Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Steve Garvey

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by 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.
    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)
    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


    • #62
      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.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by MudvilleMike
        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.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by HDH
          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?
          "you don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. just get people to stop reading them." -ray bradbury

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by The Only Nolan
            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?

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by The Commissioner
              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.)

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by The Commissioner
                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.
                BOSTON RED SOX WORLD CHAMPIONS 19031912191519161918 20042007

                Comment


                • #68
                  Garvey

                  Originally posted by The Commissioner
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    I feel he belongs!

                    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).

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by 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.
                      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."
                      "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


                      • #71
                        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/fielder...ice_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/baseb...ite_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....? 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.
                        Last edited by csh19792001; 08-03-2005, 07:25 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Cougar
                          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

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            sorry- double post!!!
                            Last edited by csh19792001; 08-03-2005, 09:21 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              --The last sentence seems the best option.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                You learn something new every day.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X