Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Steve Garvey

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

  • Originally posted by Ace Venom View Post
    On the subject of Garvey, he was commonly called a future Hall of Famer during his playing career. He did what was basically considered great back then, but there were enough deficiencies there. He didn't hit for a lot of power despite being in a position where power is expected. Later, he could be criticized for not walking enough (low OBP). Walks are still underappreciated (see Tim Raines), so that can't be it. Sure his personal life can be an issue, but if Orlando Cepeda can make the Hall of Fame, what keeps Garvey out? His rate stats aren't particularly up there with other Hall of Fame first basemen. He has a low slugging percentage and an atrocious on-base percentage. He's essentially Mark Grace with more Hall of Fame support. Compared to a much more deserving, but still not quite there, Gil Hodges, Garvey just doesn't measure up.
    Thank you for the reference. Let me add to that.

    If you look at Mark Grace, you might find the type of player Garvey would have been (on the back of the baseball card) if he walked more. Time and again the cry from the masses here at BBF is "the bum never walked, he made too many outs, he should have reached base more often."

    Fine. If you turn some outs on balls in play into walks, if you turn some strikeouts into walks, turn some hits into walks, I think you would see a reduction in homers, a loss of RBI, not much of an increase in runs scored, and SLG and BA staying about the same.

    Yup. You get Mark Grace. And that does Garvey no favors in the HOF vote. Active players were hitting 40-50-60 homers at that time and you needed 130+ RBI to lead the league. Heck, Grace PLAYED during that time and how well did Grace fare when it came time to vote?

    Exactly. You cannot take 40-50 of Garvey's outs and turn them into walks while keeping everything else the same. It does not work that way. I am guessing that would have turned him into somewhat of a George Brett type player. I am not running the numbers, but you get the idea. High batting average and high RBI guys were SCARCE in the late 1970s. Brett and Parker and Garvey and Rice, that type of player, was not that common. That's what made Eddie Murray somewhat of a statistical freak. He did it every year when guys like Lynn and Foster would come and go with those types of seasons.

    They were even more scarce in the National League. And I deliberately chose Batting Average and RBI because that's what voters looked at for years and years and years. That and connections to Frankie Frisch.
    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 64Cards View Post
      I’ll pass on Ryan Howard-Garvey comparisons, see absolutely no relevance. But there was another pretty good NL 1B who career overlapped Garvey’s for 14 seasons, Keith Hernandez. Quite a few similarities in their careers, their bodies were built somewhat alike, they both played in parks that favored pitchers over hitters. They each won an MVP, Garvey had 5 MVP top tens, Hernandez had 3. Both played on a few postseason teams. Numbers were fairly close Garvey [9466 PA].294/.329/.446 Hernandez [8553 PA] .296/.384/.436 Obviously Hernandez had a significantly better OBP, but that was offset by Garvey’s power, 110 more HR’s and about 200 more RBI. Hernandez had a better glove, but he was better than virtually any 1B in history. As far as Garvey in the field, you can go through all the fielding metrics minutia you want, but his 4 GG’s are the best indication that he was pretty good with the leather, although not necessarily the best in the league.

      As far as HOF, under the present in or out system, I’d say they are both marginal. Just not quite good enough numbers at what is primarily a hitting position. If you used the James A,B,C, D HOF qualification, I’d say they were both solid C candidates.
      I'll agree with this, although Garvey is less of a C candidate than Hernandez.

      It's interesting, though. Hernandez, who is considered by most people now to be superior to Garvey was traded from a pennant-winning team because his manager, Whitey Herzog, thought he had become a "cancer" on the team. Subseqently, Hernandez's cocaine addiction and related activities came to light. Yet Hernandez's reputation never suffered as Garvey's has, and Hernandez's activities, one can reasonably conclude, negatively impacted both his own play and the teams he played on. Garvey, however grating his rep may have been, kept himself in top physical shape and hustled on the field. Dave Parker, Keith Hernandez, and Steve Garvey were all guys headed for the HOF who didn't make it, yet the drug users get a pass in terms of image, while Garvey gets trashed and ridiculed.
      "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


      • I read that Hernandez donated some of his salary to drug rehabs maybe that helped?

