Steve Garvey

[Snapolit1]

How does Garvey rank as guys who should be in the Hall but aren't? Any compelling argument he should have gotten in? Admittedly I am not a strong numbers guy at all, but one of my brothers has been beating the drum on Garvey for a while. Any thoughts?

[btcarfagno]

First basemen statistically better than Garvey and not in the HOF (from his era or before or just after):

Keith Hernandez
John Olerud
Fred McGriff
Will Clark
Norm Cash
Dolph Camilli
Gil Hodges
Don Mattingly
Ed Konetchy
Jack Fournier
Joe Judge
Mark Grace
Fred Tenney
Bill White
Boog Powell
Harry Davis
George Scott

So no.

Tom C

[Steve D]

With all due respect Tom, none of those players, with the possible exception of McGriff, Hodges and Hernandez, were better than Garvey.

To me, Garvey, as well as McGriff, Hodges and Hernandez, should be in the Hall of Fame.

Steve

[Peter_Spaeth]

His career stats fall (surprisingly) short, but for a significant period of time he was one of the dominant players in the game, so the argument can be made.

[uniship]

No doubt for a long while Steve Garvey was THE MAN.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Andres Gallaraga too i think should of gotten a better look but Mcgriff tops the list for players in the last 40 years..not garvey

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Steve D

With all due respect Tom, none of those players, with the possible exception of McGriff, Hodges and Hernandez, were better than Garvey.

To me, Garvey, as well as McGriff, Hodges and Hernandez, should be in the Hall of Fame.

Steve

JAWS ranks Garvey as the 51st best 1B of all time. Behind all of the above players. A statistical argument could be made for every player on that list being better than Garvey.

I could also make the argument that Ron Fairly was Garvey's equal.

Tom C

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

JAWS ranks Garvey as the 51st best 1B of all time. Behind all of the above players. A statistical argument could be made for every player on that list being better than Garvey.

I could also make the argument that Ron Fairly was Garvey's equal.

Tom C

Well, the only JAWS I've ever heard of are the movie, Richard Kiel's James Bond character, and Ron Jaworski.

I also only compare players against their peers, look at the stats, and then whatever "intangibles" there are. So really, from your list, I would only compare Garvey to Hernandez. I would honestly induct both of them.

Steve

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Steve D

Well, the only JAWS I've ever heard of are the movie, Richard Kiel's James Bond character, and Ron Jaworski.

I also only compare players against their peers, look at the stats, and then whatever "intangibles" there are. So really, from your list, I would only compare Garvey to Hernandez. I would honestly induct both of them.

Steve

How about Ron Fairly? Please take note of Garvey's terrible plate discipline versus Fairly's excellent plate discipline, and also the fact that Fairly's best years were spent on expansion teams where he didn't have the RBI opportunities that Garvey had. Career OPS+ is exactly the same for both. Really the difference between the two is Garvey's extensive post season career. Fairly was a .300 postseason hitter but didn't get the opportunities Garvey did.

If Garvey is a HOFer Fairly likely is as well.

Tom C

[btcarfagno]

How about Boog Powell? Much better hitter than Garvey. Solid defense as well. Certainly much better arm than candy armed Garvey.

Tom C

[btcarfagno]

George Scott? Maybe. Better peak than Garvey. Not quite as good career overall, but quite close.

Tom C

[BearBailey]

Garvey is a guy that in my opinion passed the eye ball test, when he retired I thought he would be a hall of famer. However, the older I get his stats just don’t stack up, really good player but without any milestone numbers people who never saw him play wouldn’t give him a second look based upon his numbers.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

First basemen statistically better than Garvey and not in the HOF (from his era or before or just after):

Keith Hernandez
John Olerud
Fred McGriff
Will Clark
Norm Cash
Dolph Camilli
Gil Hodges
Don Mattingly
Ed Konetchy
Jack Fournier
Joe Judge
Mark Grace
Fred Tenney
Bill White
Boog Powell
Harry Davis
George Scott

So no.

