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.

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. .

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.)

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/articl...-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.

[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.

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?

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?

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.