick who were great but had their careers cut short for some reason in favor of players with longer careers. Another example would be McGwire vs. Palmeiro or McGriff. By the end of their careers they both will have more win shares than McGwire, but I don't know anyone who would argue that either was the better or more productive hitter. So point taken that comparing these guys is difficult to say the least. Back to Garvey though, and in the case of Garvey and Hernandez, it is a bit easier to compare players as there have been many good first base men in the last 30 years. Their stats just don't warrant Hall of Fame to my thinking. Even ignoring guys like Frank Thomas, Mark McGwire and Jeff Bagwell, who are Hall caliber, statistically guys like Mark Grace, Norm Cash, and Andres Galarraga have better offensive numbers. And Dick Allen is far better than any of these guys and he is not in. Again I don't support the arguement that because one player is in (or out) that another should be in (or out), but I do think that you have to look at the players numbers at least in comparison with his contemporaries in order to get an accurate picture of just how good he performed and how worthy of the Hall he is/was during the time that he played.

[Brad Harris]

I think Hernandez actually has a case given that he's recognized by a majority of fans as having been the greatest fielding first baseman in history.

Hernandez is recognized as being the best in some single aspect of the game in addition to his "normal" credentials.

Furthermore, he did it the longest of any great fielding first basemen. At least, so far as the gold gloves are concerned.

He has an argument similar to that of Bill Mazeroski or Ozzie Smith, neither of whom won an MVP or more than one World Championship.

That's something that Garvey doesn't have going for him, though. (The recognition of having been the best.) And it's poor logic for anyone to think Garvey deserves election while Hernandez does not.

Commish -- While I agree with you, in the abstract, that you can't withhold someone's due simply because they "should wait" for others to get in first, there is a specific case I have in mind here.

Dick Allen is the most qualified (eligible) first baseman out there. (IMO.) I'm not going to fail to push for a first baseman's election by the BBWAA simply because Allen hasn't been elected by the Vets yet.

But Keith Hernandez and Steve Garvey (and Don Mattingly) ARE all on the same ballot right now, so it behooves us all to decide which (if any) of those first basemen deserve a vote.

Depending on what day you ask me, Hernandez doesn't always make my ten-man ballot. But he definately gets the nod before Garvey (not that you shouldn't be able to vote for any number of candidates you feel are worthy...but that's another story.) :laugh

[bluezebra]

Originally posted by Chancellor
Garvey was the Mark Grace of his time. A fine fielder and singles hitter who played many years without injury.

His black ink score is well below the average Hall of Famer. His gray ink score is a little below the average Hall of Famer. He meets only 31.5% of the Hall of Fame standards (relative to an average Hall of Famer meeting 50%.)

He never walked more than 50 times in a season, had a terrible 56% success rate in 145 attempts, and his park-adjusted OPS is only 16% better than league average which, quite frankly is very unimpressive for a first base candidate for the Hall of Fame.

Garvey's all-star selections and MVP finishes are better explained by his popularity and good public image (certainly assisted, in part, by the overall Dodger public image at that time.)

Despite 200 hits in 6 different seasons, Garvey only led the league in hits twice and only finished his career with 2,599 hits. He had a 0.48 walk-to-strikeout ratio.

His consecutive games streak is nice, but not a serious argument for induction.

He had only five seasons of 100+ RBI, which seems poor for a #3 hitter making an argument for Cooperstown.

I'm not saying that he's unqualified. I am saying he's far from the most qualified first baseman waiting his turn.

Garvey should not be mentioned in the same breath as Mark Grace when it comes to fielding. The reason he was switched to first base was because he couldn't make the throw from third base.

Bob

[Cougar]

I've been away.

This discussion has been great. Everyone is making excellent points. I don't have much to add, but since I've been rather active up until now, I thought I'd check in.

Chancellor is quite right that in this specific case we have needed to rank Hernandez, Mattingly, and Garvey. And I think he's also right that Garvey is at the bottom of these rankings. When I've filled out mock ballots and had to cut a 1b, Garvey's been the one to go.

In terms of ranking players, I think what Commish and Dray are trying to describe is the level of precision of statistical measurement. Most statistics are good at making gross distinctions -- i.e., Ruth to Kaline to Flick. But the fine distinctions are a little harder -- Garvey vs. Hernandez vs. Grace. These are three very similar players with similar hitting statistics and styles, and different statistical tools will rank them differently.

Imagine you have a yardstick. The yardstick is very good at telling the difference between 35 inches and 23 inches; you don't have to measure carefully at all. It's still pretty good at telling the difference between 20 inches and 23 inches, but you've got to be a little careful. Between 22 and 23, it gets a little tricky. Between 22.4 and 22.5, you've got very little confidence you're figuring out which one is longer. The yardstick's level of precision is about an inch; maybe a half-inch if the user is very careful.

It's hard to know just what the level of precision is on some of these metrics we use to compare players. Now, since they have Ruth at the top and Uecker at the bottom, they're doing something right, but whether they distinguish properly between Garvey and Mattingly is another question altogether.

[Etheridge2]

[i]

Imagine you have a yardstick. The yardstick is very good at telling the difference between 35 inches and 23 inches; you don't have to measure carefully at all. It's still pretty good at telling the difference between 20 inches and 23 inches, but you've got to be a little careful. Between 22 and 23, it gets a little tricky. Between 22.4 and 22.5, you've got very little confidence you're figuring out which one is longer. The yardstick's level of precision is about an inch; maybe a half-inch if the user is very careful.

It's hard to know just what the level of precision is on some of these metrics we use to compare players. Now, since they have Ruth at the top and Uecker at the bottom, they're doing something right, but whether they distinguish properly between Garvey and Mattingly is another question altogether. [/B]

That's a great analogy

[drayfan]

That was an excellent analogy, I'll have to remeber that for future use. And as an additional note I will say it is somewhat applicable in an offhand way to my point about Henandez and Garvey's qualifications for the Hall, in that if the difference is so negligible between them that the measurment is that difficult, then maybe they don't truely belong in the Hall, as the Hall should be for players whose qualifications are outstanding and obvious, if this makes sense in the way I'm trying to phrase it. In other words the candidate for the Hall should be so obvious that there really shouldn't be a debate, and if there is a significant debate that fact alone should make us wary of putting that candidate in the Hall.

[Cougar]

That is a fair point, and worth remembering. However...

Similar players can be great players.

Compare Kaline and Clemente. Winfield and Kaline are similar too. All of these guys were similar in the field too -- fast (but not blazing) with cannon arms.

Duke Snider and Ken Griffey have similar numbers too (to date), and they were both good centerfielders.

Carlton Fisk and Gary Carter are very similar catchers. Bob Feller and Nolan Ryan (with period adjustments, and allowing for the war years) were very similar pitchers.

Of course, the best of the best -- Cobb, Ruth, Bonds, Wagner -- are not going to look much like anyone else.

But a lack of uniqueness alone does not mean one is not a HOFer.

[Brooklyn]

Just wanted to throw out a name that isn't brought up all that much. He was one of the premier first basemen in the game for 70's and early 80's. Looking back at his stats, they were better than I remembered. Here are some of his achievements:


10-time all-star (only Bill Freehan - 11 and Ryne Sandberg -10 played in as many and are not in the HOF)
MVP in 1974 and 4 other top 10's, including 2nd in voting in 1978
2 time All star game MVP
2 time NLCS MVP
4 time gold glove winner
Grey ink of 142 - right around average HOFer
His counting stats are a little light, with 2599 hits, 272 HRs and 1308 RBI's, but the power numbers were not bad for his era, being top ten in HRs 3 times and RBI's 7 times
1,207 consuective games played, fourth most all-time and NL record
Outstanding post-season performer, .338/.361/.550 in 55 post season games, all well above his regular season numbers, including batting .417 to help the Dodgers win the 1981 world series


I would have liked to see him finish his career a little stronger. He dropped off significantly as the Padres starting first basemen from 1985 to 1986 before being a bench player in 1987 and out of baseball at the end of that year. He had 2,441 career hits at the age of 36 (by contrast Boggs only had 2,392 through age 36, and Winfield had 2,421 through age 36, for example), so a stronger finish and he could have made a run at 3,000.

I do think he falls short of the HOF line, but wanted to throw his name out there to start some discussion.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Steve Garvey was thought of as a HOF'er while he played. But his image took a serious nosedive when the bitter ex-wife spilled her guts, revealing he wasn't Johnny Perfect. The perception he was a great fielder took a hit, because a hard look revealed he did not do too much more than catch the ball at first (a lot was made of this during an all-star game where he had to throw a batter out at the plate).

Players from the seventies and eighties have taken a hard hit when it comes to HOF balloting. Without the milestone counting stats, a hitter from that era stands little chance of making it. (As opposed to the pitchers from that era, where many of them were able to make it to the HOF, after gaining big counting numbers.)

[RuthMayBond]

The perception he was a great fielder took a hit, because a hard look revealed he did not do too much more than catch the ball at first I'm still intrigued by this because he was always up there in Range Factor, and I don't think it was like Russell or Sax were exactly great help?

[The Commissioner]

He was a much better fielder than history seems to remember him as being.

As for his offensive stats, I'm curious as to how "park factor" can be used to detract a lot from the accomplishments of pitchers such Koufax and Drysdale in many people's minds, yet the opposite does not seem to hold true for batters? If Koufax's and Drysdale's stats are perceived as being less great for having pitched in Dodger Stadium, then shouldn't Steve Garvey's and Shawn Green's hitting stats be given more weight?

[Captain Cold Nose]

captaincoldnose wrote “But [Garvey’s] image took a serious nosedive when the bitter ex-wife spilled her guts, revealing he wasn't Johnny Perfect. The perception he was a great fielder took a hit, because a hard look revealed he did not do too much more than catch the ball at first (a lot was made of this during an all-star game where he had to throw a batter out at the plate).

two things jump out strikingly to me: 1) cyndy garvey is described as ”bitter”, whereas the total truth is that steve garvey admitted cheating on his wife and fathering the children of different women while married; 2) garvey’s suspect arm is the main reason that he was quickly moved from third to first at the start of his career (28 errors in 85 games, though not all throwing, of course). i think that the all-star game mentioned ought to be downplayed, but a “great fielder” has got to throw, no?

Of course a great fielder has to throw. And that was my unclear point about the all-star game reference. The announcers at the time made a big deal about the play because it was something Garvey did not ordinarily do.

As for the Cyndy Garvey comment, I won't really go there except every interview I have seen her in since Garvey's amorous relevation has her basically bashing men in general. Wronged, or not, she comes off as bitter.

[RuthMayBond]

Since we are talking about Steve Garvey, I have a quite question for everyone. I know that Cal Ripken is a lock for the Hall. However do you guys think that Cal would be considered as strongly if he did not have the streak? I've always thought that he was overrated because of it.He might not be considered AS strongly and it may overrate him SLIGHTLY but a shortstop with 431 HR, 1695 RBI, 2 MVPs, 603 doubles and 2 Gold Gloves (and I have him deserving five) probably deserves to go in the Hall :p

[J W]

THANK YOU about the Gold Gloves, RMB. OldSchool, the only area where the streak overrates Cal is in the "all-time players" field, not the HOF. But this is about Garvey.

It's a terrific point made by CCN about players from the 70's- 80's (and 80's in particular). Tim Kirkjian even wrote an article on it. Not only does it bite Garvey, but Rice, Dawson, Murphy, Hernandez, Parker, and soon Tim Raines.

It's a tough question to sort out: are these players a victim of the times they played in, or were they just not HOF caliber? Parity vs. Mediocrity; though by higher standards, it's the same argument.

As of now, I say no. For one thing, the man couldn't take a walk. In 8800+ at bats, he walked under 500 times. To compare: in 7300+ at bats, Keith Hernandez walked 1070 times. In 9200+ at bats, Joe Morgan walked over 1850 times. I say this because OBP is the closest average tied to team-winning; more than BA, more than slugging, even more than OPS if I remember correctly. Of course, this totally paints me as a hypocrite since I endorse Andre Dawson :rolleyes: .