Tom C

It depends on what you want from your cleanup hitter, walks or rbis. Garvey played on 5 pennant winners and 1 Championship team. He led the each one of those teams in rbis. Between 1974-80, Garvey reached 200 hits 6 times and 100 RBIs 5 times. He won a MVP, 2 LCS MVP, 4 gold gloves and was a 10 time All star.He was excellent in the postseason ..338/.361/.550/.910. He holds the NL records for consecutive games played and most consecutive games without an error. He is top 10 in fielding percentages at 1b.

Garvey doesn't score high on WAR because he didn't walk much and didn't hit a lot of home runs playing in Dodger Stadium. I would rather my cleanup hitter try to drive in runs than try to walk. I would take Garvey's actual wins and championships over hypothetical wins. If the Veteran's Committee is going to elect players, Garvey should be near the top of the list.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by rats60

It depends on what you want from your cleanup hitter, walks or rbis. Garvey played on 5 pennant winners and 1 Championship team. He led the each one of those teams in rbis. Between 1974-80, Garvey reached 200 hits 6 times and 100 RBIs 5 times. He won a MVP, 2 LCS MVP, 4 gold gloves and was a 10 time All star.He was excellent in the postseason ..338/.361/.550/.910. He holds the NL records for consecutive games played and most consecutive games without an error. He is top 10 in fielding percentages at 1b.

Garvey doesn't score high on WAR because he didn't walk much and didn't hit a lot of home runs playing in Dodger Stadium. I would rather my cleanup hitter try to drive in runs than try to walk. I would take Garvey's actual wins and championships over hypothetical wins. If the Veteran's Committee is going to elect players, Garvey should be near the top of the list.

Boog Powell played on four pennant winners and two championship teams. Had 109 and 114 RBI on the two championship teams. Was league MVP in a championship year. Also had a second place and third place MVP seasons. Career OPS+ of 134 (versus Garvey at 117).

Garvey had to hit .300 because otherwise he was almost never on base. His MVP was a joke. He wasn't even the best player on his own team, and was likely about sixth or seventh best in the league that year. His gold gloves likewise were jokes. He won those because of his offense. His defense was good in as much as he didn't fumble what he got to. But his arm was a joke. He was a 10x all star during an era especially weak for NL first basemen.

Boog Powell was quite a bit better than Steve Garvey.

Tom C

[rats60]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Boog Powell played on four pennant winners and two championship teams. Had 109 and 114 RBI on the two championship teams. Was league MVP in a championship year. Also had a second place and third place MVP seasons. Career OPS+ of 134 (versus Garvey at 117).

Garvey had to hit .300 because otherwise he was almost never on base. His MVP was a joke. He wasn't even the best player on his own team, and was likely about sixth or seventh best in the league that year. His gold gloves likewise were jokes. He won those because of his offense. His defense was good in as much as he didn't fumble what he got to. But his arm was a joke. He was a 10x all star during an era especially weak for NL first basemen.

Boog Powell was quite a bit better than Steve Garvey.

Tom C

Garvey's MVP was no more a joke than Powell's. Powell wasn't the best player on his team either. He won his MVP award because he drove in a lot of runs on a pennant winner. He wasn't even top 10 in WAR among position players, Their difference in OPS is all walks. Garvey had 2.46 MVP shares to Powell's 1.95.

Garvey's gold gloves were a product of leading the league in fielding percentage 3 of those 4 seasons and 2nd the other. He was 1st in range factor/game twice and 2nd twice in those 4 seasons. Those gold gloves were deserved and he would have won more if not for Keith Hernandez.

On Garvey's 10 AS team's, the following 1b were his teammates: Pete Rose 4 times, Tony Perez 3 times, Keith Hernandez 3 times and Willie Stargell 1 time. I wouldn't call that a weak era for 1b.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Garvey has to be at or near the top of the list of players with the biggest disparity between the perception of those who saw him play and the assessment of the modern stats. Especially with those 6 200 hits seasons and 5 100 RBI seasons, but ranking only 51st at his position, WTF is that?

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by rats60

Garvey's MVP was no more a joke than Powell's. Powell wasn't the best player on his team either. He won his MVP award because he drove in a lot of runs on a pennant winner. He wasn't even top 10 in WAR among position players, Their difference in OPS is all walks. Garvey had 2.46 MVP shares to Powell's 1.95.

