Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Steve Garvey

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

  • Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
    And I believe the other player is Terry Kennedy. I love 1980's baseball!
    Yep. That was the numbers 2 (Gwynn), 3 (Garvey), 4 (Nettles), and 5 (Kennedy) hitters on that 1984 NL champion Padres squad! I posted that photo in the 1984 Padres thread I started before the Great Disturbance of 2013. It was lost with all those others.
    "It ain't braggin' if you can do it." Dizzy Dean

    Comment


    • Originally posted by GiambiJuice View Post
      Just among first-basemen, Steve Garvey ranks:

      36th in WAR
      37th in home runs
      8th in hits
      20th in RBI
      23rd in runs
      19th in doubles
      94th in walks
      14th in total bases
      24th in extra-base hits
      28th in batting average (min. 5,000 PA, only including retired players)
      82nd in on-base percentage (min. 5,000 PA, only including retired players)
      47th in slugging percentage (min. 5,000 PA, only including retired players)
      65th in OPS (min. 5,000 PA, only including retired players)
      48th in OPS+ (min. 5,000 PA, only including retired players)

      This was before the 2013 season, so he only could have moved down.
      OK, everything he ranks poorly in leads back to just one thing. He did not walk much. His teams needed him to hit the ball (and not just singles) and drive in runs. His rankings tied to those results are very good.

      If he had a job to do and a role to play and he was effective then why knock him for not walking more? It's like saying Lou Brock was terrible because he did not hit enough home runs. Was that his role in his offenses? No... we judge him on OBP and baserunning ability. Was Ozzie Smith ineffective because he did not drive in more runs? Brooks Robinson never scored 100 runs in a season and only topped 90 once. But oh well we made him a legend because he could field his position and made some nice plays in the post season so we have that on film. Joe Gordon had a batting average of .268 but look at the MVP voting during his career. Those voters were looking for something else, just like the Yankees.

      I know this is a tired subject, but everytime someone brings up his worst stats, they are all tied to one thing: a lack of walks. I really doubt the Dodgers would have been better off if he traded six hits and fourteen outs every year for twenty walks. That's less than one additional walk a week. But I am sure his OBP and OPS and OPS+ and of course his walk total would have improved. That would boost his rankings quoted above. So why not add 300 (20 times 15) walks to his record and maybe give him a .300 lifetime batting average thanks to him now being more selective. Of couse he would have fewer RBI and perhaps a few more runs scored. And certainly fewer than 200 hits per year.

      Historically, who do we get? Mark Grace? How did HE do in the HOF voting? Why not post HIS rankings in those 14 stats and see how they compare. Anyone who wished Garvey walked more is asking him to become Mark Grace. No one knows for sure if the Dodgers would have won more games with that type of production. I am just throwing out one opinion, and opinion that states "no way".
      Last edited by Second Base Coach; 12-30-2013, 09:36 PM.
      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 know this is a tired subject, but everytime someone brings up his worst stats, they are all tied to one thing: a lack of walks. I really doubt the Dodgers would have been better off if he traded six hits and fourteen outs every year for twenty walks. That's less than one additional walk a week. But I am sure his OBP and OPS and OPS+ and of course his walk total would have improved. That would boost his rankings quoted above. So why not add 300 (20 times 15) walks to his record and maybe give him a .300 lifetime batting average thanks to him now being more selective. Of couse he would have fewer RBI and perhaps a few more runs scored. And certainly fewer than 200 hits per year.
        A poster with reason. It will of course fall flat with the saber crowd. Garvey did exactly whart his manager wanted. The teams that he played on were hugely sucessful (another thing that won't matter here) and Garvey was a great postseason player (another thing that won't matter here). The human element of baseball, team success, and post season success, ring hallow the saber crowd. It's all about walks.
        This week's Giant

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

        Comment


        • Well, he is 8th in hits and 14th in total bases among 1B, so he's got that going for him.
          http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploa...-showalter.gif

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JR Hart View Post
            The teams that he played on were hugely sucessful (another thing that won't matter here)
            Out of curiosity, do you know what his teams W% were during his years?
            Last edited by 1905 Giants; 12-30-2013, 11:26 PM.
            “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


            • Where is he in games played and plate appearances?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by GiambiJuice View Post
                Just among first-basemen, Steve Garvey ranks:

                36th in WAR
                37th in home runs
                8th in hits
                20th in RBI
                23rd in runs
                19th in doubles
                94th in walks
                14th in total bases
                24th in extra-base hits
                28th in batting average (min. 5,000 PA, only including retired players)
                82nd in on-base percentage (min. 5,000 PA, only including retired players)
                47th in slugging percentage (min. 5,000 PA, only including retired players)
                65th in OPS (min. 5,000 PA, only including retired players)
                48th in OPS+ (min. 5,000 PA, only including retired players)

                This was before the 2013 season, so he only could have moved down.
                Originally posted by Second Base Coach View Post
                OK, everything he ranks poorly in leads back to just one thing. He did not walk much. His teams needed him to hit the ball (and not just singles) and drive in runs. His rankings tied to those results are very good.

                ....
                Not really. There are about 20 spots for the Hall of Fame per position. Among first basemen, he's 28th in average (hitting the ball), 37th in homers (helps drive in runs), 24th in extra base hits (again, batting in runs), 23rd in runs (they wanted him to score), 47th in slugging percentage (average plus power), 20th in RBI (barely good enough)--and it goes downhill if you include the categories that include walks. Also, please note that the 20 figure includes Negro Leaguers. Spin it however you wish, the cold, hard facts are that Garvey, while good, doesn't quite have a HOF resume.
                Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
                Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
                A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by jalbright View Post
                  Spin it however you wish, the cold, hard facts are that Garvey, while good, doesn't quite have a HOF resume.
                  As the writers who saw him closest overwhelmingly agreed with....