        I think it was in "Clearing The Bases"
        “There can be no higher law in journalism than to tell the truth and to shame the devil.” Walter Lippmann

        "Fill in any figure you want for that boy (Mantle). Whatever the figure, it's a deal." - Branch Rickey

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Second Base Coach View Post
          Thank you for the reference. Let me add to that.

          If you look at Mark Grace, you might find the type of player Garvey would have been (on the back of the baseball card) if he walked more. Time and again the cry from the masses here at BBF is "the bum never walked, he made too many outs, he should have reached base more often."

          Fine. If you turn some outs on balls in play into walks, if you turn some strikeouts into walks, turn some hits into walks, I think you would see a reduction in homers, a loss of RBI, not much of an increase in runs scored, and SLG and BA staying about the same.

          Yup. You get Mark Grace. And that does Garvey no favors in the HOF vote. Active players were hitting 40-50-60 homers at that time and you needed 130+ RBI to lead the league. Heck, Grace PLAYED during that time and how well did Grace fare when it came time to vote?

          Exactly. You cannot take 40-50 of Garvey's outs and turn them into walks while keeping everything else the same. It does not work that way. I am guessing that would have turned him into somewhat of a George Brett type player. I am not running the numbers, but you get the idea. High batting average and high RBI guys were SCARCE in the late 1970s. Brett and Parker and Garvey and Rice, that type of player, was not that common. That's what made Eddie Murray somewhat of a statistical freak. He did it every year when guys like Lynn and Foster would come and go with those types of seasons.

          They were even more scarce in the National League. And I deliberately chose Batting Average and RBI because that's what voters looked at for years and years and years. That and connections to Frankie Frisch.
          You make a very good point. I don't think it's as easy as 'just be patient, and you'll turn 30 of your outs into walks'. Plenty of the 'bad' pitches you swing at will actually end up being hits, and plenty of them will be called strikes anyway. While I think Garvey would have more power than Grace if they played in the same park at the same time, I do agree that if you do take away 30 of Garvey's RBI and turn them into walks, then he suddenly becomes much more valuable on paper, but in the actual games, I'm sure that his team would much rather have the run cross the plate than have a guy on first base.

          Comment


          • I do agree that if you do take away 30 of Garvey's RBI and turn them into walks, then he suddenly becomes much more valuable on paper, but in the actual games, I'm sure that his team would much rather have the run cross the plate than have a guy on first base.

            This is blasphemy on BBF. It's all about the imaginary game here.

            But you are right on the money. Baseball is played in situations.
            This week's Giant

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

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JR Hart View Post
              This is blasphemy on BBF. It's all about the imaginary game here.

              But you are right on the money. Baseball is played in situations.
              Right, it doesn't matter what people actually posted here , it always comes down to the one single conclusion regardless how hyperbolized and flat out wrong that first statement is.
              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 Herr28 View Post
                I would like to read his book, what is the title and ISBN so I can look it up online? Of course autobiographies and biographies in general are not really great historical sources, but they are still very interesting to get the viewpoint of the individual during the time being explored....

                Anyway, I'd appreciate the info on the book, Second Base Coach, if you have it handy that is. Thanks!
                Garvey's book is titled "My Bat Boy Days" and it is still in print and widely available. In it he claims to have learned all these life lessons and baseball culture from the Boys of Summer. Of course, I envy him a bit for having actually working in the dugouts and on the fields during spring training in Florida, but what kid wouldn't? It was written "with" Ken Gurnick and Candace Garvey and contains lots of unverifiable and highly questionable claims about how dedicated he is to the game, but it might be worth the read if you can stomach more shameless self-promotion.
                Baseball is a ballet without music. Drama without words ~Ernie Harwell

                Comment


                • Originally posted by trosmok View Post
                  Garvey's book is titled "My Bat Boy Days" and it is still in print and widely available. In it he claims to have learned all these life lessons and baseball culture from the Boys of Summer. Of course, I envy him a bit for having actually working in the dugouts and on the fields during spring training in Florida, but what kid wouldn't? It was written "with" Ken Gurnick and Candace Garvey and contains lots of unverifiable and highly questionable claims about how dedicated he is to the game, but it might be worth the read if you can stomach more shameless self-promotion.
                  All autobiographies and far too many biographies are shameless self promotion. That is why I don't focus on them, or even consider them "primary" source material while working on my history degree down here. They are fun to read to get a person's individual take on things, but can still be colored by the changing views (and hindsight) depending on how many years after the fact they are written. We see it in books by famous people all the time, as they try and frame things they did or said years before into a better light - depending on the prevailing thought when the book is being written. No, biographies (many of them anyway, certainly not all of them) and autobiographies are not read for any real purpose other than for fun. I would need to back up any claims in any of those books with a lot of other primary source material to feel comfortable using them in any scholarly work.