Garvey's gold gloves were a product of leading the league in fielding percentage 3 of those 4 seasons and 2nd the other. He was 1st in range factor/game twice and 2nd twice in those 4 seasons. Those gold gloves were deserved and he would have won more if not for Keith Hernandez.

On Garvey's 10 AS team's, the following 1b were his teammates: Pete Rose 4 times, Tony Perez 3 times, Keith Hernandez 3 times and Willie Stargell 1 time. I wouldn't call that a weak era for 1b.

Powell was the best offensive player on his team by any and every measure you wish to choose. I suppose if you just go by WAR then Jim Palmer was more valuable, but I doubt you want to bring WAR up, seeing as Steve Garvey in 1974 was FOURTH on his own team in WAR. Garvey was not the best offensive player on his own team by any measure you wish to use that year. He was far down the list in oWAR in 1974, ranking no better than 11th in the league from what I can tell. In WAR he wasn't in the top 20 in the league. Boog was fifth in oWAR in 1970, so while his being named MVP wasn't the best idea in the world (especially with a traditional stats monster yuear from Yaz), it wasn't nearly the joke that Garvey's 1974 selection was.

Range factor and fielding percentage as measures of defensive ability at first base? That's cherry picking nearly useless stats. If the player is from post 1953, Total Zone Runs needs to be the metric used. Historically speaking, let's look at the players whom I have always thought to be outstanding defensive first baseman and the TZR figure:

Keith Hernandez 114
John Olerud 89
George Scott 87
Mark Grace 84
Vic Power 59
Eddie Murray 59
Bill White 55
Rafael Palmeiro 48
Gil Hodges 41 (only 1953-on)
Wes Parker 29
Don Mattingly 29

So even though Parker and Donnie Baseball seem a bit low, overall the best of the best are recognized as such.

How about the worst defensive first basemen? How do they rank?

Frank Thomas (Chi) -61
Dick Stuart -59
Mo Vaughn -43
Jason Giambi -36 (with solid .992 career fielding % - go figure!)
Adam Dunn -34 (in just 528 games)
Dave Kingman -22 (in just 603 games)
Frank Howard -14 (tough in just 334 games)

So TZR does its job as you would expect it to as a metric for defense at first base.

Steve Garvey?

Career TZR at first base?

Negative two.

Not exactly gold glove caliber.

In 1975-1977 as Garvey was winning gold gloves, you know who was also playing first base in the NL? Keith Hernandez. Arguably the greatest fielding first baseman of all time. But sure. Steve Garvey totally earned those gold gloves.

Pete Rose didn't become a first baseman until age 38 in 1979. During and after which he had two solid seasons. Just two. The rest of the time he was pretty bad.

Tony Perez had some consistently decent seasons, but his post 1973 high for OPS+ was 124. So, solid but not great for a 1B for sure.

Keith Hernandez I will grant you.

Willie Stargell was good post 1974 but constantly injured. Over 500 AB in a season just once.

Tom C

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Garvey has to be at or near the top of the list of players with the biggest disparity between the perception of those who saw him play and the assessment of the modern stats. Especially with those 6 200 hits seasons and 5 100 RBI seasons, but ranking only 51st at his position, WTF is that?

The RBI seasons are a product of his team full of players on base.

He had to get a bunch of hits because otherwise he would have never been on base. His plate discipline was horrific.

His defense was average (see above post).

At least three of his all star selections were pretty much honorary that he in no way deserved. It could be argued that there were two better first basemen than him in the NL in all but two of his all star years.

He does get bonus points for being a good hitter in a pitchers park and he was a post season monster.

Aside from that, again, Ron Fairly was his equal.

Tom C

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by rats60

It depends on what you want from your cleanup hitter, walks or rbis. Garvey played on 5 pennant winners and 1 Championship team. He led the each one of those teams in rbis. Between 1974-80, Garvey reached 200 hits 6 times and 100 RBIs 5 times. He won a MVP, 2 LCS MVP, 4 gold gloves and was a 10 time All star.He was excellent in the postseason ..338/.361/.550/.910. He holds the NL records for consecutive games played and most consecutive games without an error. He is top 10 in fielding percentages at 1b.