There are some other points I want to make, but I'm being called away for now.

[nightal]

Since we are talking about Steve Garvey, I have a quite question for everyone. I know that Cal Ripken is a lock for the Hall. However do you guys think that Cal would be considered as strongly if he did not have the streak? I've always thought that he was overrated because of it.


Would not be considered the "lock" that he is now.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Would not be considered the "lock" that he is now.

Maybe not, but the 3000 hits and 400 Home runs from the shortstop position would still get him first ballot. But he may not be the standout candidate in 2007 without the streak. Gwynn and his 7 batting titles might get a higher percentage, as might McGwire. With the streak, he clears 95%.

[RuthMayBond]

Regarding Garvey's fielding. Pete Palmer's linear weights metric, popularized in Total Baseball, showed him as a subpar fielder. Much of this was due to poor estimates of defensive innings and failure to adjust for his team context.

OTOH, win shares has him a grade A fielder, winning seven Win Shares gold gloves. Some of that is due to playing time, but in any case, these newer stats show him as actually deserving of his fine reputation.That is what is so confusing, people seem to think he was either awesome or horrible. I have him as statistically winning at least three.

[west coast orange and black]

i do not see garvey as either awesome or terrible. rather, as a very good hitter who wanted the bat in his hands when the game was on the line. i also see him as a first baseman who had severe limitations with popups and throwing. i am not calculating with linear weights metric, i am simply relying on what i saw.

[RuthMayBond]

i do not see garvey as either awesome or terrible. i also see him as a first baseman who had severe limitations with popups and throwing.I was referring to Garvey DEFENSIVELY, so apparently you're closer to the "terrible" camp

[leecemark]

--Garvey wasn't Kieth Hernandez (or even Mattingly or Murray), but he surely wasn't terrible defensively. He had good range and great hands. His only real liability I rember was he had a very poor arm. Of course, I was/am mostly an AL fan so maybe I didn't see him enough to notice the popup thing.
--He wasn't a great hitter by firstbase standards, but he was pretty good. His less than stellar power numbers can be partly excused by Dodger Stadium (although he had less power in SanDiego). His unwillingness to take a walk and relativley poor OBPs are harder to excuse. I say no to the HoF, although he is surely better than george kelly.

[RuthMayBond]

--Garvey wasn't Kieth Hernandez (or even Mattingly or Murray.Now I only have Murray deserving two Gold Gloves

[west coast orange and black]

I was referring to Garvey DEFENSIVELY, so apparently you're closer to the "terrible" camp

garvey a terrible defensiveman? i don't think so. i would have to think that he was subpar to average, and i do not. i think that garvey's all-around work was above average. however, because he did not go after the ball (read: be aggresive rather than shy away) and did not throw to second, third and the plate there is no way that he can rank amongst the best in mlb.

i wrote earlier that garvey’s suspect arm is the main reason that he was quickly moved from third. and that i do not see garvey as either awesome or terrible, rather, as a first baseman who had severe limitations with popups and throwing. i am sticking with my earlier post.

[HDH]

This is what I remember in those times: During the middle 70s to early 80s, Steve Garvey was the #1 1st baseman. Stargel, Perez, McCovey, Chambliss, Mayberry, Watson, May, or Powell weren't given the status Garvey was. As far as defence goes, none of these guys were great defensively. George Scott was conidered very good defensively and I don't think he was all that good compared to standards today. This excludes Keith Hernandez. I don't think I'll ever see anyone a great defensively as Keith Hernandez again.

[KHenry14]

I am with WCOB on Garvey. He was good around the bag and he could really pick the throws in the dirt, but don't ask him to be a cut off man! And he was a clutch player as any Cub fan will tell you. But overall I don't think he measures up to the other 1B in the hall already, both to the one's of his era and the entire group overall.

As a cheap aside, I actually physically ran into Garvey once at an Los Angeles Kings hockey game (he came round a corner as was going the other way) not a big deal, but what suprised me was how small he was. I'm 5'6", and Garvey can't be more than 5'9-10". I was sort of used to guys like McCovey, McGwire etc who tower over me, so his smallish stature was a mild shock.

KH14

[RuthMayBond]

This is what I remember in those times: During the middle 70s to early 80s, Steve Garvey was the #1 1st baseman. Stargel, Perez, McCovey, Chambliss, Mayberry, Watson, May, or Powell weren't given the status Garvey was. As far as defence goes, none of these guys were great defensively. George Scott was conidered very good defensively and I don't think he was all that good compared to standards today. This excludes Keith Hernandez. I don't think I'll ever see anyone a great defensively as Keith Hernandez again.The ones from this list that I have as definitely deserving Gold Gloves are one for Perez (at 3B), three for Mayberry, and two for LMay (plus my undecided awards)

[Cougar]

I think Garvey is a borderline HOF. I'd tend to support him.

He had a fine peak with 6 200-hit seasons in 7 years.

He has very solid career statistics depressed by his ballparks (Jack Murphy was no hitter's paradise either).

He was a very good fielder (not historically great, and with the notably weak arm that is survivable at 1b) who was the best in his league by a comfortable margin until Hernandez came into his own.

He holds the consecutive game streak mark in the NL. He was the MVP in two All-Star Games, and played in 10 overall. He has two NLCS MVP awards and a .338 career postseason average in 55 games.

The weight of the evidence seems to fall in his favor.

Cons are his very low walk rate and some character questions that mainly came to light in his post-playing days (although he wasn't popular among his teammates during his career). Neither of these rise to the level of disqualifying for me.

Oh, and his stature was never a secret -- Garvey was listed at 5'10", 190 during his playing career.

[The Only Nolan]

The lack of walks are a big problem, but do we really hold this against Garvey? Back then OBP wasn't emphasized and everyone wanted him to rack up the hits. He, along with Rose, was the highest paid player at one point.
I don't think it necessarily matters whether OBP was emphasized at the time. Regardless of the era, a player's job is to create runs, and getting on base plays obviously a huge part in creating runs. Someone with 175 hits and 100 walks is generally more productive offensively than someone with 200 hits and 35 walks, all other things being equal. Plus, Garvey didn't make up for the low OBP by having a high slugging avg., either. Had he been a 30-HR a year guy for several years, that might have gotten his numbers to HOF level, but I think he falls a little short.

[west coast orange and black]

This is what I remember in those times: During the middle 70s to early 80s, Steve Garvey was the #1 1st baseman.

is it possible that the pretty boy image / hollywood / white teeth factor had something to do with this?

[The Commissioner]

I don't think it necessarily matters whether OBP was emphasized at the time. Regardless of the era, a player's job is to create runs, and getting on base plays obviously a huge part in creating runs. Someone with 175 hits and 100 walks is generally more productive offensively than someone with 200 hits and 35 walks, all other things being equal. Plus, Garvey didn't make up for the low OBP by having a high slugging avg., either. Had he been a 30-HR a year guy for several years, that might have gotten his numbers to HOF level, but I think he falls a little short.

But then again, I'll bring this up yet another time... if we are going to count pitching at Dodger Stadium as artificially boosting Koufax and Drysdale's numbers, then don't hitters such as Garvey and Green deserve more credit for their accomplishments?

[Cougar]

But then again, I'll bring this up yet another time... if we are going to count pitching at Dodger Stadium as artificially boosting Koufax and Drysdale's numbers, then don't hitters such as Garvey and Green deserve more credit for their accomplishments?

You're absolutely right, Commish -- one can't have it both ways. The only reason I didn't explicitly concur before is that I thought your point was beyond dispute.

Garvey spent his entire career in pitcher's parks, in a relatively low-offense era (certainly compared to today). In a neutral environment, his stats would be much better.

(I'll leave it to someone else to do the math and figure out how much better.)

[MudvilleMike]

But then again, I'll bring this up yet another time... if we are going to count pitching at Dodger Stadium as artificially boosting Koufax and Drysdale's numbers, then don't hitters such as Garvey and Green deserve more credit for their accomplishments?

Don't forget the best of the lot, Ron Cey.

[Lugger]

How about by the fact that he helped the Dodgers contend each season? He was one of the leaders on a perrenial winner. During his tenure there they won 4 pennants including one World Series. That's why he finished so high in the MVP races, not some publicity machine.

With 272 career homers he has to be considered more than simply a "singles hitter".

"Despite 200 hits in 6 different seasons..."?? Chancellor, how can you say that with a straight face? That is a MAJOR accomplishment and can't simply be brushed aside like that. 200 hits in 6 different seasons is a huge deal. There are only 18 men in the history of baseball to ever collect 200+ hits on more than 4 separate occasions: Pete Rose(10), Ty Cobb (9) Lou Gehrig (8), Willie Keeler (8),Paul Waner (8),Wade Boggs (7),Charlie Gehringer (7),Rogers Hornsby (7),Jesse Burkett (6), Steve Garvey (6), Stan Musial (6), Sam Rice (6), Al Simmons (6), George Sisler (6), Bill Terry (6), Tony Gwynn (5), Chuck Klein(5), Kirby Puckett (5). Notice anything they all have in common (or will have in a couple of years anyway)? Heck of the only 14 more players that accomplished that feat four or more times only Joe Jackson, Vada Pinson, and Jack Tobin are not in the Hall of Fame. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that single fact alone merits Hall induction. However, when someone has as many 200 hit seasons as Hank Aaron,Willie Mays, Joe DiMaggio, and Ted Williams combined it cannot be overlooked so easily.

Garvey, was the only player I can think of in Major History that averaged 200 Hits, 100 RBI, 300 Batting average and 20 Home runs in a seven year span from1974-1980. He was a cluch postseason player, Career NLCS batting average of 356, 21 RBI in 22 games, 8 homers and 2 NLCS MVP awards.

[ValenzFan]

One of the things I really hate from modern journalists holding Hall of Fame votes, is that they take the easy way of taking a calculator and justify their votes by simple mathematics, not considering the impact a player could've had on the game of baseball during his time.
I was (and still am) a Cincinnati Reds fan during that span, but I acknowledge that the great infield of the Los Angeles Dodgers during the 70s and beginnings of the 80s (Garvey, Lopez, Russell and Cey) was a prototype of excellence for the sport in his time, and even when I personally was more of a Ron Cey fan, I also acknowledge that the undisputed leader and fan-favorite of those Dodger teams in those days was, undoubtedly, Steve Garvey.
Why can't journalists and broadcasters nowadays do their "homeworks" as they're supposed to have been taught at college, and performe REAL hemerographic researches to offer more than numerical justifications of their ballotings?

Sadly, but that's the same posture that kept Fritz Pollard out of the NFL's Hall of Fame for 42 undeserved years (until this weekend).

[Brad Harris]

One of the things I really hate from modern journalists holding Hall of Fame votes, is that they take the easy way of taking a calculator and justify their votes by simple mathematics, not considering the impact a player could've had on the game of baseball during his time.

It's been my "experience" - reading what voters who bother to explain themselves have written about their ballots - that the "easy way" is to not take the calculate and do the math. Too many voters allow their votes to hinge on arbitrary "intangibles" that only that voter seems to value in exactly that way. Too many voters won't vote for someone they haven't covered or someone in a league they didn't cover. Too many voters won't vote for someone they didn't like personally. Or someone they thought was a jerk. Too many voters make up their minds based on everything but "simple mathematics" when the numbers stare them in the face.

And of course, half of those who do fail to put those numbers in context, thereby examining "the impact a player...had on the game...during his time."

[csh19792001]

Career Value:
Over a 19 year career Garvey only garnered 279 Win Shares- that would probably put him somewhere around 200th alltime, which is, ironically, roughly the current numerical constituency of the Hall.

http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=8007

http://www.baseballtruth.com/fielders_choice/choice_033004.htm

The point here is that he isn't even close in terms of overall career value- Steve Finley has more career Win Shares than Garvey, and I don't hear anyone petitioning for him to be in the Hall.

