Steve Garvey

[trosmok]

Garvey for dog catcher

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]

Re: Garvey for dog catcher

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]

Re: Re: Garvey for dog catcher

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

[Captain Cold Nose]

Re: Re: Re: Garvey for dog catcher

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.

[Chadwick]

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.

[Chadwick]

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]

Steve

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.