Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Steve Garvey

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Brad Harris View Post
    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.
    He won't get Stargell's vote - I guarantee it.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cougar View Post
      He won't get Stargell's vote - I guarantee it.
      And if Cindy became a sportswriter, I guarantee he won't get THAT vote either :blush:
      Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
      Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cougar View Post
        He won't get Stargell's vote - I guarantee it.
        See posts 171 / 172
        Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
        Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

        Comment


        • Garvey did a lot of things that HOFers typically do. I still believe that if Garvey had kept his BA over .300 for his career, he'd be in. And he'd probably have deserved it then, because if he had done so, he'd have been that much better of a player than he was.
          "I do not care if half the league strikes. Those who do it will encounter quick retribution. All will be suspended and I don't care if it wrecks the National League for five years. This is the United States of America and one citizen has as much right to play as another. The National League will go down the line with Robinson whatever the consequences. You will find if you go through with your intention that you have been guilty of complete madness."

          NL President Ford Frick, 1947

          Comment


          • But he didn't. And he doesn't.
            "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
            "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
            "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
            "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

            Comment


            • Bump! From ESPN the Magazine.

              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Steve Garvey's reliability forgotten
              By Steve Wulf
              ESPN The Magazine


              Steve Garvey had 200 or more hits six times (1974-76 and 1978-80) during his 19-year career.
              The Hall of Fame would have no trouble writing the plaque:

              HOLDS NATIONAL LEAGUE RECORD FOR CONSECUTIVE
              GAMES PLAYED (1,201). VOTED THE 1974 NL MVP
              AND SELECTED TO THE ALL-STAR GAME 10 TIMES.
              HAD AS MANY AS 200 HITS IN A SEASON SIX TIMES AND
              MORE THAN 100 RBIS IN FIVE SEASONS. BATTED .338
              IN 11 POSTSEASON SERIES AND .417 IN THE 1981
              WORLD SERIES, WHEN HIS DODGERS BEAT THE YANKEES
              IN SIX GAMES. A FOUR-TIME GOLD GLOVE WINNER, HE
              ONCE HELD THE RECORD FOR MOST CONSECUTIVE GAMES
              AT 1B WITHOUT AN ERROR (193).

              The problem with Steve Garvey, though, is that he's not going to Cooperstown anytime soon, at least not as a member of baseball's most exclusive and maddeningly incomplete fraternity. "I don't think I was imagining it," said George Brett, who is in the club. "I know I read a lot of stories about 'future Hall of Famer' Steve Garvey."

              For a lot of us who saw him on a regular basis, Garvey was a clutch hitter who could hit for average or power, depending on what the Dodgers needed; an excellent fielder, albeit with an unpredictable arm; and a paragon who played the game the right way and treated people with consideration. He single-handedly carried his second team, the Padres, into the 1984 World Series -- when "The Natural" was shown on a plane from Chicago to San Diego for the start of the Series, the passengers chanted, "Gar-vey! Gar-vey!" at the climax.

              In Bill James' seminal book on the Hall of Fame, "The Politics of Glory," first published in 1995, he used a point system called the Hall of Fame Monitor to predict which current and recently retired players would be voted in by the Baseball Writers' Association of America. He had Garvey going into the Hall in 1997, along with Phil Niekro. But Garvey would never finish higher than fourth (1996), or come close to the 75 percent of the vote needed for induction (a high of 42.6 percent in '95), even though he did outpoll future HOFers Jim Rice, Bruce Sutter and Bert Blyleven in some years. When Garvey finally fell off the ballot in 2007 after the maximum 15 years, he was 11th in the voting.

              "To be honest, I am disappointed," Garvey said. "I always thought of my career as a body of work and not just about numbers."

              Garvey is not the only player from that era to get short shrift. Among the others James predicted would make it via the writers' vote were Al Oliver, Dave Parker, Jim Kaat, Ted Simmons, Dale Murphy, Don Mattingly, Jack Morris, Lee Smith, Tim Raines, Alan Trammell and Lou Whitaker.

              What happened to Garvey is partly schadenfreude: Writers turned on him for a complicated personal life that smudged an image so golden that he once had a middle school named after him. But he's also one of the great players from that period who have been hurt by the inflation of statistics fueled by the increasing use of PEDs, which happened to coincide with the HOF eligibility for the earlier era. And, as Garvey points out, "That was also a period when the veteran writers who relied on what they saw gave way to younger writers who focused on statistics."

              The irony, of course, is that the writers are now punishing the players whose numbers they feel were artificially bolstered. Wouldn't it be nice if they could channel their disillusionment into a more positive re-examination of those who have been relegated to the scrap heap?

              Like Garvey, Dave Parker will have to wait until the veterans committee gets around to sifting through players of the modern era, looking for gold. Not to diminish Jim Rice, but as someone who covered Parker and Rice in their primes, I can testify that Parker was the superior player in almost every regard.