If you don't like Win Shares, you could look at WARP3 (the next best alternative)- Garvey's total is 82.8. As a frame of reference, Don Mattingly's is 92.5- and he played 5 fewer seasons. Bill Dahlen, who isn't in and gets no press whatsoever, had a career WARP3 value of 120.9 (and yes, that's adjusted for league strength/quality)

Total Player Rating (Total Baseball's stat) and Total Player Wins (The Baseball Encyclopedia's stat) both deem Garvey as being average at best- TPR gives him a negative rating for his overall career, TPW barely positive. I don't put much stock in either stat, however.

Here's an interesting take on Garvey's candidacy (and his contemporary rival Keith Hernandez, also):

The First Basemen - The last three viable candidates were all first basemen. This year, Steve Garvey grabbed 28% of the vote, Don Mattingly got 20%, and Keith Hernandez brought up the rear with 6%. In short, these percentages are just about right. Unfortunately, they're in reverse order of value.

Garvey has the shiniest superficial numbers and the best post-season performance, so I understand how the voters were deceived. But unfortunately for him, a lot of really bright people have been developing a series of much more thorough and accurate tools for analyzing a player's performance. Home runs, RBI and batting average simply aren't sufficient anymore. We now need to look at TPR, Hall of Fame Standards, Award Shares and Win Shares too. We need to consider OPS and Park Factors. We need to adjust for historical eras and league tendencies.

Once we do that, Garvey compares badly. I took four of the more modern measurements - OPS Ratio, MVP Voting, TPR and Hall of Fame Standards - and calculated the average ranking of all Hall-eligible players in these categories. This was done by position, so catchers wouldn't be unfairly compared to right fielders, and so on. To be fair, I threw in a weight for the number of games played, based upon the assumption that longevity is a plus. (FYI - all outfielders were lumped together and ranked in three-man groups.)

With all that done, Steve Garvey ranked as the 34th first baseman ever. There are 17 eligible first basemen ranked higher than him who are NOT in the Hall of Fame. Only three first basemen in the Hall rank lower - Jim Bottomley, Frank Chance and George Kelly - and none of them should be there either.

Let's put it this way - among the other positions, the 34th-ranked players are Gil McDougald, Billy Nash, Alvin Dark, Bob O'Farrell, Del Ennis, Charlie Keller, and Rico Carty. Anyone out there dying to cast a vote for any of these guys?

Mattingly fares slightly better. He's the 20th-ranked first baseman ever. That's a very respectable place to be, it's just not Hall-caliber. The same three Hall of Famers mentioned with Garvey rank lower than Mattingly too, obviously, as does George Sisler, who also doesn't belong in my opinion. Mattingly's "teammates" on the 20th-ranked team are Tony Lazzeri, Sal Bando, Joe Sewell, Smoky Burgess, Jimmy Ryan, Tony Oliva and Willie Keeler. There are three Hall of Famers in that group - Lazzeri, Sewell, and Keeler - but each of them was either a poor selection or is in the lowest ranks of the deserving. When we factor in the knowledge that Mattingly's shortened career really doesn't hurt him much in these rankings - he would have been 19th before career length was factored in - and suddenly Donnie Baseball's case looks weak. Really weak. Essentially he had four great years. That's not enough to get into Cooperstown.

Hernandez, surprisingly, has the best case of them all. He's the 12th-ranked first baseman. Of the eligible men ranked ahead of him, only Dick Allen hasn't been inducted yet. At the other positions, the 12th-ranked group looks very strong - Billy Herman (IN), Stan Hack (OUT), Pee Wee Reese (IN), Roy Campanella (IN - badly hurt by career length), Jack Clark (OUT), Al Simmons (IN), and Sam Thompson (IN). Five of his seven teammates are already in the Hall. That's a strong case.

Unfortunately, this is one of those instances when the new-fangled numbers make Hernandez look better than he actually was, much as the traditional numbers make Garvey look better than he really was. Using Bill James' Similarity Scores, we see that there isn't a single Hall of Famer (or likely Hall of Famer) among the ten players who are most comparable to Hernandez. Lots of Wally Joyner and Chris Chambliss types. We're talking about a first basemen who hit third on a series of very good baseball teams and still managed just one season of 100 or more RBI.

Hernandez gets extra credit for his exceptional fielding ability, but that's tempered by the fact that he played perhaps the least important defensive position. He gets more bonus points for the two championship teams he played for, but then loses a lot of them when we note that he had an OPS of just 695 in his two World Series appearances. Once we throw in his drug problem and involvement in the Pittsburgh trials that embarrassed the entire sport, his case becomes borderline at best. He doesn't get my vote.

Source:
http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/submit/White_Paul13.stm

Peak Value:
Garvey does look good according to peak (at least via Win Shares)- he was arguably one of the top few players of the 1970's, averaging 24 Win Shares/season from 1974-80. I guess someone could say he should be in because he had a very good peak, playing in an era of good competitive balance....? :confused: I don't usually evaluate a guy based on 5-7 years, but many choose to evaluate how great a player was mainly on how valuable they were at their best.

Postseason performance:
Garvey was an absolute TERROR in the postseason- probably the greatest LCS player in history. But how much weight should we give his "clutch" performances when evaluating his viability for the Hall?

The Rest:
He grounded into a ton of double plays, and his walk rate is ATROCIOUS. A very good batting average will only get you so far if you don't walk, only have medium range power, and strike out twice as much as you BB.

Garvey looks very good or even great using traditional metrics- hits and hits/season, BA, RBI (given his era and park adjustments). However, his OBP is just about even with the league average for his career, and this is a first baseman we're talking about, not a catcher or SS.

Summary:
When you look at all the comprehensive metrics, Garvey just doesn't look like a HOFer- what he does look like is a guy who would get in mainly because there are already so many very good (but certainly NOT truly great) players in there already.

There are way too many "well player X should be in because very marginally "great" player Y is in". The bar set for the HOF doesn't need to be debased any more than it already has.

[csh19792001]

Misandry is the hatred of men; I've never seen it in the form "misandrist" but I imagine it would be grammatically unobjectionable.

But you could argue, with subscriber Cary Birdwell, that there’s another way to look at the opposite of misogynist: not a woman-lover, but a man-hater. The latter, he suggests, could be Greeked as misandronist, using andro for man. It’s very rare, but I have found a couple of examples in online messages. It seems to be from the more extreme end of the feminist spectrum. Terry Walsh has told me firmly that this word is way off beam: “misandronist, if it means anything, means someone who is against the idea of there being rooms or clubs reserved for men, which is derived from andron, the men’s room in an ancient Greek house, into which women could not go”. So that’s a potentially useful word, but not the one we were looking for. A better modern Greek term for a man-hater is misandrist, though it’s hardly common and appears in only a few dictionaries, with the noun for the concept being, as you’d expect, misandry.
If you need a Greek word at all, stick with philogynist or misandrist, depending on which idea you want to convey. Or, you could just try English instead ...

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-phi1.htm

[csh19792001]

sorry- double post!!!

[leecemark]

--The last sentence seems the best option.

[Cougar]

You learn something new every day.

[iPod]

Chancellor, the problem is that most of your argument seems to lie in accepting that Win Shares is a valid means of measurement to begin with. I don't buy either win shares or ink tests to begin with as a measure of performance. I know we'll always disagree on these points, but you're going to have to convince me using means other than Jamesian metrics.

While I definitely agree that certain stats can be picked out and lumped together in order to put someone into an exclusive group, 200 hit seasons doesn't happen to fall under that rubric. It's one thing to pull out a random stat such as "everybody that has ever stolen 20 bases, hit 20 homeruns, and has a fielding average above .996 ina season is in the Hall of Fame". That would be truly random because none of the factors have any correlation to one another and none of those numbers taken individually is enough to merit Hall selection. However, having 200+ hits for six seasons can in no way be referred to as "simply one of those things you can pull out in order to put him in an exclusive group". It demonstrates a level of recognized excellence over a sustained period of time.


Right, but was he as good as all the people in that group? That's the point; if you're saying "he was as good as those people, and here's why", well, I don't agree with your conclusion, or the belief that that's a good way of going about determining if he is, but at least it'd be a clear argument. If you're not saying that, then the point is somewhat mysterious. Are you saying 6 seasons of 200 hits is in and of itself a Hall worthy accomplishment, in the same way that 3000 hits is? OK, no, I know that's not what you're saying. But what exactly are you saying? It sounds like you're saying getting 200 hits is an end, rather than a means to an end. If Garvey's 200-hit seasons couldn't bring his performance up to a Hall of Fame level, well, that's that. The performance itself is what's important, not what went into it.

[Ursa Major]

Okay, let's face it -- statistically he doesn't quite measure up. The "six seasons of 200 hits" is sort of the Sutton argument on a season-by-season basis: by playing in every game for a good team, he got lots of at-bats.

Where he created the initial buzz as a potential HOF candidate is that he was just generally regarded for awhile as the best 1B in the league and a leader on a very good team; albeit in a period where there weren't that many hot-hitting first baseman relative to league history. That kind of regard is what helped propel Ryne Sandberg into the HOF.

The backlash against him stems from his sanctimonious, self-promoted "goody two-shoes" image and supposedly perfect marriage with a celebrity wife. As quoted in Wikipedia:

"For most of his career, Garvey had a very clean-cut public image. For example, in a TV interview before the 1974 World Series when he explained that "I always try to act as though there is a little boy or a little girl around, and I try never to do anything that would give them a bad example." Garvey even had political aspirations, as he would gain the nickname "Senator."

So, it is not all that surprising that his astounding fall from grace -- "When two years after he played his last Major League game, it was revealed that he had fathered several children out of wedlock and was engaged to two women at the same time" -- was greeted with such cheerful derision."

And, he's still up to it. On his SteveGarvey.com web site promoting himself as an inspirational speaker, he poses saluting the flag like this (http://www.stevegarvey.com/stevestill1.gif) and describes himself in part this way:

"To only focus on Steve Garvey's baseball accomplishments would leave out a lifetime of achievements as a businessman, philanthropist, volunteer and most importantly a devoted family man. As a father of seven children Garvey understands that in the ever-changing world we live in there is a great necessity of being a man of honor, integrity and quality."

LOL -- I guess the more families you have, the more of a "family man" you are, eh?

[RuthMayBond]

Okay, let's face it -- statistically he doesn't quite measure up. The "six seasons of 200 hits" is sort of the Sutton argument on a season-by-season basis: by playing in every game for a good team, he got lots of at-bats.

Where he created the initial buzz as a potential HOF candidate is that he was just generally regarded for awhile as the best 1B in the league and a leader on a very good team; albeit in a period where there weren't that money No, isn't he on third?
I don't know ;) :p

[ValenzFan]

It's been my "experience" - reading what voters who bother to explain themselves have written about their ballots - that the "easy way" is to not take the calculate and do the math. Too many voters allow their votes to hinge on arbitrary "intangibles" that only that voter seems to value in exactly that way. Too many voters won't vote for someone they haven't covered or someone in a league they didn't cover. Too many voters won't vote for someone they didn't like personally. Or someone they thought was a jerk. Too many voters make up their minds based on everything but "simple mathematics" when the numbers stare them in the face.

And of course, half of those who do fail to put those numbers in context, thereby examining "the impact a player...had on the game...during his time."

Thanks for answering my vote, Chancellor. Obviously I'm not saying the impact of players on MYSELF, or a single sportswriter, should be a reason to induce somebody into the hall of fame. What I'm saying is that real baseball analists should ANALIZE not only stats, but also MERITS from players during their time and beyond, and PONDER all of the info to cast a vote as unobjectable as possible (which I know is utterly utopic, but aren't sports analists paid to do such work?).
Nonetheless, I still believe Steve Garvey deserves a place in Cooperstown.
I sincerely appreciate and respect your point of view. Thanks again for answering.

[3for3]

Was Garvey's career really half as valuable as Alvin Davis' and John Mayberry's?