Garvey doesn't score high on WAR because he didn't walk much and didn't hit a lot of home runs playing in Dodger Stadium. I would rather my cleanup hitter try to drive in runs than try to walk. I would take Garvey's actual wins and championships over hypothetical wins. If the Veteran's Committee is going to elect players, Garvey should be near the top of the list.

RBI's are a terrible way to judge performance because the batter had nothing to do with the player's getting on base in front of him.

WAR is not just about walks and homers, it's about production and Garvey is simply not even in the top 40 or so at 1b and that's not even close to HOF worthiness.

Garvey has a 116 wRC+ for his career (16% above avg hitter)

career fWAR of 37.8 is nowhere near HOF caliber, I mean not even in the same state much less the ballpark

career OPS of .775 at 1b is mediocre

272 homers at 1b is mediocre (power matters)

career ISO of .152 at first base is mediocre

by fWAR Garvey is 61st all time for 1b

by wRC+ Garvey is tied for 153rd among 1b all time


Heck Garvey barely makes the hall of the very good.

[steve B]

TZR? Isn't that the tv channel that's almost entirely entertainment industry related news?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Who else is at or near the top of the perception vs reality list? I know Bill James claims for example that Sisler was vastly overrated.

[Econteachert205]

I cannot fathom how someone could make an argument that Ron fairly was better than Steve Garvey without explicit desire to drive people insane.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

I cannot fathom how someone could make an argument that Ron fairly was better than Steve Garvey without explicit desire to drive people insane.

Look at his stats then get back to me.

Tom C

Edit: Also I'm not sure that Fairly is better. In the regular season I would say he is Garvey's equal. Garvey separates with his impressive post season performances.

[Econteachert205]

I've got to admit it is not nearly as crazy as I thought. Garveys on base kills him.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

I cannot fathom how someone could make an argument that Ron fairly was better than Steve Garvey without explicit desire to drive people insane.

Fairly- career 35.5 fWAR, 117 wRC+, .344 wOBA, -117.8 DEF rating, - 2.9 base running, .768 career OPS, career .142 ISO, 215 homers and 35 stolen bases in 8437 plate appearances

Garvey- 37.8 fWAR, 116 wRC+, .342 wOBA, -118.7 DEF rating, -6.8 base running, .775 OPS, .152 ISO, 272 homers and 83 stolen bases in 9466 plate appearances.


they are strikingly similar players.

[celoknob]

If you had ask someone in 1980 to name some very likely future HOF players, I think Garvey would have been on most people's list when OBP and WAR were not around. Another is Dave Parker. I think the chances of either is slight now. Parker also didn't walk much for a power guy and was plagued by injuries in his prime years and had other issues. Garvey is killed by low OBP and decrease in power in his 30s.

Alternatively, hardly anyone would have mentioned Dwight Evans in 1980 but to me he is a borderline HOFer. His late career surge and high OBP put him in that position.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by celoknob

If you had ask someone in 1980 to name some very likely future HOF players, I think Garvey would have been on most people's list when OBP and WAR were not around. Another is Dave Parker. I think the chances of either is slight now. Parker also didn't walk much for a power guy and was plagued by injuries in his prime years and had other issues. Garvey is killed by low OBP and decrease in power in his 30s.

Alternatively, hardly anyone would have mentioned Dwight Evans in 1980 but to me he is a borderline HOFer. His late career surge and high OBP put him in that position.

Evans was also an amazing defensive right fielder while Garvey was pretty much average at a non-premium defensive position. And Parker got a lot of press for his amazing arm (no better than that of Evans by the way) but Parker was a pretty bad defensive right fielder. His routes to balls were horrid and unlike Evans his howitzer for an arm wasn't always that accurate.

Tom C

[rats60]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Powell was the best offensive player on his team by any and every measure you wish to choose. I suppose if you just go by WAR then Jim Palmer was more valuable, but I doubt you want to bring WAR up, seeing as Steve Garvey in 1974 was FOURTH on his own team in WAR. Garvey was not the best offensive player on his own team by any measure you wish to use that year. He was far down the list in oWAR in 1974, ranking no better than 11th in the league from what I can tell. In WAR he wasn't in the top 20 in the league. Boog was fifth in oWAR in 1970, so while his being named MVP wasn't the best idea in the world (especially with a traditional stats monster yuear from Yaz), it wasn't nearly the joke that Garvey's 1974 selection was.

