Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Steve Garvey

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by 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.
    Right, but was he as good as all the people in that group? That's the point; if you're saying "he was as good as those people, and here's why", well, I don't agree with your conclusion, or the belief that that's a good way of going about determining if he is, but at least it'd be a clear argument. If you're not saying that, then the point is somewhat mysterious. Are you saying 6 seasons of 200 hits is in and of itself a Hall worthy accomplishment, in the same way that 3000 hits is? OK, no, I know that's not what you're saying. But what exactly are you saying? It sounds like you're saying getting 200 hits is an end, rather than a means to an end. If Garvey's 200-hit seasons couldn't bring his performance up to a Hall of Fame level, well, that's that. The performance itself is what's important, not what went into it.
    "Hall of Famer Whitey Ford now on the field... pleading with the crowd for, for some kind of sanity!"

    Comment


    • #77
      Okay, let's face it -- statistically he doesn't quite measure up. The "six seasons of 200 hits" is sort of the Sutton argument on a season-by-season basis: by playing in every game for a good team, he got lots of at-bats.

      Where he created the initial buzz as a potential HOF candidate is that he was just generally regarded for awhile as the best 1B in the league and a leader on a very good team; albeit in a period where there weren't that many hot-hitting first baseman relative to league history. That kind of regard is what helped propel Ryne Sandberg into the HOF.

      The backlash against him stems from his sanctimonious, self-promoted "goody two-shoes" image and supposedly perfect marriage with a celebrity wife. As quoted in Wikipedia:
      "For most of his career, Garvey had a very clean-cut public image. For example, in a TV interview before the 1974 World Series when he explained that "I always try to act as though there is a little boy or a little girl around, and I try never to do anything that would give them a bad example." Garvey even had political aspirations, as he would gain the nickname "Senator."

      So, it is not all that surprising that his astounding fall from grace -- "When two years after he played his last Major League game, it was revealed that he had fathered several children out of wedlock and was engaged to two women at the same time" -- was greeted with such cheerful derision."

      And, he's still up to it. On his SteveGarvey.com web site promoting himself as an inspirational speaker, he poses saluting the flag like this and describes himself in part this way:
      "To only focus on Steve Garvey's baseball accomplishments would leave out a lifetime of achievements as a businessman, philanthropist, volunteer and most importantly a devoted family man. As a father of seven children Garvey understands that in the ever-changing world we live in there is a great necessity of being a man of honor, integrity and quality."

      LOL -- I guess the more families you have, the more of a "family man" you are, eh?
      Last edited by Ursa Major; 08-08-2005, 03:03 PM.
      sigpicIt's not whether you fall -- everyone does -- but how you come out of the fall that counts.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Ursa Major
        Okay, let's face it -- statistically he doesn't quite measure up. The "six seasons of 200 hits" is sort of the Sutton argument on a season-by-season basis: by playing in every game for a good team, he got lots of at-bats.

        Where he created the initial buzz as a potential HOF candidate is that he was just generally regarded for awhile as the best 1B in the league and a leader on a very good team; albeit in a period where there weren't that money
        No, isn't he on third?
        I don't know
        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


        • #79
          Originally posted by Chancellor
          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."
          Thanks for answering my vote, Chancellor. Obviously I'm not saying the impact of players on MYSELF, or a single sportswriter, should be a reason to induce somebody into the hall of fame. What I'm saying is that real baseball analists should ANALIZE not only stats, but also MERITS from players during their time and beyond, and PONDER all of the info to cast a vote as unobjectable as possible (which I know is utterly utopic, but aren't sports analists paid to do such work?).
          Nonetheless, I still believe Steve Garvey deserves a place in Cooperstown.
          I sincerely appreciate and respect your point of view. Thanks again for answering.
          Last edited by ValenzFan; 08-10-2005, 03:56 PM. Reason: Mistaken Nick

          Comment


          • #80
            Was Garvey's career really half as valuable as Alvin Davis' and John Mayberry's?

            Was Garvey worth only one-tenth of Frank Thomas? I mean, Thomas is better -- way better, it's not even close -- but ten times better??

            Was Pedro Guerrero really twice as good -- twice as good! -- as Don Mattingly, Cecil Cooper, and Mark Grace?

            These conclusions generated from this statistic just don't pass my BS detector. I mean, I know damn well that Don Mattingly was better than Pedro Guerrero. I was there. I saw them both play. In person.

            Maybe some fancy statistical analysis could convince me that I'm missing something about Guerrero, and that he was a lot better than he looked, and I know Mattingly tailed off badly at the end and didn't walk enough...but Guerrero twice as good?? There's something wrong with the measuring stick.

            I've never understood the RCAA statistic well. I know it doesn't account for defense, which accounts for part of the disconnect. All I know is that it claims to explain practically everything, and it generates some results that conflict with both common sense and some more transparent types of statistical measurement.

            I actually have very little quibble with your conclusion that there are a lot of 1b better than Garvey who are not in the HOF. That's probably so, and there are several different methods by which one can come to that conclusion.

            I am disputing the runs created statistic.[/QUOTE]


            You are using faulty logic here. You can't look at a players X above average and use it proportionally to measure against other players.

            To carry this argument to the extreme a player with 1500 games an a RCAA of 1 is not 1/100 as valuable as one with 100.