Was Garvey worth only one-tenth of Frank Thomas? I mean, Thomas is better -- way better, it's not even close -- but ten times better??

Was Pedro Guerrero really twice as good -- twice as good! -- as Don Mattingly, Cecil Cooper, and Mark Grace?

These conclusions generated from this statistic just don't pass my BS detector. I mean, I know damn well that Don Mattingly was better than Pedro Guerrero. I was there. I saw them both play. In person.

Maybe some fancy statistical analysis could convince me that I'm missing something about Guerrero, and that he was a lot better than he looked, and I know Mattingly tailed off badly at the end and didn't walk enough...but Guerrero twice as good?? There's something wrong with the measuring stick.

I've never understood the RCAA statistic well. I know it doesn't account for defense, which accounts for part of the disconnect. All I know is that it claims to explain practically everything, and it generates some results that conflict with both common sense and some more transparent types of statistical measurement.

I actually have very little quibble with your conclusion that there are a lot of 1b better than Garvey who are not in the HOF. That's probably so, and there are several different methods by which one can come to that conclusion.

I am disputing the runs created statistic.[/QUOTE]


You are using faulty logic here. You can't look at a players X above average and use it proportionally to measure against other players.

To carry this argument to the extreme a player with 1500 games an a RCAA of 1 is not 1/100 as valuable as one with 100.

Also, average play has value. So a player with 1500 games and a RCAA of 0 does not have zero value.

Danny

[Cougar]

You are using faulty logic here. You can't look at a players X above average and use it proportionally to measure against other players.

To carry this argument to the extreme a player with 1500 games an a RCAA of 1 is not 1/100 as valuable as one with 100.

Also, average play has value. So a player with 1500 games and a RCAA of 0 does not have zero value.

Danny

Danny's quoting me (from two years ago!); I'm not sure whether he's saying I'm using faulty logic or the measure I'm disputing is -- I think it's the measure I'm disputing.

Welcome to the site, 3-4-3.

[iPod]

Danny's quoting me (from two years ago!); I'm not sure whether he's saying I'm using faulty logic or the measure I'm disputing is -- I think it's the measure I'm disputing.

Welcome to the site, 3-4-3.

He's saying you are. If 1500 RC is average, and Player 1 has 1700 RC (200 RCAA) and Player 2 has 1900 RC (400 RCAA), Player 2 isn't twice as good as Player 1.

[Cougar]

He's saying you are. If 1500 RC is average, and Player 1 has 1700 RC (200 RCAA) and Player 2 has 1900 RC (400 RCAA), Player 2 isn't twice as good as Player 1.

Well then, I guess I was mistaken. However, the way the results were reported lend themselves to that assumption.

I stand by this, however -- if a statistic tells me that Alvin Davis is better than Garvey, either by a lot or a little bit, I'm going to be pretty darn skeptical about that statistic.`

[Pighead]

Steve Garvey played a bulk of his time in Dodger Stadium, not generally accepted as a hitter's park. You would expect his extra base offensive numbers to be down.

If making it to the HOF was as easy as crunching numbers, there'd be no need for those people who cast the votes

If the off field antics of potentially deserving first basemen enters into the discussion, why in the world is Keith Hernandez being mentioned???...snort, snort.

Steve Garvey is not a shoe-in and there probably are more deserving folks still being excluded. Seeing him play, in my opinion, makes a difference because there are certain intangibles that should factor in to any HOF decision - but not sentimentality like in the case of Kirby Puckett (a great player, not HOF), Phil Rizzuto (hugely overrated, Holy Cow!), and Bill Mazeroski (single, noteworthy event) - none of whom deserve to be there.

Someone mentioned that Mike Marshall was a better Dodgers first baseman than Steve Garvey - are you sniffing glue?

[Naliamegod]

Steve Garvey played a bulk of his time in Dodger Stadium, not generally accepted as a hitter's park. You would expect his extra base offensive numbers to be down.


Most advanced rates that have that in consideration.. and they still have him rated poorly among 1B.

[leecemark]

--I think the comment on Mike Marshall was regarding the relief pitcher that was Garvey's teammate and was a more deserving MVP candidate the year Garvey won it. Even Garvey's worst critics would be unlikely to suggest 1B/OF Mike Marshall was the better player.

[Bluesteve32]

He is how Tommy Lasorda feel about Garvey's hitting ability. He makes a comment that just might have been a decent cricket player. ;)

http://www.johnspeedie.com/healy/healybytes.html

click on the garvlong.wav or

garveyplus.mp3

[trosmok]

If Steve Garvey is campaigning for anything, rounding up strays is more appropriate for him than Cooperstown. See post #16 dated 7-2-03, and please note he hasn't improved his chances one iota since. No range, no arm, no speed, no pop in his bat, and had three of the best fielders throwing to him for a decade, when those extremely talented Dodger pitchers allowed a ball to be hit into fair territory in the infield. My poor old invalid aunt could likely have put up numbers like Garvey's, (at least on the days she could stand up for ten or fifteen minutes at a whack.) The only way Garvey goes to the HOF is if they dedicate a wing similar to the Frick awards area, but for guys that were all image and no substance; any other nominees fit this category? :laugh

[RuthMayBond]

If Steve Garvey is campaigning for anything, rounding up strays is more appropriate for him than Cooperstown. See post #16 dated 7-2-03, and please note he hasn't improved his chances one iota since. No range, no arm, no speedYou sound like this is true of no 1B

<no pop in his bat>

From '74-80 he was almost 100 points above league SLG

<and had three of the best fielders throwing to him for a decade>

You're not referring to Russell? and I guess Lopes was better than Sax

<when those extremely talented Dodger pitchers allowed a ball to be hit into fair territory in the infield.>

Wouldn't that make it more impressive that, just with LA, he led his league in putouts five times? I know, the "best fielders"

[RuthMayBond]

and had three of the best fielders throwing to him for a decade, Davey Lopes has an adjusted fielding production rate of 97 and -38 adjusted runs above average. Bill Russell had 99 and -20.

[Bluesteve32]

Davey Lopes has an adjusted fielding production rate of 97 and -38 adjusted runs above average. Bill Russell had 99 and -20.

Were not Russell and Lopes (later Sax) actually mediocre fielders, especially in committing throwing errors?

In fact, that was considered one of the Dodgers' weaknesses at that time and Garvey was credited for saving a lot of errors by Russell and Lopes (later Sax) buy his exceptional "scooping" skills.

Those Dodger team did many thing well and had good pitching, but fielding was not their forte.

[NOMAR22]

Just wanted to throw out a name that isn't brought up all that much. He was one of the premier first basemen in the game for 70's and early 80's. Looking back at his stats, they were better than I remembered. Here are some of his achievements:


10-time all-star (only Bill Freehan - 11 and Ryne Sandberg -10 played in as many and are not in the HOF)
MVP in 1974 and 4 other top 10's, including 2nd in voting in 1978
2 time All star game MVP
2 time NLCS MVP
4 time gold glove winner
Grey ink of 142 - right around average HOFer
His counting stats are a little light, with 2599 hits, 272 HRs and 1308 RBI's, but the power numbers were not bad for his era, being top ten in HRs 3 times and RBI's 7 times
1,207 consuective games played, fourth most all-time and NL record
Outstanding post-season performer, .338/.361/.550 in 55 post season games, all well above his regular season numbers, including batting .417 to help the Dodgers win the 1981 world series


I would have liked to see him finish his career a little stronger. He dropped off significantly as the Padres starting first basemen from 1985 to 1986 before being a bench player in 1987 and out of baseball at the end of that year. He had 2,441 career hits at the age of 36 (by contrast Boggs only had 2,392 through age 36, and Winfield had 2,421 through age 36, for example), so a stronger finish and he could have made a run at 3,000.

I do think he falls short of the HOF line, but wanted to throw his name out there to start some discussion.

Steve Garvey at the end of his career was to busy getting women pregnant, than playing baseball. Steve Garvey has 9 children.

[jalbright]

Steve Garvey at the end of his career was to busy getting women pregnant, than playing baseball. Steve Garvey has 9 children.
Look, I'm no supporter of his HOF candidacy, but what does this drivel have to do with Steve Garvey the ballplayer?

Jim Albright

[yanks0714]

But then again, I'll bring this up yet another time... if we are going to count pitching at Dodger Stadium as artificially boosting Koufax and Drysdale's numbers, then don't hitters such as Garvey and Green deserve more credit for their accomplishments?

The only way to determine whether he was hurt by Dodger Stadium is to review his Home/Away splits. I don't have time to get them and post them so if someone else would.....?

One more thing....Steve Garvey made a lot of outs....a lot. He simply would not or could not take a walk. He had a short compact swing, therefore he didn't strike out very much but he swung at bad pitches quite often.

Of course, he may have been under orders from Lasorda to swing away...plus the Dodgers were winning...so why break up a winning combination?

Actually I think Ron Cey was the better player.

[538280]

The only way to determine whether he was hurt by Dodger Stadium is to review his Home/Away splits. I don't have time to get them and post them so if someone else would.....?

One more thing....Steve Garvey made a lot of outs....a lot. He simply would not or could not take a walk. He had a short compact swing, therefore he didn't strike out very much but he swung at bad pitches quite often.

Of course, he may have been under orders from Lasorda to swing away...plus the Dodgers were winning...so why break up a winning combination?

Actually I think Ron Cey was the better player.

Garvey Home-.298/.334/.458
Garvey Road-.290/.325/.434

Those are his splits. But, Yanks, don't trust splits so blindly. They have a lot of problems. It could really be argued that a smart hitter should always do better at home.

BTW, not only was Cey a better player, Davey Lopes was too.

[NOMAR22]

Garvey Home-.298/.334/.458
Garvey Road-.290/.325/.434

BTW, not only was Cey a better player, Davey Lopes was too.

I don't agree with you .Steve Garvey was better than Davey Lopes and Ron Cey. Garvey was the star on the team.

[Fuzzy Bear]

There's nothing in Garvey's career that can reasonably demonstrate why the BBWAA ought to elect him.

This is just not true. Garvey has a HOF credible HOF case. I would not support him at this time, given more deserving candidates that are not in, but his case is far from ridiculous:

(A) From 1974-80, Steve Garvey was, overall, the best 1B in the NL. It wasn't by a landslide, and in certain years, there were better players at 1B, but for that 7 year period, Garvey was the best.

(B) Garvey played in 10 All-Star games. That's a lot of games.

(C) Garvey was a key player in five pennant winners (one World Champion). He was, arguably, the best position player on most, if not all, of the 4 Dodger pennant winners he played on.

(D) Garvey's career totals are less than they could be because he played in poor hitters parks his entire career.

(E) Garvey's career totals are also less then they could be because he started late. The idea that he started in 1969 is riduculous; that was THREE at bats. The Dodgers tried to give him the 3B job in 1971, but he had a chronic shoulder injury; he was a half-time player for three years before being installed at 1B full time.

(F) The perception that Garvey was a great player was a perception of people that saw him while he was active. I remember how Curt Gowdy used to call Garvey "the toughest out in baseball", and there was much truth to that description. True, Garvey didn't walk a lot, but he got a lot of hits and hit for average. (The comparision to Mark Grace in this thread is unfair and inaccurate; Garvey displayed FAR more power in a TOUGHER era in TOUGHER ballparks than did Grace.)

Garvey's BA fell below .300, and that hurt him. His counting stats are OK, but now overwhelming for a HOF candidate. He's better than Kelly, and probably better than Bottomley in the HOF line, but that's not an argument FOR Garvey; it's an indictment of the Frisch VC Cabal. But his case is far from riduculous. Garvey did many things that HOFers do, and he was great at his peak.

[soberdennis]

I agree that Garv is a HOFer. Anyone who followed the Padres since 1984 or earlier will never forget game 4 of the NLCS that year and Garv's game winning Homer. It still ranks among the greatest moments in Pad history.
The ironic thing is the Dodgers still haven't found the sense to retire Number 6 while the Pads have. Despite that, his plaque should and will have a Dodger cap on it.
You notice I said "will". I believe he will eventually get in.