                  And then lastly came sabermetrics, which are again getting all the blame.
                  1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

                  1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

                  1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


                  The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
                  The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by jalbright View Post
                    Not really. There are about 20 spots for the Hall of Fame per position. Among first basemen, he's 28th in average (hitting the ball), 37th in homers (helps drive in runs), 24th in extra base hits (again, batting in runs), 23rd in runs (they wanted him to score), 47th in slugging percentage (average plus power), 20th in RBI (barely good enough)--and it goes downhill if you include the categories that include walks. Also, please note that the 20 figure includes Negro Leaguers. Spin it however you wish, the cold, hard facts are that Garvey, while good, doesn't quite have a HOF resume.
                    You are forgetting something.

                    A guy can be outside the top twenty in ten different categories. You have shown that. But which is more impressive, to be inside the top twenty in two of ten categories, or inside the top forty of all ten?

                    We can choose stats like base hits, total bases, RBI, Extra Base hits, Batting Average, Games played, (Runs and RBI minus HR), Doubles, Fielding Percentage, Batting Wins, hits per game, RBI per season, post-season OPS, stats like that. And those are where he stacks up great. He will be inside the top whatever in all of them if you sort by position. Once you have that handy, I am pretty sure there aren't twenty guys who can say they too are in the top forty of all ten.

                    I am choosing my stats carefully of course. This is of course what Bill James calls a "we can make a list" argument for trying to include someone in the HOF.

                    I really don't want to do that. All I try to get out there is folks keep throwing six stats out there to bash the guy. His detractors are also choosing their stats carefully. They all lead back to a lack of walks that is one thing.

                    My stats lead back to a lot of things. Playing every day. Hitting the ball with extra base power. Driving in runs. Generating runs without home runs. Getting hits rather than walks. Raw RBI totals. Real runs on the board. A lack of errors.

                    Drawing more walks would have fixed all six stats that may continue to trot out. It is a common thing and very one dimensional. It seems silly that one small part of his game can be used to drag the guy down. Especially when it was not his job to take a walk. And if he did, he would not be a better candidate anyway. It would just make him Mark Grace.
                    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


                    • Gee, this is post 806 about Garvey!! Just about everything has been said. At the end of the day he was fine player who did a lot of good things for his teams. But, there were 20 or 25 or maybe 30 other first basemen out there who did even more- some a lot more, some a little bit more. Those are the guys who are more deserving of the HOF. Garvey was very good- just not good enough to make it to the HOF.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JR Hart View Post
                        A poster with reason. It will of course fall flat with the saber crowd. Garvey did exactly whart his manager wanted. The teams that he played on were hugely sucessful (another thing that won't matter here) and Garvey was a great postseason player (another thing that won't matter here). The human element of baseball, team success, and post season success, ring hallow the saber crowd. It's all about walks.
                        Exactly. If a poor showing in five or six stats can all be traced back to one small facet of the game, someone is picking their stats carefully.

                        Rod Carew did not have a ton of RBI. He had some good seasons in that department. He averaged a few more walks than Garvey per 162 (67 vs 33) and Carew of course had the higher batting average. I use these guys because they were playing in the same All-Star games every year.

                        Garvey is bashed because he did not walk more. Well, where is the cry that Carew should have put more runs on the scoreboard despite twice the walks and the fact Carew's batting average was the same as Garvey's on-base percentage?

                        Any argument that leads back to quality of the lineups and position in the batting order is a win for me. Think about it. What was the job of each man in his batting order? How well did he do that job? I think both were good enough in their roles to make the ASG.

                        We often forget a man's place inside his team's batting order and keeping that in mind when ranking him among his peers. There is also time and place but you have to look that up. The steroid era ruined a lot of the fun of course. There used to be a time, and not so long ago that twenty home runs and 100 RBI would put you in the top ten in the league in both categories.
                        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 BigRon View Post
                          Gee, this is post 806 about Garvey!! Just about everything has been said. At the end of the day he was fine player who did a lot of good things for his teams. But, there were 20 or 25 or maybe 30 other first basemen out there who did even more- some a lot more, some a little bit more. Those are the guys who are more deserving of the HOF. Garvey was very good- just not good enough to make it to the HOF.
                          If there is room for 30 Hall of Fame first basemen, a case can be made that he should be one of them.

                          This is true if we can kick a few guys out when we make our list of 30.
                          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


                          • Well, since the size of one's HOF preference is completely subjective, it is a foolproof argument. In the size of HOF that some like, there is certainly room for Garvey. Congrats- we can't argue with that.
                            1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

                            1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

                            1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


                            The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
                            The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by PVNICK View Post
                              Where is he in games played and plate appearances?
                              Games at first: 15th
                              Putouts at first: 14th
                              Double Plays: 23rd
                              Assists: 47th
                              Fielding Percentage: 7th, 3rd among anyone retired

                              And here we see how the man knew his limitations and made a choice not to throw the ball.
                              Bill James writes extensively about this in his Historical abstract when comparing Garvey to Bill Buckner.
                              Fewer throws with a suspect arm, fewer errors. And his arm was not as bad as the stories often told.

                              Plate Appearances by players who played at least half their games at first base: 10th
                              Without the 1981 strike he would be 7th.
                              His PA are right there and just ahead of Grace, Helton, and Bagwell.
                              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 Bothrops Atrox View Post
                                Well, since the size of one's HOF preference is completely subjective, it is a foolproof argument. In the size of HOF that some like, there is certainly room for Garvey. Congrats- we can't argue with that.
                                And that is part of the problem. How big to we want the HOF to be? I don't want it to be TOO big mind you. But some people insist it would have to include the top 50 at each position for him to have a place. I say that we don't have to go THAT far.
                                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

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X