            Also, average play has value. So a player with 1500 games and a RCAA of 0 does not have zero value.

            Danny

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by 3for3
              You are using faulty logic here. You can't look at a players X above average and use it proportionally to measure against other players.

              To carry this argument to the extreme a player with 1500 games an a RCAA of 1 is not 1/100 as valuable as one with 100.

              Also, average play has value. So a player with 1500 games and a RCAA of 0 does not have zero value.

              Danny
              Danny's quoting me (from two years ago!); I'm not sure whether he's saying I'm using faulty logic or the measure I'm disputing is -- I think it's the measure I'm disputing.

              Welcome to the site, 3-4-3.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Cougar
                Danny's quoting me (from two years ago!); I'm not sure whether he's saying I'm using faulty logic or the measure I'm disputing is -- I think it's the measure I'm disputing.

                Welcome to the site, 3-4-3.
                He's saying you are. If 1500 RC is average, and Player 1 has 1700 RC (200 RCAA) and Player 2 has 1900 RC (400 RCAA), Player 2 isn't twice as good as Player 1.
                "Hall of Famer Whitey Ford now on the field... pleading with the crowd for, for some kind of sanity!"

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by iPod
                  He's saying you are. If 1500 RC is average, and Player 1 has 1700 RC (200 RCAA) and Player 2 has 1900 RC (400 RCAA), Player 2 isn't twice as good as Player 1.
                  Well then, I guess I was mistaken. However, the way the results were reported lend themselves to that assumption.

                  I stand by this, however -- if a statistic tells me that Alvin Davis is better than Garvey, either by a lot or a little bit, I'm going to be pretty darn skeptical about that statistic.`

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Three new points I didn't see raised

                    Steve Garvey played a bulk of his time in Dodger Stadium, not generally accepted as a hitter's park. You would expect his extra base offensive numbers to be down.

                    If making it to the HOF was as easy as crunching numbers, there'd be no need for those people who cast the votes

                    If the off field antics of potentially deserving first basemen enters into the discussion, why in the world is Keith Hernandez being mentioned???...snort, snort.

                    Steve Garvey is not a shoe-in and there probably are more deserving folks still being excluded. Seeing him play, in my opinion, makes a difference because there are certain intangibles that should factor in to any HOF decision - but not sentimentality like in the case of Kirby Puckett (a great player, not HOF), Phil Rizzuto (hugely overrated, Holy Cow!), and Bill Mazeroski (single, noteworthy event) - none of whom deserve to be there.

                    Someone mentioned that Mike Marshall was a better Dodgers first baseman than Steve Garvey - are you sniffing glue?
                    Last edited by Pighead; 08-14-2005, 09:45 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Pighead
                      Steve Garvey played a bulk of his time in Dodger Stadium, not generally accepted as a hitter's park. You would expect his extra base offensive numbers to be down.
                      Most advanced rates that have that in consideration.. and they still have him rated poorly among 1B.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        --I think the comment on Mike Marshall was regarding the relief pitcher that was Garvey's teammate and was a more deserving MVP candidate the year Garvey won it. Even Garvey's worst critics would be unlikely to suggest 1B/OF Mike Marshall was the better player.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          He is how Tommy Lasorda feel about Garvey's hitting ability. He makes a comment that just might have been a decent cricket player.

                          http://www.johnspeedie.com/healy/healybytes.html

                          click on the garvlong.wav or

                          garveyplus.mp3
                          Last edited by Bluesteve32; 08-15-2005, 12:10 AM.
                          http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/ex...eline_1961.jpg

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Garvey for dogcatcher

                            If Steve Garvey is campaigning for anything, rounding up strays is more appropriate for him than Cooperstown. See post #16 dated 7-2-03, and please note he hasn't improved his chances one iota since. No range, no arm, no speed, no pop in his bat, and had three of the best fielders throwing to him for a decade, when those extremely talented Dodger pitchers allowed a ball to be hit into fair territory in the infield. My poor old invalid aunt could likely have put up numbers like Garvey's, (at least on the days she could stand up for ten or fifteen minutes at a whack.) The only way Garvey goes to the HOF is if they dedicate a wing similar to the Frick awards area, but for guys that were all image and no substance; any other nominees fit this category?
                            Last edited by trosmok; 08-15-2005, 12:34 PM.
                            Baseball is a ballet without music. Drama without words ~Ernie Harwell

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by trosmok
                              If Steve Garvey is campaigning for anything, rounding up strays is more appropriate for him than Cooperstown. See post #16 dated 7-2-03, and please note he hasn't improved his chances one iota since. No range, no arm, no speed
                              You sound like this is true of no 1B

                              <no pop in his bat>

                              From '74-80 he was almost 100 points above league SLG

                              <and had three of the best fielders throwing to him for a decade>

                              You're not referring to Russell? and I guess Lopes was better than Sax

                              <when those extremely talented Dodger pitchers allowed a ball to be hit into fair territory in the infield.>

                              Wouldn't that make it more impressive that, just with LA, he led his league in putouts five times? I know, the "best fielders"
                              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


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by trosmok
                                and had three of the best fielders throwing to him for a decade,
                                Davey Lopes has an adjusted fielding production rate of 97 and -38 adjusted runs above average. Bill Russell had 99 and -20.
                                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

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X