[trosmok]

He'd probably accidently let the dogs out while being distracted by his reflection in a mirror.

... Dodgers still haven't found the sense to retire Number 6 while the Pads have. Despite that, his plaque should and will have a Dodger cap on it....

No way, Jose. Perhaps if they add a wing for the "Hall of Better than Mediocre" ~see posts#16, 22, & 65.:D

[flash143817]

Even as a Dodger fan, there is no way I can support Garvey for HOF. Ron Cey was the better Dodger IFer during that era and he isn't in yet.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Even as a Dodger fan, there is no way I can support Garvey for HOF. Ron Cey was the better Dodger IFer during that era and he isn't in yet.

Cey has a surprisingly strong HOF case, IMO. He may well have been the best player on those Dodger teams. Don Sutton said Reggie Smith was (although Sutton had a famous axe to grind with Garvey).

Still, it was the opinion of most observers of Garvey's time that Garvey was the best player on the Dodger teams that won pennants in the 1970s. It was not unanimous, but it was a consensus of the time. Hindsight teaches us some things, but the opinions of contemporary observers is feedback from guys who actually saw Garvey play.

[538280]

Still, it was the opinion of most observers of Garvey's time that Garvey was the best player on the Dodger teams that won pennants in the 1970s. It was not unanimous, but it was a consensus of the time. Hindsight teaches us some things, but the opinions of contemporary observers is feedback from guys who actually saw Garvey play.

Now I disagree, and this is why I have some serious problems with using comtemporary opinion when rating players. The same thing is true of Jim Rice. Garvey was regarded to be the best Dodger infielder, not because the observers at the time had some great insight into his talents as a ballplayer, but because of misinterpretation of statistics. They were unable to look past Garvey's pretty BA and nice RBI totals, to see that the fact he rarely walked and hit for relatively little power for a 1Bman made him not all that productive a hitter. Why should we credit Garvey because the comtemporary observers didn't understand how to properly interpret his statistics?

[jalbright]

Now I disagree, and this is why I have some serious problems with using comtemporary opinion when rating players. The same thing is true of Jim Rice. Garvey was regarded to be the best Dodger infielder, not because the observers at the time had some great insight into his talents as a ballplayer, but because of misinterpretation of statistics. They were unable to look past Garvey's pretty BA and nice RBI totals, to see that the fact he rarely walked and hit for relatively little power for a 1Bman made him not all that productive a hitter. Why should we credit Garvey because the comtemporary observers didn't understand how to properly interpret his statistics?
Chris,

In this specific case I agree with you, but many times, the case is not so clear-cut, and then there is definite value in contemporary opinion. Remember James' statement that it isn't any one thing, but the overall weight of the evidence that should decide these matters. Contemporary opinion is a valid form of evidence, but one which is vulnerable to issues such as you raise. In cases like Garvey's, I think there is more than enough evidence to rebut the contemporary opinion--but that doesn't invalidate such evidence across the board. Those people knew things about Steve Garvey you never will simply because they saw him play. That certainly doesn't make them invariably correct, but even the analytical deficiencies of contemporary opinion don't inevitably render such opinion valueless. A grain, pinch, and even sometimes a shaker full of salt is needed with such opinion at times, though.

Jim Albright

[digglahhh]

Garvey's (subsequently marred) poster boy image certainly helped his image, and thus standing amongst many of his contemporaries.

I would give his candidacy a rather definitive thumbs down, but I don't deny that at one point he was really seen as one of the best players around.

[flash143817]

Cey has a surprisingly strong HOF case, IMO. He may well have been the best player on those Dodger teams. Don Sutton said Reggie Smith was (although Sutton had a famous axe to grind with Garvey).

Still, it was the opinion of most observers of Garvey's time that Garvey was the best player on the Dodger teams that won pennants in the 1970s. It was not unanimous, but it was a consensus of the time. Hindsight teaches us some things, but the opinions of contemporary observers is feedback from guys who actually saw Garvey play.

Yeah Cey's HOF case should be stronger than it appears to be in reality. He was the best infielder on that famous infield even if it wasn't recognized at the time. I never saw either of them play but I've heard of his exploits from my dad and such. We kinda have a running joke that every time a guy strikes out on a low and outside curveball it's a Garvey pitch because he would always swing at that pitch, but swing with his normal cut instead of adjusting and leaning/lunging toward the pitch.

So my only contemporary account of Garvey's play was given by a person (my dad) who wasn't really a big Garvey fan and believed that Cey was the better of the two, which is supported by their respective numbers.

[538280]

Chris,

In this specific case I agree with you, but many times, the case is not so clear-cut, and then there is definite value in contemporary opinion. Remember James' statement that it isn't any one thing, but the overall weight of the evidence that should decide these matters. Contemporary opinion is a valid form of evidence, but one which is vulnerable to issues such as you raise. In cases like Garvey's, I think there is more than enough evidence to rebut the contemporary opinion--but that doesn't invalidate such evidence across the board. Those people knew things about Steve Garvey you never will simply because they saw him play. That certainly doesn't make them invariably correct, but even the analytical deficiencies of contemporary opinion don't inevitably render such opinion valueless. A grain, pinch, and even sometimes a shaker full of salt is needed with such opinion at times, though.


All right, I see what you're saying-they saw him play and know tiny little things about him that I don't. But, are those things relevent in evaluating Steve Garvey the ballplayer. Hardly at all. I still think the notion he was one of the best players in baseball, and all the respect he got from comtemporaries, was simply because of misinterpretation of statistics. For example, I once heard someone (don't even remember who it was) throw out a quote from Curt Gowdy about Garvey in which he said "He's the toughest out in baseball." Such a comment is completely wrong, and a quick look at the number of outs Garvey made (he was always among the league leaders) will show you that. Gowdy was, probably, buying into the old thought that batting average was king, and to always look at a players hit total. The same thing is true of Jim Rice.

Then there are players like Jimmy Wynn and Bobby Grich who are constantly brought down because they didn't have great comtemporary support. But, then, when you look at why they weren't regarded highly, we're back to misinterpretation of statistics.

Are you telling me that by watching Jim Rice people were able to see the little things he did to help the team win the game, that weren't apparent in the stats? I don't believe it, and I don't believe that could happen except in very special cases. I think that perhaps a majority of players helped by "contemporary opinion" really are just benifiting from an earlier, and entirely wrong, way to look at baseball statistics.

[jalbright]

All right, I see what you're saying-they saw him play and know tiny little things about him that I don't. But, are those things relevent in evaluating Steve Garvey the ballplayer. Hardly at all. I still think the notion he was one of the best players in baseball, and all the respect he got from comtemporaries, was simply because of misinterpretation of statistics. For example, I once heard someone (don't even remember who it was) throw out a quote from Curt Gowdy about Garvey in which he said "He's the toughest out in baseball." Such a comment is completely wrong, and a quick look at the number of outs Garvey made (he was always among the league leaders) will show you that. Gowdy was, probably, buying into the old thought that batting average was king, and to always look at a players hit total. The same thing is true of Jim Rice.

Then there are players like Jimmy Wynn and Bobby Grich who are constantly brought down because they didn't have great comtemporary support. But, then, when you look at why they weren't regarded highly, we're back to misinterpretation of statistics.

Are you telling me that by watching Jim Rice people were able to see the little things he did to help the team win the game, that weren't apparent in the stats? I don't believe it, and I don't believe that could happen except in very special cases. I think that perhaps a majority of players helped by "contemporary opinion" really are just benifiting from an earlier, and entirely wrong, way to look at baseball statistics.
Chris,

What you're really missing is that in many ways, contemporary opinion isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to be. Yeah, it can be quite wrong sometimes, but so can any stat-based system. You've got to remember that many of the rating systems started out using contemporary opinion as a check on their results--not that they blindly followed that opinion, but if the results disagreed significantly with that opinion, they knew they darned well better be able to justify why they disagreed. For someone who is as well versed in Bill James' work as you are, I'm almost shocked by your complete dismissal of this point, when James has actually taken time out to expound on this very point much in the way I'm doing in this discussion.

We can justify why contemporary opinion is wrong with respect to many of the cases you cite, and that gives us a solid reason to reject it. But just because such opinion evidence is sometimes misguided doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered. To do so is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Jim Albright

[digglahhh]

You know what Steve Garvey is? He is the anti-Hernandez.

Garvey and Hernandez have similar BAs and SLGs. (294/.296 and .446/.436 respectively).

But the OBP is a 55 point edge to Hernandez.

Garvey's claim to fame is the six 200 hit seasons.

In those seasons he had 642, 659, 631, 639, 648, 658 ABs.

That's an average of 646 ABs per season. He has a K/BB ratio of over 2:1. Hernandez on the other hand has more career BBs than Ks.

200 hits in 646 ABs is a BA of .310. Hernandez hit .310 five times in his career and hit .309 once. His most ABs in a single season was 610 in '79. He hit .344 that year (210 hits). That .344 was 15 points higher than Garvey's career OBP! Hernandez also walked 80 times that season, for a .417 OBP.

The point is, Keith could have had several 200 hit seasons had he opted to use terrible plate discipline. This is even more simply evidenced by the fact that after all those 200 hit seasons, Hernandez sports the higher career BA of the two.

In the field, of course we are talking about possibly the worst throwing arm ever and a decent but not great glove agasint arguably the greatest all time.

[RuthMayBond]

You know what Steve Garvey is? He is the anti-Hernandez.No, Frank Thomas is the anti-Hernandez :laugh

<Garvey and Hernandez have similar BAs and SLGs. (294/.296 and .446/.436 respectively).>

Not so different

<In the field, of course we are talking about possibly the worst throwing arm ever>

How often does that come into play for 1B?

<and a decent but not great glove agasint arguably the greatest all time.>

Garvey's glove was at least very good

[digglahhh]

Well, I meant that they look very similar at first glance, but the secondary numbers show one is much more productive offensively that the other.

I'll admit that I underrated Garvey's glove. His glove was well above average and he could have possibly won more GGs had Hernandez himself not emerged. I did short change him there.

The throwing arm thing is not very important, its just the juxtaposition of him being known for being historically bad at something, while Hernandez being known for being historically good.

[soberdennis]

The fact is I would support both for the HOF. They were probably the two best 1bmen in BB in the late 70's and early 80's with Chambliss further back in 3rd. A Y ankee fan, I am not calling for Chaambliss' induction, though. But we definitely needed him in the late 70's.

[538280]

Chris,

What you're really missing is that in many ways, contemporary opinion isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to be. Yeah, it can be quite wrong sometimes, but so can any stat-based system. You've got to remember that many of the rating systems started out using contemporary opinion as a check on their results--not that they blindly followed that opinion, but if the results disagreed significantly with that opinion, they knew they darned well better be able to justify why they disagreed. For someone who is as well versed in Bill James' work as you are, I'm almost shocked by your complete dismissal of this point, when James has actually taken time out to expound on this very point much in the way I'm doing in this discussion.

We can justify why contemporary opinion is wrong with respect to many of the cases you cite, and that gives us a solid reason to reject it. But just because such opinion evidence is sometimes misguided doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered. To do so is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Jim Albright

I still don't get it, Jim. Why should we give Garvey credit just because some media type people (many of them ignorant on how to really evaluate a player), thought Garvey was really good, when any quick stat check will indicate they were dead wrong.

All right, we can consider contemporary opinion. But, and this is why my attitude towards it is so negative, in almost all the times I've tried to incorporate it, I've found that it was completely misguided in most cases, and it gave insight into the player with such comments like the Gowdy comment I referenced with Gowdy. I read about Pie Traynor once, and they were talking about what a great hitter he was. I completely reject that notion, and think it is almost entirely due to the era in which he played, and his high RBI totals. I once read a short story about Jimmy Wynn, and while the story talked about him as a good old ballplayer, they said his hitting was below average with a .250 BA. I, personally, find most examples of "contemporary opinion" I've found to be misguided, not really understand what drives a team to win, and just flat out wrong. I have almost never saw an instance where I have been extremely helped by an opinion of comtemporaries.