                  Thanks for the info though, trosmok! I appreciate it and figured the request just got buried deep in the argument! Thanks again.
                  "It ain't braggin' if you can do it." Dizzy Dean

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herr28 View Post
                    All autobiographies and far too many biographies are shameless self promotion. That is why I don't focus on them, or even consider them "primary" source material while working on my history degree down here....
                    Thanks for the info though, trosmok! I appreciate it and figured the request just got buried deep in the argument! Thanks again.
                    Garvey attempts to somehow insert himself in Dodger legend by his ties to the famous Boys of Summer, but Robinson, Erskine, Reese, Furillo and the rest likely just remembered him as just another one of the freckled face kids of spring trainings. If you would like a better read, and a far more fascinating tale, Ron LeFlore's book "Breakout: from Prison to the Big Leagues" ranks far higher on my list, and it is certainly not the sugar coated fluff called "One in a Million: the Ron LeFlore story" that was a Levar Burton movie that they made a book based on.

                    In general, history and historical fiction are often too similar in content to take as scholarly works. LOL!
                    Last edited by trosmok; 11-25-2013, 06:32 AM.
                    Baseball is a ballet without music. Drama without words ~Ernie Harwell

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by trosmok View Post
                      Garvey attempts to somehow insert himself in Dodger legend by his ties to the famous Boys of Summer, but Robinson, Erskine, Reese, Furillo and the rest likely just remembered him as just another one of the freckled face kids of spring trainings. If you would like a better read, and a far more fascinating tale, Ron LeFlore's book "Breakout: from Prison to the Big Leagues" ranks far higher on my list, and it is certainly not the sugar coated fluff called "One in a Million: the Ron LeFlore story" that was a Levar Burton movie that they made a book based on.

                      In general, history and historical fiction are often too similar in content to take as scholarly works. LOL!
                      I saw "One in a Million: the Ron LeFlore story" as a very young kid, maybe 8 years old. It was perfect for me at the time, for what that's worth. Sugar-coated fluff has its place.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by trosmok View Post
                        Garvey attempts to somehow insert himself in Dodger legend by his ties to the famous Boys of Summer, but Robinson, Erskine, Reese, Furillo and the rest likely just remembered him as just another one of the freckled face kids of spring trainings
                        If as a Dodger, one plays in 8 consecutive all star games, wins 4 consecutive gold gloves; is League MVP, 2x ASG MVP, NLCS MVP, has 5 top 10 MVP finishes, and is a key member of 4 pennant winners and a World Championship team, I would then assert that they ARE part of Dodger legend.
                        This week's Giant

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

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by trosmok View Post
                          Garvey attempts to somehow insert himself in Dodger legend by his ties to the famous Boys of Summer, but Robinson, Erskine, Reese, Furillo and the rest likely just remembered him as just another one of the freckled face kids of spring trainings. If you would like a better read, and a far more fascinating tale, Ron LeFlore's book "Breakout: from Prison to the Big Leagues" ranks far higher on my list, and it is certainly not the sugar coated fluff called "One in a Million: the Ron LeFlore story" that was a Levar Burton movie that they made a book based on.

                          In general, history and historical fiction are often too similar in content to take as scholarly works. LOL!
                          One of my favorite historians to read here recently is AJP Taylor, and he insists that history must be written as closely to historical fiction as possible - without the historian actually making fiction out of the history. He says a book stuffed with historical facts can't read like (my words) stereo instructions (can't remember the exact analogy he used, but similar to that). The work must capture the reader's attention and read like the story that it is, and he points out that really the historical record may be far more fiction-like than anything a fiction writer could make up on their own! Great writer, his stuff reads so much easier than many other great historians and their slow going scholarly writing. Yikes. They sure know how to scare people away from history in some of those works! Good information, bad delivery!