              "I went to Cooperstown for Barry Larkin's induction last year," said Parker, who took Larkin under his wing in Cincinnati. "It would've been nice to have gone as a fellow Hall of Famer. I think I belong there. Let's put it this way -- on almost every team I played, I was 'The Guy' or one of them. The system needs to be changed."

              That won't happen anytime soon. But minds can be changed: How else did Bert Blyleven go from 14.1 percent in his second year of eligibility to 79.7 percent in his 14th year? Voters need to take a closer look at players they may have bypassed because they didn't see them. And just as they agonize over what the "Valuable" means in Most Valuable Player, they need to think about what the "Fame" in Hall of Fame really means. (Uh, 10 All-Star Games is a pretty good definition.)

              "I know voters are worried about steroids this year," Garvey said. "I would much rather they think about the shot of adrenaline that a few more players would give the Hall of Fame."


              Garvey.jpg
              Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

              Comment


              • It's an absolute joke that he's not in. I guess that he should have walked more and not gotten so many hits and RBI. When he played, it was given that he was a future HOFer. Then came sabermetrics and revisionism.
                This week's Giant

                #5 in games played as a Giant with 1721 , Bill Terry

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JR Hart View Post
                  It's an absolute joke that he's not in. I guess that he should have walked more and not gotten so many hits and RBI. When he played, it was given that he was a future HOFer. Then came sabermetrics and revisionism.
                  You can blame sabermetrics all you want. Garvey's undoing came because he wasn't the all-american boy he wasn't marketed to be, and it was realized he was not as good as his contemporary first baseman when stacking up the same old baseball card numbers that first got him acclaim. He was a very good player with an incredible press agent. He wasn't Carew, Murray or Stargell. He never came close to what Don Mattingly did for a handful of seasons. He was Al Oliver. Maybe.
                  Dave Bill Tom George Mark Bob Ernie Soupy Dick Alex Sparky
                  Joe Gary MCA Emanuel Sonny Dave Earl Stan
                  Jonathan Neil Roger Anthony Ray Thomas Art Don
                  Gates Philip John Warrior Rik Casey Tony Horace
                  Robin Bill Ernie JEDI

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JR Hart View Post
                    It's an absolute joke that he's not in. I guess that he should have walked more and not gotten so many hits and RBI. When he played, it was given that he was a future HOFer. Then came sabermetrics and revisionism.
                    In fairness to Garvey, he was a good hitter for a long time, and his obvious strengths are his triple crown numbers. Like Jim Rice during his long sojourn in BBWAA purgatory, Garvey is not kept out because the BBWAA selectively got the SABRE religion. Garvey creeped a lot of people out when he was a golden boy, and when his private persona surfaced, he also alienated those who had bought into the image. He may not be good enough, but he's not kept out because he's not good enough.

                    His record is not comparable to most HOF first basemen, his closest comp perhaps Jim Bottomley. Garvey made 2599 hits, 7th overall, between Jimmy Foxx with 2664 and Mickey Vernon with 2495. But he also made over 6200 outs. His next best stat is RBI; 20th among first basemen, with 1308. Right after Mickey Vernon, who also averaged about 4.6 outs per RBI. Among first basemen, he is 33rd in homers, with 272, one more than George Scott, and 33rd in batting average, with .297, tied with Adrian Gonzales and only 3 points below Hall of Famer George Kelly.

                    Kelly and Scott, though, were much better defenders than Garvey, and Gonzales already has 80% of Garvey's WAR. Vernon, Daubert, and Scott are pretty good comps; see also Cecil Cooper, Harry Davis, Frank McCormick, Kent Hrbek. Guys like that. Gonzales and Foxx, and to be fair, Kelly, not so much.

                    Like Vernon, he made his marks in an atrocious hitter's park in a relatively low-scoring era. But statistics that take context into consideration are not kind to Garvey either. His OPS+ is 117, tied with Elbie Fletcher, Wally Joiner, Jake Daubert, and Ron Fairly for 62nd. How about that? Three fine Dodger first basemen with a 117 OPS+. Garvey does best Fairly in WAR, 34 to 31, but it's arguable that Fairly was Garvey's equal, if not the better, after Hodges.