Range factor and fielding percentage as measures of defensive ability at first base? That's cherry picking nearly useless stats. If the player is from post 1953, Total Zone Runs needs to be the metric used. Historically speaking, let's look at the players whom I have always thought to be outstanding defensive first baseman and the TZR figure:

Keith Hernandez 114
John Olerud 89
George Scott 87
Mark Grace 84
Vic Power 59
Eddie Murray 59
Bill White 55
Rafael Palmeiro 48
Gil Hodges 41 (only 1953-on)
Wes Parker 29
Don Mattingly 29

So even though Parker and Donnie Baseball seem a bit low, overall the best of the best are recognized as such.

How about the worst defensive first basemen? How do they rank?

Frank Thomas (Chi) -61
Dick Stuart -59
Mo Vaughn -43
Jason Giambi -36 (with solid .992 career fielding % - go figure!)
Adam Dunn -34 (in just 528 games)
Dave Kingman -22 (in just 603 games)
Frank Howard -14 (tough in just 334 games)

So TZR does its job as you would expect it to as a metric for defense at first base.

Steve Garvey?

Career TZR at first base?

Negative two.

Not exactly gold glove caliber.

In 1975-1977 as Garvey was winning gold gloves, you know who was also playing first base in the NL? Keith Hernandez. Arguably the greatest fielding first baseman of all time. But sure. Steve Garvey totally earned those gold gloves.

Pete Rose didn't become a first baseman until age 38 in 1979. During and after which he had two solid seasons. Just two. The rest of the time he was pretty bad.

Tony Perez had some consistently decent seasons, but his post 1973 high for OPS+ was 124. So, solid but not great for a 1B for sure.

Keith Hernandez I will grant you.

Willie Stargell was good post 1974 but constantly injured. Over 500 AB in a season just once.

Tom C

Garvey was also 3rd in TZR 3 of his 4 gold glove seasons. So how is someone 3rd in one catagory and 1st in 2 others unworthy of gold glove? I can also throw out that he was playing the most games at 1b, so that durability adds value. He had good seasons at 1b when he won gold gloves, saving 5 and 6 runs. If he had brought that level of defense his whole career, he would be near the top of your list. Gold glove is a yearly award, so having good defensive seasons and winning gold gloves doesn't mean you have to be good defensively over your whole career and if you aren't they take them away and give them to someone else. Garvey did deserve to win.

You rate players by WAR. Garvey was the best player on the Dodgers from 74-81. He doesn't fair well in WAR because He didn't walk a lot. He just got a lot of hits and drove in a lot of runs. I know some of you guys don't like RBIs, but at some point reality has to kick in. To win games one of your players has to actually get hits with RISP, having a high WAR doesn't win anything.

I don't ignore WAR, but at some point actual on field accomplishments have to come into play. There are some players who the stat doesn't fit well, such as Steve Garvey and Bobby Grich. I lived in LA at the time. If you had asked anyone at the park, who was the better player, it would have been unanimous for Garvey. That is probably why Grich only got 11 votes for the HOF and Garvey got 176 the next year when he appeared on the ballot.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by rats60

Garvey was also 3rd in TZR 3 of his 4 gold glove seasons. So how is someone 3rd in one category and 1st in 2 others unworthy of gold glove? I can also throw out that he was playing the most games at 1b, so that durability adds value. He had good seasons at 1b when he won gold gloves, saving 5 and 6 runs. If he had brought that level of defense his whole career, he would be near the top of your list. Gold glove is a yearly award, so having good defensive seasons and winning gold gloves doesn't mean you have to be good defensively over your whole career and if you aren't they take them away and give them to someone else. Garvey did deserve to win.

You rate players by WAR. Garvey was the best player on the Dodgers from 74-81. He doesn't fair well in WAR because He didn't walk a lot. He just got a lot of hits and drove in a lot of runs. I know some of you guys don't like RBIs, but at some point reality has to kick in. To win games one of your players has to actually get hits with RISP, having a high WAR doesn't win anything.

