Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Steve Garvey

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by RuthMayBond
    Davey Lopes has an adjusted fielding production rate of 97 and -38 adjusted runs above average. Bill Russell had 99 and -20.
    Were not Russell and Lopes (later Sax) actually mediocre fielders, especially in committing throwing errors?

    In fact, that was considered one of the Dodgers' weaknesses at that time and Garvey was credited for saving a lot of errors by Russell and Lopes (later Sax) buy his exceptional "scooping" skills.

    Those Dodger team did many thing well and had good pitching, but fielding was not their forte.
    Last edited by Bluesteve32; 08-16-2005, 10:25 AM.
    http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/ex...eline_1961.jpg

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Brooklyn
      Just wanted to throw out a name that isn't brought up all that much. He was one of the premier first basemen in the game for 70's and early 80's. Looking back at his stats, they were better than I remembered. Here are some of his achievements:
      • 10-time all-star (only Bill Freehan - 11 and Ryne Sandberg -10 played in as many and are not in the HOF)
      • MVP in 1974 and 4 other top 10's, including 2nd in voting in 1978
      • 2 time All star game MVP
      • 2 time NLCS MVP
      • 4 time gold glove winner
      • Grey ink of 142 - right around average HOFer
      • His counting stats are a little light, with 2599 hits, 272 HRs and 1308 RBI's, but the power numbers were not bad for his era, being top ten in HRs 3 times and RBI's 7 times
      • 1,207 consuective games played, fourth most all-time and NL record
      • Outstanding post-season performer, .338/.361/.550 in 55 post season games, all well above his regular season numbers, including batting .417 to help the Dodgers win the 1981 world series


      I would have liked to see him finish his career a little stronger. He dropped off significantly as the Padres starting first basemen from 1985 to 1986 before being a bench player in 1987 and out of baseball at the end of that year. He had 2,441 career hits at the age of 36 (by contrast Boggs only had 2,392 through age 36, and Winfield had 2,421 through age 36, for example), so a stronger finish and he could have made a run at 3,000.

      I do think he falls short of the HOF line, but wanted to throw his name out there to start some discussion.
      Steve Garvey at the end of his career was to busy getting women pregnant, than playing baseball. Steve Garvey has 9 children.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by NOMAR22
        Steve Garvey at the end of his career was to busy getting women pregnant, than playing baseball. Steve Garvey has 9 children.
        Look, I'm no supporter of his HOF candidacy, but what does this drivel have to do with Steve Garvey the ballplayer?

        Jim Albright
        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


        • #94
          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?
          The only way to determine whether he was hurt by Dodger Stadium is to review his Home/Away splits. I don't have time to get them and post them so if someone else would.....?

          One more thing....Steve Garvey made a lot of outs....a lot. He simply would not or could not take a walk. He had a short compact swing, therefore he didn't strike out very much but he swung at bad pitches quite often.

          Of course, he may have been under orders from Lasorda to swing away...plus the Dodgers were winning...so why break up a winning combination?

          Actually I think Ron Cey was the better player.

          Yankees Fan Since 1957

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by yanks0714
            The only way to determine whether he was hurt by Dodger Stadium is to review his Home/Away splits. I don't have time to get them and post them so if someone else would.....?

            One more thing....Steve Garvey made a lot of outs....a lot. He simply would not or could not take a walk. He had a short compact swing, therefore he didn't strike out very much but he swung at bad pitches quite often.

            Of course, he may have been under orders from Lasorda to swing away...plus the Dodgers were winning...so why break up a winning combination?

            Actually I think Ron Cey was the better player.
            Garvey Home-.298/.334/.458
            Garvey Road-.290/.325/.434

            Those are his splits. But, Yanks, don't trust splits so blindly. They have a lot of problems. It could really be argued that a smart hitter should always do better at home.

            BTW, not only was Cey a better player, Davey Lopes was too.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by 538280
              Garvey Home-.298/.334/.458
              Garvey Road-.290/.325/.434

              BTW, not only was Cey a better player, Davey Lopes was too.
              I don't agree with you .Steve Garvey was better than Davey Lopes and Ron Cey. Garvey was the star on the team.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Chancellor
                There's nothing in Garvey's career that can reasonably demonstrate why the BBWAA ought to elect him.
                This is just not true. Garvey has a HOF credible HOF case. I would not support him at this time, given more deserving candidates that are not in, but his case is far from ridiculous:

                (A) From 1974-80, Steve Garvey was, overall, the best 1B in the NL. It wasn't by a landslide, and in certain years, there were better players at 1B, but for that 7 year period, Garvey was the best.

                (B) Garvey played in 10 All-Star games. That's a lot of games.

                (C) Garvey was a key player in five pennant winners (one World Champion). He was, arguably, the best position player on most, if not all, of the 4 Dodger pennant winners he played on.

                (D) Garvey's career totals are less than they could be because he played in poor hitters parks his entire career.

                (E) Garvey's career totals are also less then they could be because he started late. The idea that he started in 1969 is riduculous; that was THREE at bats. The Dodgers tried to give him the 3B job in 1971, but he had a chronic shoulder injury; he was a half-time player for three years before being installed at 1B full time.

                (F) The perception that Garvey was a great player was a perception of people that saw him while he was active. I remember how Curt Gowdy used to call Garvey "the toughest out in baseball", and there was much truth to that description. True, Garvey didn't walk a lot, but he got a lot of hits and hit for average. (The comparision to Mark Grace in this thread is unfair and inaccurate; Garvey displayed FAR more power in a TOUGHER era in TOUGHER ballparks than did Grace.)