The one place where I do think it is somewhat valid is on the subject of fielding. Other than that, I honestly don't see much use for it.

[jalbright]

I still don't get it, Jim. Why should we give Garvey credit just because some media type people (many of them ignorant on how to really evaluate a player), thought Garvey was really good, when any quick stat check will indicate they were dead wrong.

All right, we can consider contemporary opinion. But, and this is why my attitude towards it is so negative, in almost all the times I've tried to incorporate it, I've found that it was completely misguided in most cases, and it gave insight into the player with such comments like the Gowdy comment I referenced with Gowdy. I read about Pie Traynor once, and they were talking about what a great hitter he was. I completely reject that notion, and think it is almost entirely due to the era in which he played, and his high RBI totals. I once read a short story about Jimmy Wynn, and while the story talked about him as a good old ballplayer, they said his hitting was below average with a .250 BA. I, personally, find most examples of "contemporary opinion" I've found to be misguided, not really understand what drives a team to win, and just flat out wrong. I have almost never saw an instance where I have been extremely helped by an opinion of comtemporaries.

The one place where I do think it is somewhat valid is on the subject of fielding. Other than that, I honestly don't see much use for it.
Oh, really? Then please explain your position on Oscar Charleston and other Negro Leaguers. See, there is a use for the stuff. Granted, there's less data to go on, but again, if you're going to be consistent with what you've written above, you can't give the kind of credence to Negro League contemporary opinion you have.

Jim Albright

[Cougar]

I still don't get it, Jim. Why should we give Garvey credit just because some media type people (many of them ignorant on how to really evaluate a player), thought Garvey was really good, when any quick stat check will indicate they were dead wrong.

All right, we can consider contemporary opinion. But, and this is why my attitude towards it is so negative, in almost all the times I've tried to incorporate it, I've found that it was completely misguided in most cases, and it gave insight into the player with such comments like the Gowdy comment I referenced with Gowdy. I read about Pie Traynor once, and they were talking about what a great hitter he was. I completely reject that notion, and think it is almost entirely due to the era in which he played, and his high RBI totals. I once read a short story about Jimmy Wynn, and while the story talked about him as a good old ballplayer, they said his hitting was below average with a .250 BA. I, personally, find most examples of "contemporary opinion" I've found to be misguided, not really understand what drives a team to win, and just flat out wrong. I have almost never saw an instance where I have been extremely helped by an opinion of comtemporaries.

The one place where I do think it is somewhat valid is on the subject of fielding. Other than that, I honestly don't see much use for it.

Short version: "Since I have all the answers, why should I care what anyone else thinks?"

[538280]

Oh, really? Then please explain your position on Oscar Charleston and other Negro Leaguers. See, there is a use for the stuff. Granted, there's less data to go on, but again, if you're going to be consistent with what you've written above, you can't give the kind of credence to Negro League contemporary opinion you have.

Jim Albright

We don't have anything else for Negro Leaguers, so we have to go on that. I certainly think that there is a great possibility that some of the Negro League stars we talk about really weren't all that valuable, because I find such opinions to be reather unreliable. But, when that's all that we have I have no choice but to use them. For MLB players I, when we have a good idea of how valuable they are through statistics, I don't really understand why we should give so much credence to what people of the time thought, because the people of the time had horrible, horrible misconceptions about value in a ballplayer.

[Captain Cold Nose]

We don't have anything else for Negro Leaguers, so we have to go on that. I certainly think that there is a great possibility that some of the Negro League stars we talk about really weren't all that valuable, because I find such opinions to be reather unreliable. But, when that's all that we have I have no choice but to use them. For MLB players I, when we have a good idea of how valuable they are through statistics, I don't really understand why we should give so much credence to what people of the time thought, because the people of the time had horrible, horrible misconceptions about value in a ballplayer.
I guess that explains why you hardly post in Current Events.
Not to hijack the thread anymore, but do you think they should increase the five-year wait period for HOF voting?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Short version: "Since I have all the answers, why should I care what anyone else thinks?"
:laugh :laugh

[CoasttoCoast]

Steve Garvey has no chance until Keith Hernandez, Will Clark, Gil Hodges, and Fred McGriff get a fair shake from Cooperstown.

I feel Reggie Smith was the most underrated on those 70's-early 80's Dodger teams.

[RuthMayBond]

We don't have anything else for Negro Leaguers, so we have to go on that. I certainly think that there is a great possibility that some of the Negro League stars we talk about really weren't all that valuable, because I find such opinions to be reather unreliable. But, when that's all that we have I have no choice but to use them. For MLB players I, when we have a good idea of how valuable they are through statistics, I don't really understand why we should give so much credence to what people of the time thought, because the people of the time had horrible, horrible misconceptions about value in a ballplayer.Chris is right on, what's with the hate? Do you guys really think Haines was better than Blyleven?
GKelly better than DAllen? etc.
These are HOF voters, not even the public.
So what are "the" answers, Cougar?

[wamby]

I don't really understand why we should give so much credence to what people of the time thought, because the people of the time had horrible, horrible misconceptions about value in a ballplayer.

This is probably the single dumbest statement I have ever read in this forum. SO just because some journalist in 1920 or 1950, who isn't looking at the gem like some people do in 2006, doesn't know anything about how to tell if a player is performing well or not. Even the gee-whiz guys usually had a kernal of truth in what they reported.

I guess this means that thirty years of baseball research that relied on primary sources is worthless.

[RuthMayBond]

This is probably the single dumbest statement I have ever read in this forum. SO just because some journalist in 1920 or 1950, who isn't looking at the gem like some people do in 2006, doesn't know anything about how to tell if a player is performing well or not. Even the gee-whiz guys usually had a kernal of truth in what they reported.Usually, is a kernel all you want? (the question was not well, but HOW well)

<I guess this means that thirty years of baseball research that relied on primary sources is worthless.>

Worthless, no.
Nor should it be unquestioned.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Chris is right on, what's with the hate? Do you guys really think Haines was better than Blyleven?
GKelly better than DAllen? etc.
These are HOF voters, not even the public.
So what are "the" answers, Cougar?
The writers didn't do Kelly or Haines any favors in the voting. Blyleven and Allen actually have fared far better than both at this stage. Blame the crony committee for those.

[wamby]

Usually, is a kernel all you want? (the question was not well, but HOW well)

<I guess this means that thirty years of baseball research that relied on primary sources is worthless.>

Worthless, no.
Nor should it be unquestioned.

A kernal can be very helpful when researching something, the source must always be considered, but I will take a good source over just using stats any day.

Just like statistical smoke and mirrors should be questioned?

[Cougar]

So what are "the" answers, Cougar?

I've got my opinions, but at the same time I've got enough humility to not consider those who might disagree with me hopelessly misguided (at best).

That's the only message I was really trying to get across.

[538280]

This is probably the single dumbest statement I have ever read in this forum. SO just because some journalist in 1920 or 1950, who isn't looking at the gem like some people do in 2006, doesn't know anything about how to tell if a player is performing well or not. Even the gee-whiz guys usually had a kernal of truth in what they reported.

I guess this means that thirty years of baseball research that relied on primary sources is worthless.

First, don't get me wrong, it's not like I don't ever look at contemporary opinions. I find them useful with fielding, as well as a player's clubhouse influence, his effect on the team's attitude and other players. I think they are useful in that regard. But, when using them for something like hitting, where we can look at a player's hitting value in a very straightforward and accurate way, I don't see why so much credence should be given to what people thought. I used Garvey as an example. Garvey, in his time, was viewed as a great offensive player basically because the people of the time were misinterpreting his stats. They were placing too much weight on his high BA, and not enough on the fact he rarely walked, made a ton of outs, and didn't hit for much power for a 1Bman.

My problem is when people use opinions to basically lift a player over another player. When someone says, "Well, this guy has to be better because John McGraw said so." Well, you can certainly note that John McGraw though that player was better, but why not check the record, to see if it really holds up?

Another example of this is with Pie Traynor and Heinie Groh. Traynor was regarded in his time to be a great 3Bman, and after his career was usually listed as the greatest 3Bman of all time. Groh was thought of to be a pretty good player, nothing more. I think this is a product, mostly, of the simple fact that Traynor played in the liveball era, when offense was MUCH higher. When setting down to make their all time teams and such, Traynor's .320 BA looked really nice to historians and other baseball figures, certainly better than Groh's .292. But, when you place the figures in context, you'll find they're the same. Also, the people of that time did not really consider drawing walks a skill, or at least one worth taking into consideration. Groh walked far more than Traynor, for a much better OBP, but they really didn't care back then. Such an assumption was totally wrong. Third, Traynor usually batted in the middle of the order, in a big offensive era, for a big hitting team. This made him drive in 100+ runs regularly. Groh, on the other hand, was a leadoff hitter in an extremely low run context. I just think those are the kinds of things that are NEVER taken into account by contemporary opinion, and yet are HUGE factors.

I don't completely object to using opinions, but I think in many cases there is precious little amount of truth to them and instead thousands of biases (against leadoff men, not taking walks into consideration, towards players in big hitting eras). The Hall of Fame is a big example of this. They have elected far more players to the HOF from the 20s and 30s than any other eras, for the simple reason that batting averages were through the roof in that era. Looking at it the other way, the 60s and 70s have been largely ignored because BAs were so low then.

[chrismarullo]

Forget the Hall, I always wondered why Garvey ended up the 1974 MVP. He didn't exactly have a monster year that year and it wasn't as a compensation for another year that he got robbed.

Johny Bench had more home runs and a higher OPS that year and missed only two games while playing 137 as a catcher-a damn good catcher at that.

I don't want to sound like I'm bashing Garvey at all and mother always said, "If you can't say anything nice...." so I should point out that in 11 post season series Garvey hit .338 with 11 home runs.

[wamby]

First, don't get me wrong, it's not like I don't ever look at contemporary opinions. I find them useful with fielding, as well as a player's clubhouse influence, his effect on the team's attitude and other players. I think they are useful in that regard. But, when using them for something like hitting, where we can look at a player's hitting value in a very straightforward and accurate way, I don't see why so much credence should be given to what people thought. I used Garvey as an example. Garvey, in his time, was viewed as a great offensive player basically because the people of the time were misinterpreting his stats. They were placing too much weight on his high BA, and not enough on the fact he rarely walked, made a ton of outs, and didn't hit for much power for a 1Bman.

My problem is when people use opinions to basically lift a player over another player. When someone says, "Well, this guy has to be better because John McGraw said so." Well, you can certainly note that John McGraw though that player was better, but why not check the record, to see if it really holds up?

Another example of this is with Pie Traynor and Heinie Groh. Traynor was regarded in his time to be a great 3Bman, and after his career was usually listed as the greatest 3Bman of all time. Groh was thought of to be a pretty good player, nothing more. I think this is a product, mostly, of the simple fact that Traynor played in the liveball era, when offense was MUCH higher. When setting down to make their all time teams and such, Traynor's .320 BA looked really nice to historians and other baseball figures, certainly better than Groh's .292. But, when you place the figures in context, you'll find they're the same. Also, the people of that time did not really consider drawing walks a skill, or at least one worth taking into consideration. Groh walked far more than Traynor, for a much better OBP, but they really didn't care back then. Such an assumption was totally wrong. Third, Traynor usually batted in the middle of the order, in a big offensive era, for a big hitting team. This made him drive in 100+ runs regularly. Groh, on the other hand, was a leadoff hitter in an extremely low run context. I just think those are the kinds of things that are NEVER taken into account by contemporary opinion, and yet are HUGE factors.

I don't completely object to using opinions, but I think in many cases there is precious little amount of truth to them and instead thousands of biases (against leadoff men, not taking walks into consideration, towards players in big hitting eras). The Hall of Fame is a big example of this. They have elected far more players to the HOF from the 20s and 30s than any other eras, for the simple reason that batting averages were through the roof in that era. Looking at it the other way, the 60s and 70s have been largely ignored because BAs were so low then.