                    A huge majority of Garvey's WAR is replacement runs. He is 51 runs above average, and has 282 replacement runs. His WAA, wins above average, amount to 7. He was an above average player for a very long time, and such players are rare. You have to be good to stick around long enough to make 6000 outs. And you don't get 2600 hits by sticking around. But aside from his hit total, Garvey really just doesn't stand out, and if that were all it took, we'd be arguing for Doc Cramer and Johnny Damon. And Mickey Vernon.
                    Indeed the first step toward finding out is to acknowledge you do not satisfactorily know already; so that no blight can so surely arrest all intellectual growth as the blight of cocksureness.--CS Peirce

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Captain Cold Nose View Post
                      You can blame sabermetrics all you want. Garvey's undoing came because he wasn't the all-american boy he wasn't marketed to be, and it was realized he was not as good as his contemporary first baseman when stacking up the same old baseball card numbers that first got him acclaim. He was a very good player with an incredible press agent. He wasn't Carew, Murray or Stargell. He never came close to what Don Mattingly did for a handful of seasons. He was Al Oliver. Maybe.
                      Don Mattingly's numbers were a direct result of the addition of Rickey Henderson and Dave Winfield to the line-up. Garvey never had anyone like Henderson in front of him, nor did he have someone like Winfield behind him. Look at Mattingly's seasons on those Yankee teams without the three players together at the same time. See for yourself.
                      Last edited by Second Base Coach; 12-24-2012, 07:16 AM.
                      Your Second Base Coach
                      Garvey, Lopes, Russell, and Cey started 833 times and the Dodgers went 498-335, for a .598 winning percentage. That’s equal to a team going 97-65 over a season. On those occasions when at least one of them missed his start, the Dodgers were 306-267-1, which is a .534 clip. That works out to a team going 87-75. So having all four of them added 10 wins to the Dodgers per year.
                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5hCIvMule0

                      Comment


                      • I am a big Garvey fan. Is this article in the current issue of ESPN the magazine?
                        Your Second Base Coach
                        Garvey, Lopes, Russell, and Cey started 833 times and the Dodgers went 498-335, for a .598 winning percentage. That’s equal to a team going 97-65 over a season. On those occasions when at least one of them missed his start, the Dodgers were 306-267-1, which is a .534 clip. That works out to a team going 87-75. So having all four of them added 10 wins to the Dodgers per year.
                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5hCIvMule0

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Second Base Coach View Post
                          Don Mattingly's numbers were a direct result of the addition of Rickey Henderson and Dave Winfield to the line-up. Garvey never had anyone like Henderson in front of him, nor did he have someone like Winfield behind him. Look at Mattingly's seasons on those Yankee teams without the three players together at the same time. See for yourself.
                          Fine. And Garvey may not have had HOF'ers in his lineup, but those Dodger teams were loaded. Davey Lopes and Ron Cey may not have been Henderson and Winfield, but they were as good as anyone else doing what they were doing at the time they were doing it. Pedro Guerrero was no slouch, either.

                          I don't buy Mattingly as a HOF'er. But it's not like Garvey was in an anemic lineup. He was a very good player. Probably a borderline canddate. But he was no better than the guys whose elections we question. His election would not be a travesty, he was a top player for a long time, and the better players of his type from his era have been elected. No milestones at a time milestones were both cherished an achievable. Sorry, he should be remembered as one of the finest of his generation who falls short.
                          Dave Bill Tom George Mark Bob Ernie Soupy Dick Alex Sparky
                          Joe Gary MCA Emanuel Sonny Dave Earl Stan
                          Jonathan Neil Roger Anthony Ray Thomas Art Don
                          Gates Philip John Warrior Rik Casey Tony Horace
                          Robin Bill Ernie JEDI

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Captain Cold Nose View Post
                            Fine. And Garvey may not have had HOF'ers in his lineup, but those Dodger teams were loaded. Davey Lopes and Ron Cey may not have been Henderson and Winfield, but they were as good as anyone else doing what they were doing at the time they were doing it. Pedro Guerrero was no slouch, either.

                            I don't buy Mattingly as a HOF'er. But it's not like Garvey was in an anemic lineup. He was a very good player. Probably a borderline canddate. But he was no better than the guys whose elections we question. His election would not be a travesty, he was a top player for a long time, and the better players of his type from his era have been elected. No milestones at a time milestones were both cherished an achievable. Sorry, he should be remembered as one of the finest of his generation who falls short.
                            And I agree with you. No worries.
                            Your Second Base Coach
                            Garvey, Lopes, Russell, and Cey started 833 times and the Dodgers went 498-335, for a .598 winning percentage. That’s equal to a team going 97-65 over a season. On those occasions when at least one of them missed his start, the Dodgers were 306-267-1, which is a .534 clip. That works out to a team going 87-75. So having all four of them added 10 wins to the Dodgers per year.
                            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5hCIvMule0

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JR Hart View Post
                              It's an absolute joke that he's not in. I guess that he should have walked more and not gotten so many hits and RBI. When he played, it was given that he was a future HOFer. Then came sabermetrics and revisionism.
                              I'm not sure why you blame sabermetrics for Garvey not being elected to the Hall of Fame? The Hall of Fame voters are notoriously anti-sabermetrics, especially more so back in the mid 1990's when Garvey first appeared onto the HoF ballot.
                              Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Second Base Coach View Post
                                I am a big Garvey fan. Is this article in the current issue of ESPN the magazine?
                                Yes it is.
                                Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X