                Garvey's BA fell below .300, and that hurt him. His counting stats are OK, but now overwhelming for a HOF candidate. He's better than Kelly, and probably better than Bottomley in the HOF line, but that's not an argument FOR Garvey; it's an indictment of the Frisch VC Cabal. But his case is far from riduculous. Garvey did many things that HOFers do, and he was great at his peak.
                "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


                • #98
                  I agree that Garv is a HOFer. Anyone who followed the Padres since 1984 or earlier will never forget game 4 of the NLCS that year and Garv's game winning Homer. It still ranks among the greatest moments in Pad history.
                  The ironic thing is the Dodgers still haven't found the sense to retire Number 6 while the Pads have. Despite that, his plaque should and will have a Dodger cap on it.
                  You notice I said "will". I believe he will eventually get in.

                  Welcome back ARod. Hope you are a Yankee forever.
                  Phil Rizzuto-a Yankee forever.

                  Holy Cow

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Not even qualified to be a dogcatcher

                    He'd probably accidently let the dogs out while being distracted by his reflection in a mirror.

                    Originally posted by soberdennis
                    ... Dodgers still haven't found the sense to retire Number 6 while the Pads have. Despite that, his plaque should and will have a Dodger cap on it....
                    No way, Jose. Perhaps if they add a wing for the "Hall of Better than Mediocre" ~see posts#16, 22, & 65.
                    Baseball is a ballet without music. Drama without words ~Ernie Harwell

                    Comment


                    • Even as a Dodger fan, there is no way I can support Garvey for HOF. Ron Cey was the better Dodger IFer during that era and he isn't in yet.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by flash143817
                        Even as a Dodger fan, there is no way I can support Garvey for HOF. Ron Cey was the better Dodger IFer during that era and he isn't in yet.
                        Cey has a surprisingly strong HOF case, IMO. He may well have been the best player on those Dodger teams. Don Sutton said Reggie Smith was (although Sutton had a famous axe to grind with Garvey).

                        Still, it was the opinion of most observers of Garvey's time that Garvey was the best player on the Dodger teams that won pennants in the 1970s. It was not unanimous, but it was a consensus of the time. Hindsight teaches us some things, but the opinions of contemporary observers is feedback from guys who actually saw Garvey play.
                        "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


                        • Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear
                          Still, it was the opinion of most observers of Garvey's time that Garvey was the best player on the Dodger teams that won pennants in the 1970s. It was not unanimous, but it was a consensus of the time. Hindsight teaches us some things, but the opinions of contemporary observers is feedback from guys who actually saw Garvey play.
                          Now I disagree, and this is why I have some serious problems with using comtemporary opinion when rating players. The same thing is true of Jim Rice. Garvey was regarded to be the best Dodger infielder, not because the observers at the time had some great insight into his talents as a ballplayer, but because of misinterpretation of statistics. They were unable to look past Garvey's pretty BA and nice RBI totals, to see that the fact he rarely walked and hit for relatively little power for a 1Bman made him not all that productive a hitter. Why should we credit Garvey because the comtemporary observers didn't understand how to properly interpret his statistics?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by 538280
                            Now I disagree, and this is why I have some serious problems with using comtemporary opinion when rating players. The same thing is true of Jim Rice. Garvey was regarded to be the best Dodger infielder, not because the observers at the time had some great insight into his talents as a ballplayer, but because of misinterpretation of statistics. They were unable to look past Garvey's pretty BA and nice RBI totals, to see that the fact he rarely walked and hit for relatively little power for a 1Bman made him not all that productive a hitter. Why should we credit Garvey because the comtemporary observers didn't understand how to properly interpret his statistics?
                            Chris,

                            In this specific case I agree with you, but many times, the case is not so clear-cut, and then there is definite value in contemporary opinion. Remember James' statement that it isn't any one thing, but the overall weight of the evidence that should decide these matters. Contemporary opinion is a valid form of evidence, but one which is vulnerable to issues such as you raise. In cases like Garvey's, I think there is more than enough evidence to rebut the contemporary opinion--but that doesn't invalidate such evidence across the board. Those people knew things about Steve Garvey you never will simply because they saw him play. That certainly doesn't make them invariably correct, but even the analytical deficiencies of contemporary opinion don't inevitably render such opinion valueless. A grain, pinch, and even sometimes a shaker full of salt is needed with such opinion at times, though.

                            Jim Albright
                            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


                            • Garvey's (subsequently marred) poster boy image certainly helped his image, and thus standing amongst many of his contemporaries.

                              I would give his candidacy a rather definitive thumbs down, but I don't deny that at one point he was really seen as one of the best players around.
                              THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD

                              In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear
                                Cey has a surprisingly strong HOF case, IMO. He may well have been the best player on those Dodger teams. Don Sutton said Reggie Smith was (although Sutton had a famous axe to grind with Garvey).

                                Still, it was the opinion of most observers of Garvey's time that Garvey was the best player on the Dodger teams that won pennants in the 1970s. It was not unanimous, but it was a consensus of the time. Hindsight teaches us some things, but the opinions of contemporary observers is feedback from guys who actually saw Garvey play.
                                Yeah Cey's HOF case should be stronger than it appears to be in reality. He was the best infielder on that famous infield even if it wasn't recognized at the time. I never saw either of them play but I've heard of his exploits from my dad and such. We kinda have a running joke that every time a guy strikes out on a low and outside curveball it's a Garvey pitch because he would always swing at that pitch, but swing with his normal cut instead of adjusting and leaning/lunging toward the pitch.

                                So my only contemporary account of Garvey's play was given by a person (my dad) who wasn't really a big Garvey fan and believed that Cey was the better of the two, which is supported by their respective numbers.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X