I get what you're saying. Player comparisons don't interest me at all, and I rarely trust players who talk lyrically about the past. A big part of historical analysis is being able to determine what is a relaible source and what isn't. I'm a big advocate of looking at contemporary source material. When I was a kid, you didn't see much of that in baseball writing.

The Hall of Fame is something that I lost interest in a long time ago because there seems to me to be too players there who are too borderline. I didn't know about the Frisch factor until I read the Politics of Glory. I think last years election of the Negro League class was also very Frisch like.

When I was a kid, Pie Traynor was regarded as THE old-time third-baseman. The forst guy that I ever remember putting him down was Dick Bartell in his auto-biography. Even as kids, my friends and I knew that a high average hitter was more impressive in our time (say around 1975) than someone in Traynor's day. SO you are actually preaching to the choir here. About Garvey, in my neighborhood he was considered overrated, although we thought most Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers were overrated.

[jalbright]

Chris,

You're finally getting somewhere. Look, when we talk about individual opinions, I'm not a great deal more accepting than you. Great managers, GMs, noted scouts, especially when talking about guys they saw often (but weren't on their teams), deserve serious consideration. Some sportswriters might, if they weren't of the myth builder type that was so common at least before WW II and maybe until the sixties. But look at things like MVP shares, realizing that the current rules for the award didn't come about until 1931. Or Cy Young Awards, realizing that the award started in 1956 and there was one for all pitchers until 1967, when the current one per league began. Even All-Star appearances. Here are the relevant pages from baseball-reference:
MVP and Cy Young shares: http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/mvp_cya.shtml and All Star appearances: http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/leaders_most_asgame.shtml

The guys with over 2.5 MVP shares are a darned good lot, aren't they? It's hardly a perfect list, but you could do a lot worse in the time frame we're talking about. Similarly, aren't the pitchers with at least 1.5 Cy Young shares an impressive group (though again not perfect)? Even all-stars--there aren't a lot of clunkers with 10 or more appearances, though not all are HOF caliber. That kind of subjective, contemporary opinion merits respect.

Yeah, sometimes popular opinion is wrong, but at the very least we should recheck our analysis to see if we might be missing something contemporaries knew, and also to make quite certain we can support our conclusion such contemporary opinion was in error.

Jim Albright

[Cowtipper]

The following can be combined with this one:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=20896&highlight=Garvey

[Steven Gallanter]

That's actually a really devastating statistic for Garvey. Taken at face value, there's almost no way one can say anything but "No bleeping way!" to Garvey's candidacy.

But then I look things over & I get skeptical. These "runs created" stats generate all kinds of unexpected results, and with unexpected results, you've got to ask yourself -- are they valid?

Was Garvey's career really half as valuable as Alvin Davis' and John Mayberry's?

Was Garvey worth only one-tenth of Frank Thomas? I mean, Thomas is better -- way better, it's not even close -- but ten times better??

Was Pedro Guerrero really twice as good -- twice as good! -- as Don Mattingly, Cecil Cooper, and Mark Grace?

These conclusions generated from this statistic just don't pass my BS detector. I mean, I know damn well that Don Mattingly was better than Pedro Guerrero. I was there. I saw them both play. In person.

Maybe some fancy statistical analysis could convince me that I'm missing something about Guerrero, and that he was a lot better than he looked, and I know Mattingly tailed off badly at the end and didn't walk enough...but Guerrero twice as good?? There's something wrong with the measuring stick.

I've never understood the RCAA statistic well. I know it doesn't account for defense, which accounts for part of the disconnect. All I know is that it claims to explain practically everything, and it generates some results that conflict with both common sense and some more transparent types of statistical measurement.

I actually have very little quibble with your conclusion that there are a lot of 1b better than Garvey who are not in the HOF. That's probably so, and there are several different methods by which one can come to that conclusion.

I am disputing the runs created statistic.
Yes, Pedro Guerrero was a significantly better player than Don Mattingly.

Mattingly did not get on base as often as he should have and his power hitting was largely due to the short right field in Yankee Stadium.

Rickey Henderson being on 2nd. base twice a game created RBI opportunities galore.

Actually Steve Garvey and Don Mattingly are similiar players

[Fuzzy Bear]

Forget the Hall, I always wondered why Garvey ended up the 1974 MVP. He didn't exactly have a monster year that year and it wasn't as a compensation for another year that he got robbed.

Johny Bench had more home runs and a higher OPS that year and missed only two games while playing 137 as a catcher-a damn good catcher at that.

I don't want to sound like I'm bashing Garvey at all and mother always said, "If you can't say anything nice...." so I should point out that in 11 post season series Garvey hit .338 with 11 home runs.


Garvey won the MVP because of the following:


He hit over .300 (.312)
He racked up 200 hits (exactly)
He drove in over 100 runs (111)
He won the Gold Glove at 1B
His team won the NL pennant


Was Bench better? Yes, he was. But this was 1974; playing on a pennant winner played a much bigger role in MVP voting than it did today. It was Garvey's first season as a regular from end to end (he won the 1B job in the middle of the previous season), and his team got over the Big Red Hump that year, so Garvey was considered to be the deciding factor in Dodger improvement vs. Reds ("value to his team").

More importantly, Bench had already won two (2) MVP awards. Very few players in history had won more MVPs than Bench at that point, and there was a strong tendency with the writers to NOT award a third MVP award; indeed, a second MVP award was a bigger deal then than it is now. Garvey had an advantage because he hadn't won an MVP award yet.

Would this scenario happen today? Probably not; Barry Bonds' dominance broke the writers' reluctance to simply pick the best player for the MVP year after year. Although many writers are not particularly versed in sabermetrics, the sabermetric crowd has made a real impact on award voting. (If the SABR had been any kind of force in 1974, Garvey probably wouldn't have won the MVP that year, but that was not the case.)

[Fuzzy Bear]

Yes, Pedro Guerrero was a significantly better player than Don Mattingly.

Mattingly did not get on base as often as he should have and his power hitting was largely due to the short right field in Yankee Stadium.

Rickey Henderson being on 2nd. base twice a game created RBI opportunities galore.

Actually Steve Garvey and Don Mattingly are similiar players

Surprisingly, I agree with Steven's assessment of Guerrero. Had he not had the knee problems he developed, he'd have been a HOFer. As it was, there are HOFers with comparable career lengths that are nowhere near as good as Pedro was.

[Freakshow]

One hall of famer in this cohort of Garvey/Mattingly.

Players debuting 1969-84 with 550+ games at 1B and 6000+ PA
Cnt Player RC OPS+ OBP PA From To Ages
+----+-----------------+----+----+-----+-----+----+----+-----+
1 Eddie Murray 1941 129 .359 12817 1977 1997 21-41
2 Darrell Evans 1499 119 .361 10737 1969 1989 22-42
3 Keith Hernandez 1281 128 .384 8553 1974 1990 20-36
4 Jack Clark 1279 137 .379 8225 1975 1992 19-36
5 Steve Garvey 1232 116 .329 9466 1969 1987 20-38
6 Bill Buckner 1190 99 .321 10033 1969 1990 19-40
7 Don Mattingly 1168 127 .358 7721 1982 1995 21-34
8 Cecil Cooper 1134 121 .337 7939 1971 1987 21-37
9 Kent Hrbek 1100 128 .367 7137 1981 1994 21-34
10 Chris Chambliss 1038 109 .334 8305 1971 1988 22-39
11 Pedro Guerrero 973 137 .370 6115 1978 1992 22-36
12 Dave Kingman 954 115 .302 7429 1971 1986 22-37
13 Mike Hargrove 913 121 .396 6693 1974 1985 24-35
14 Andre Thornton 899 122 .360 6293 1973 1987 23-37
15 Dan Driessen 832 113 .356 6344 1973 1987 21-35
16 Pete O'Brien 751 104 .336 6168 1982 1993 24-35
17 Enos Cabell 647 93 .308 6304 1972 1986 22-36

[JDD]

Perhaps the VETS will show him some attention, perhaps.

[RuthMayBond]

Perhaps the VETS will show him some attention, perhaps.
I didn't even know Garvey was in the military.
He was in the doghouse as far as Cindy

[JDD]

We need to get Tommy Lasorda out on the campaign trail as soon as possible.

And what better way to slap the steriod users than to bypass someone like Big Mac and Palmeiro and finally put in Garvey.

That will show 'em.

[jalbright]

Like Garvey would be a big step up in the character department (versus suspected roiders)...:rolleyes:

More importantly, though, he wouldn't meet where the bar should be for players. He isn't one of the top 20 1B of all time, yet that's who should be in.

[RuthMayBond]

We need to get Tommy Lasorda out on the campaign trail as soon as possible.

And what better way to slap the steriod users than to bypass someone like Big Mac and Palmeiro and finally put in Garvey.

That will show 'em.A better way would be to put in Allen or McGriff or Will Clark

[Brad Harris]

We need to get Tommy Lasorda out on the campaign trail as soon as possible.
He's in worse shape than Fred Thompson. The campaign would kill him.

[jalbright]

Here's a summary of why I don't think Garvey belongs:

Some folks like him for the HOF, but even with his off the field issues aside, I can't see it. If a guy is in the top 20 at his position (except pitcher), that essentially translates to the top 240 of all time (8 position players and 4 pitchers per team equals 12, then 20 * 12 = 240) Thus, even the 20th guy at a position is at best in the gray area for the HOF, since they haven't honored that many yet. What does this have to do with Steve Garvey? Well, look at where he ranks in various Win Shares categories: 26th in career WS among first basemen listed in the latest Historical Baseball Abstract, 44th for the total of his best 3 seasons, 30th for his best 5 consecutive, and 63rd for his WS/162. The best he can do is 26th, which is well below where the gray area should be--and he does significantly worse than that overall.

Another way to look at it is how many of the most similar players to him have made the hall. Baseball-reference.com has such a list, and Garvey's has precisely one-Orlando Cepeda, and he's only the 7th most similar. I'd definitely prefer the Baby Bull.

[Cougar]

We need to get Tommy Lasorda out on the campaign trail as soon as possible.


Do he and Garvey get along?

I'd be surprised if they were particularly close, given all the clubhouse resentment of Garvey back in the day.

But I honestly don't know for certain.

Garvey played for Dick Williams too, in San Diego.

[Captain Cold Nose]

We need to get Tommy Lasorda out on the campaign trail as soon as possible.

And what better way to slap the steriod users than to bypass someone like Big Mac and Palmeiro and finally put in Garvey.

That will show 'em.

We don't need to do anything and neither does LaSorda. I think the man has better things to do than to waste so much time stumping for undeserving candidates, let alone those who should be in the HOF. I'm certainly not going to tell a HOF'er he needs to do anything. And it's not for them to cram it down everyone's throats.

After all the bullying regarding Rizzuto's candidacy, anything more than a letter to the editor is a big turnoff.

[Brad Harris]

And what better way to slap the steriod users than to bypass someone like Big Mac and Palmeiro and finally put in Garvey.

That will show 'em.
When did this become the purpose of the Hall of Fame?

[Cougar]

We need to get Tommy Lasorda out on the campaign trail as soon as possible.

And what better way to slap the steriod users than to bypass someone like Big Mac and Palmeiro and finally put in Garvey.

That will show 'em.

He's in worse shape than Fred Thompson. The campaign would kill him.

We don't need to do anything and neither does LaSorda. I think the man has better things to do than to waste so much time stumping for undeserving candidates, let alone those who should be in the HOF. I'm certainly not going to tell a HOF'er he needs to do anything. And it's not for them to cram it down everyone's throats.

After all the bullying regarding Rizzuto's candidacy, anything more than a letter to the editor is a big turnoff.