                          Actually, his works on Modern Europe really do read like some of the better baseball books I have read. He does a good job taking a 500+ page book like the one I am reading now, The Struggle for Mastery in Europe 1848-1918, and can make it a real page turner! Imagine that, a very well researched and written diplomatic history book that reads like a very well put together book on a fantastic baseball season of yore. Excellent.
                          "It ain't braggin' if you can do it." Dizzy Dean

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Second Base Coach View Post
                            Thank you for the reference. Let me add to that.

                            If you look at Mark Grace, you might find the type of player Garvey would have been (on the back of the baseball card) if he walked more. Time and again the cry from the masses here at BBF is "the bum never walked, he made too many outs, he should have reached base more often."

                            Fine. If you turn some outs on balls in play into walks, if you turn some strikeouts into walks, turn some hits into walks, I think you would see a reduction in homers, a loss of RBI, not much of an increase in runs scored, and SLG and BA staying about the same.

                            Yup. You get Mark Grace. And that does Garvey no favors in the HOF vote. Active players were hitting 40-50-60 homers at that time and you needed 130+ RBI to lead the league. Heck, Grace PLAYED during that time and how well did Grace fare when it came time to vote?
                            Thank you for this comparison. One of the things about Grace is he played for some really bad Cubs teams over the years and at one point, you could say he was the best player on that team. Indeed the only thing he really had going for him as far as Cooperstown goes was leading the 1990's in hits. Grace's value might have been higher had he played out the 1990's with some really good or great teams, but in the end he's just an easy nod for the Hall of Very Good. I don't know of anyone that really thought of Grace as a future Hall of Famer. He was in that group of people who needed 3,000 hits to even have a shot.
                            RIP Ronnie James Dio (July 10, 1942 - May 16, 2010).

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Ace Venom View Post
                              Thank you for this comparison. One of the things about Grace is he played for some really bad Cubs teams over the years and at one point, you could say he was the best player on that team. Indeed the only thing he really had going for him as far as Cooperstown goes was leading the 1990's in hits. Grace's value might have been higher had he played out the 1990's with some really good or great teams, but in the end he's just an easy nod for the Hall of Very Good. I don't know of anyone that really thought of Grace as a future Hall of Famer. He was in that group of people who needed 3,000 hits to even have a shot.
                              I was a huge fan of Gracie back when he played for the I-Cubs! However, I always knew that when those guys got promoted (demoted in my book), I would not be cheering for them. I was happy for him and quite a few other veteran players on that 2001 Snakes team that won it all.
                              "It ain't braggin' if you can do it." Dizzy Dean

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herr28 View Post
                                All autobiographies and far too many biographies are shameless self promotion. That is why I don't focus on them, or even consider them "primary" source material while working on my history degree down here. They are fun to read to get a person's individual take on things, but can still be colored by the changing views (and hindsight) depending on how many years after the fact they are written. We see it in books by famous people all the time, as they try and frame things they did or said years before into a better light - depending on the prevailing thought when the book is being written. No, biographies (many of them anyway, certainly not all of them) and autobiographies are not read for any real purpose other than for fun. I would need to back up any claims in any of those books with a lot of other primary source material to feel comfortable using them in any scholarly work.

                                Thanks for the info though, trosmok! I appreciate it and figured the request just got buried deep in the argument! Thanks again.
                                I wouldn't say all biographies are like this. I just finished Jackie Robinson's I Never Had It Made. Robinson certainly wasn't pumping himself up in this book. He was very open and forthright about the death of his oldest son Jackie, Jr. and how he felt he failed his son in many ways. He talks about going before Congress to discuss comments made Paul Robeson made about black people would not defend America if attacked by communist forces. Robinson took a lot of heat from the black community for "attacking" Robeson. He also talks about his run ins with people like Malcolm X and how he had a grudgingly respect for Malcolm even though he completely disagreed with Malcolm X's racial separatist views. He admits that he made mistakes about how he ran Freedom National bank. Granted, this autobiography was published shortly after Robinson died.
                                Last edited by Honus Wagner Rules; 11-25-2013, 07:44 AM.
                                Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X