To be fair, Sparky Anderson has been out front campaigning for his guys on the Big Red Machine all along. (I suppose he's down to Davey Concepcion now; then he can take up the mantle for Tigers like Trammell, Whitaker, Lance Parrish, Darrell Evans, Jack Morris.)

I don't begrudge guys who didn't play for Sparky wishing they got some of the same treatment.

[Captain Cold Nose]

To be fair, Sparky Anderson has been out front campaigning for his guys on the Big Red Machine all along. (I suppose he's down to Davey Concepcion now; then he can take up the mantle for Tigers like Trammell, Whitaker, Lance Parrish, Darrell Evans, Jack Morris.)

I don't begrudge guys who didn't play for Sparky wishing they got some of the same treatment.

Sparky has always been a cheerleader. That's him. Not everyone has to do that, though. I'm certainly not going to tell Chuck Tanner to change his personality because some are not convinced about a player he managed thirty years ago. We all need to emulate Blanche Bickerson (that's obscure, thanks XM.) and pester baseball people to become a soapbox for others?

[Brad Harris]

Sparky has always been a cheerleader. That's him. Not everyone has to do that, though. I'm certainly not going to tell Chuck Tanner to change his personality because some are not convinced about a player he managed thirty years ago. We all need to emulate Blanche Bickerson (that's obscure, thanks XM.) and pester baseball people to become a soapbox for others?

"Ohhh, Blanche....." LMAO Don Ameche was the best. I think my favorite was the camper skit where they get robbed. Good memories.

I wonder how many other people on here have ever heard that show? God, I feel old.

[9RoyHobbsRF]

First, don't get me wrong, it's not like I don't ever look at contemporary opinions. My problem is when people use opinions to basically lift a player over another player. When someone says, "Well, this guy has to be better because John McGraw said so." Well, you can certainly note that John McGraw though that player was better, but why not check the record, to see if it really holds up?
I don't completely object to using opinions, but I think in many cases there is precious little amount of truth to them and instead thousands of biases (against leadoff men, not taking walks into consideration, towards players in big hitting eras). .


Excellent point

People have biases whether they are current people evaluating the past or past people evaluating their contemporaries. And arent we supposed to be trying to eliminate biases.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Excellent point

People have biases whether they are current people evaluating the past or past people evaluating their contemporaries. And arent we supposed to be trying to eliminate biases.

You would think so. But using statistical analysis alone has its flaws, as well. You can focus on certain stats that are unfairly weighted one way or another or don't address certain things. Someone can be honest and objective in their own assessment of things. It's keying too much on someone else's viewpoint that can be a problem.

[SABR Matt]

Garvey doesn't need campaigners...have you read his personal website? He's the most shameless self-promoter in the last fifty years of baseball other than A-Roid and Rickey Henderson. :)

[PVNICK]

Garvey doesn't need campaigners...have you read his personal website? He's the most shameless self-promoter in the last fifty years of baseball other than A-Roid and Rickey Henderson. :) and Pete Rose:)

[SABR Matt]

Of course...Pete Rose too...how could I forget him? LOL

[9RoyHobbsRF]

You would think so. But using statistical analysis alone has its flaws, as well. You can focus on certain stats that are unfairly weighted one way or another or don't address certain things. Someone can be honest and objective in their own assessment of things. It's keying too much on someone else's viewpoint that can be a problem.


yes but they can just as easily be biased in their personal opinions

[Captain Cold Nose]

yes but they can just as easily be biased in their personal opinions

Absolutely. People can have agendas, which is why personal opinions should be taken for what they are. Stats don't have agendas. The person presenting the stats can, though, just as easily manipulate what they present as the person voicing their opinion can.

Bottom line, straight objectivity isn't such an easy thing to find.

[cavalier1968]

Will the thrill should go in way before Garvey..........

Cav

Will OPS+ 137 in PED era
Garvey 116+..........

[Brad Harris]

Bottom line, straight objectivity isn't such an easy thing to find.
It's easier to find that a legitimate justification for Garvey's induction.

[JDD]

He was better than Cecil Cooper!

[BigandUgly]

He was better than Cecil Cooper!

Not sure I agree with that, but even if it's true, so what? Cecil isn't in the Hall.

[Brad Harris]

He was better than Cecil Cooper!
No, he absolutely was not.

[cavalier1968]

and Pete Rose:)

Steve Garvey - a name synonymous with excellence and success. One of baseball's most popular and durable players during one of baseball's greatest era's, Steve Garvey is known to even the most casual of baseball fans everywhere. A 10-time All Star and 1974 National League MVP, Garvey is destined for enshrinement at Cooperstown. :ooo:
Starring for the Los Angeles Dodgers and San Diego Padres in his illustrious career, Steve Garvey was nicknamed the "Iron Man" for setting the National League consecutive games record with 1,207 straight.

Simply put, Steve Garvey was a complete player - equally adept with the bat and glove - hitting for average and power to go along with his nearly flawless defense.

:crazy

Cav

[cavalier1968]

Steve Garvey garnered a number of accolades and achievements over the course of his illustrious career that will surely allow him to take his proper place amongst baseball's elite in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Below are some of his most outstanding accomplishments.
1974 National League Most Valuable Player.


National League's Iron Man - Holds NL consecutive games played record at 1,207 straight games.


10-time All Star selection, including eight straight (1974-1981).


Hit .300 seven times and finished with a .294 career average with 2,599 hits.


Led the NL in hits twice, collected 200 hits or more six times in seven seasons.


In 1974, became the ONLY player ever elected as an All-Star Game starter as a write-in candidate. Garvey earned the MVP Award in that game and later won another MVP in the the 1978 mid-summer classic.


Won four straight Gold Glove awards (1974-1977) and set a ML record with his career .996 fielding percentage at first base.


The ONLY player in MLB history to record an errorless season at first base (1984).


Set a MLB record for first baseman by playing 193 straight games without committing an error.


Drove in 100 runs five times, including four straight years (1977-1980).


One of the greatest clutch, post season players ever. Hit .300 or better in eight of his 11 post-season series. Hit .389 with four homers and seven RBI in the four-game 1978 NLCS win. Hit 10 home runs in the NLCS (a record at the time) and hit .338 with 11 homers, 31 RBI and 32 runs scored in 55 post-season contests. Played best when it mattered most.


Hit one of baseball's most memorable home runs, the famous game-winning home run in Game Four of the 1984 NLCS. The blast itself, combined with the huge team momentum and morale shifts that it caused, lifted the Padres into the deciding fifth game and ultimately to the team's first ever NL Pennant and World Series appearance. Garvey drove in five runs in all.


Won 1978 and 1984 NLCS MVP Awards. Team MVP of the 1974 NLCS (award not official until 1977).


Garvey led or tied for the team lead in batting average and total hits (among team's regulars) in an amazing eight out of 11 post-season series.


Led NL in Games six times (1977-78, 1980-82, 1985).

Cav

[Captain Cold Nose]

All I can say, cav, is :yawn:

Superficially impressive. The writers have somehow seen through it by now, as well as his Mr. America image. Thankfully.

[PVNICK]

Well, you know had they mentioned he was my favorite player, sort of (so were Tom Seaver, Rusty Staub, Willie Mays and Willie Stargell) for a time there in the mid 70s it might have put him over the top.:o

[RuthMayBond]

Steve Garvey garnered a number of accolades and achievements over the course of his illustrious career that will surely allow him to take his proper place amongst baseball's elite in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Below are some of his most outstanding accomplishments.
1974 National League Most Valuable Player. Which Stargell or Schmidt SHOULD have won

<National League's Iron Man - Holds NL consecutive games played record at 1,207 straight games.>

So that was almost as good as Everett Scott (in the AL, I know)

<Hit .300 seven times and finished with a .294 career average with 2,599 hits.>

Doc Cramer

<Led the NL in hits twice>

Ginger Beaumont, Frank McCormick

<Won four straight Gold Glove awards (1974-1977) and set a ML record with his career .996 fielding percentage at first base.>

Few errors because he was a great glove, or because of poor range & not wanting to throw?

<The ONLY player in MLB history to record an errorless season at first base (1984).>

Actually, Mickey Stanley & Kevin Youkilis also did, and see above

<Drove in 100 runs five times, including four straight years (1977-1980).>

Joe Carter

<Led NL in Games six times (1977-78, 1980-82, 1985). >

About like Del Pratt (I know, AL)

[nerfan]

Did I just read that Garvey had FLAWLESS defense?

Suuuuuuuuure.

[JDD]

In this post-steroid, I think he is poised for a comeback. Players from the 70s and 80s are looking good nowadays. All they did was spike their coffee to get ready for day games after night games.

Unless you were a catcher, then you got the day off.

[Paul Wendt]

...
<The ONLY player in MLB history to record an errorless season at first base (1984).>

Actually, Mickey Stanley & Kevin Youkilis also did, ...

Mickey Stanley? What am I missing?
The Mickey Stanley played at firstbase in 94 games only, with 53 assists and 6 errors (a poor ratio). His primary error-free achievements were in the outfield, exclusively at CF during these seasons.
: 1966, 174 chances
: 1968, 308 chances
: 1970, 331 chances
In the two full seasons he made some infield appearances with four and one errors.

add: As a rookie last year Jacoby Ellsbury made 336 plays with no errors.
... An outfielder has made 300 or more plays without error about fifteen times.

--
Garvey finished with 2059 games, 1026 assists, and 81 errors at firstbase. In 1984 he made 87 and 0.

Youkilis continues to play at thirdbase, including 24 of 75 games this season. For his career at firstbase to date he has 447 games, 286 assists, and 10 errors. In 2007 he registered 90 assists and no errors.

During their errorless seasons
Garvey played 159 games with 0.547 assists per game;
Youkilis he played 135 games at first with rate 0.666 assists per game.

[RuthMayBond]

Mickey Stanley? He played at firstbase in 94 games only, with 53 assists and 6 errors (a poor ratio). His primary error-free achievements were in the outfield, exclusively at CF during these seasons.
: 1966, 174 chances
: 1968, 308 chances
: 1970, 331 chancesMy bad, good catch

[Brad Harris]

In this post-steroid, I think he is poised for a comeback. Players from the 70s and 80s are looking good nowadays. All they did was spike their coffee to get ready for day games after night games.

Unless you were a catcher, then you got the day off.

Of course, that "comeback" will have to come in the minds of his peers and there's no way Stargell, Schmidt, Carter, Morgan, etc. are going to put him in.

[RuthMayBond]

Of course, that "comeback" will have to come in the minds of his peers and there's no way Stargell, Schmidt, Carter, Morgan, etc. are going to put him in.But will these teammates?
Marichal
Gwynn
Bunning
Sutton
Gossage
Drysdale
Frank Robinson
Hoyt Wilhelm

[Captain Cold Nose]

Of course, that "comeback" will have to come in the minds of his peers and there's no way Stargell, Schmidt, Carter, Morgan, etc. are going to put him in.

Certainly not Stargell. Or Drysdale.

[RuthMayBond]

Certainly not Stargell. Or Drysdale.Not even an "in absentia" vote? :hide:

[Captain Cold Nose]

Not even an "in absentia" vote? :hide:

Only in the movies.

[Extra Innings]

Steve Garvey - a name synonymous with excellence and success. One of baseball's most popular and durable players during one of baseball's greatest era's, Steve Garvey is known to even the most casual of baseball fans everywhere. A 10-time All Star and 1974 National League MVP, Garvey is destined for enshrinement at Cooperstown.
Starring for the Los Angeles Dodgers and San Diego Padres in his illustrious career, Steve Garvey was nicknamed the "Iron Man" for setting the National League consecutive games record with 1,207 straight.

Simply put, Steve Garvey was a complete player - equally adept with the bat and glove - hitting for average and power to go along with his nearly flawless defense.

Did that come off his website?

[JDD]

I think he wrote it himself.

[Los Bravos]

But will these teammates?
SuttonSince those two went all Ric Flair-Rickey Steamboat on the floor of the Dodgers clubhouse in '78...I'm guessing not.