I don't ignore WAR, but at some point actual on field accomplishments have to come into play. There are some players who the stat doesn't fit well, such as Steve Garvey and Bobby Grich. I lived in LA at the time. If you had asked anyone at the park, who was the better player, it would have been unanimous for Garvey. That is probably why Grich only got 11 votes for the HOF and Garvey got 176 the next year when he appeared on the ballot.

That's the problem with the "eye test". Never tells the whole story and often does not tell the correct one. Bobby Grich is one of the ten best players at his position in history. I would put him top 8. Ahead of many many HOFers at the position. Legitimate HOFers I might add. Garvey is way WAY down the list at 1B. How many HOF 1B is Garvey better than? Two. Bottomley and Kelly. Kelly certainly doesn't belong there and Bottomley is borderline at very best.

Tom C

Edit: And you are correct that Garvey was pretty decent in three of the four years he won the gold glove. But being third best in the league in TZR doesn't mean that your gold glove was merited. The last two, certainly, when Hernandez played full seasons in no way shape or form should Garvey have won. I'll be kind and say that he wasn't a terrible selection for the first two years, and that the next two were honorary.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

That's the problem with the "eye test". Never tells the whole story and often does not tell the correct one. Bobby Grich is one of the ten best players at his position in history. I would put him top 8. Ahead of many many HOFers at the position. Legitimate HOFers I might add. Garvey is way WAY down the list at 1B. How many HOF 1B is Garvey better than? Two. Bottomley and Kelly. Kelly certainly doesn't belong there and Bottomley is borderline at very best.

Tom C

Edit: And you are correct that Garvey was pretty decent in three of the four years he won the gold glove. But being third best in the league in TZR doesn't mean that your gold glove was merited. The last two, certainly, when Hernandez played full seasons in no way shape or form should Garvey have won. I'll be kind and say that he wasn't a terrible selection for the first two years, and that the next two were honorary.

And that's the problem Sabermetrics. The "eye test" is more important than any "formula." If you take advanced statistics, that is one of the first things that you are taught. With sabermaticians, they say if your observations don't fit their formula, ignore them. That is unscientific. Scientists make their formulas fit their observations.

I disagree on Grich. Like Simmons, he is better than mistakes in the HOF. He is not top 10 in my opinion. He is not even the best 2b not in the HOF, that is Lou Whitaker. He is not a slam dunk, but I am fine with him in or out of HOF once Whitaker and Garvey are in.

We do agree that Garvey would be towards the bottom of the 1st basemen in the HOF. I just have him a lot higher than you. I have him only behind Keith Hernandez, who along with Alan Trammell are my 2 slam dunks. If we are taking guys who in my mind are marginal candidates, I would take a winner like Garvey and guys who had higher peaks like Mattingly and Murphy. Guys who everyone knew were superstars, but just were not for long enough. It is the Hall of Fame with emphasis on fame, not being above average for a long time.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by rats60

And that's the problem Sabermetrics. The "eye test" is more important than any "formula." If you take advanced statistics, that is one of the first things that you are taught. With sabermaticians, they say if your observations don't fit their formula, ignore them. That is unscientific. Scientists make their formulas fit their observations.

I disagree on Grich. Like Simmons, he is better than mistakes in the HOF. He is not top 10 in my opinion. He is not even the best 2b not in the HOF, that is Lou Whitaker. He is not a slam dunk, but I am fine with him in or out of HOF once Whitaker and Garvey are in.

We do agree that Garvey would be towards the bottom of the 1st basemen in the HOF. I just have him a lot higher than you. I have him only behind Keith Hernandez, who along with Alan Trammell are my 2 slam dunks. If we are taking guys who in my mind are marginal candidates, I would take a winner like Garvey and guys who had higher peaks like Mattingly and Murphy. Guys who everyone knew were superstars, but just were not for long enough. It is the Hall of Fame with emphasis on fame, not being above average for a long time.

I can definitely see your point regarding players with a higher peak that could not sustain it for a lengthy period of time. As you said, guys like Murphy or Mattingly. No doubt they should be in the conversation. I also agree that Hernandez and Trammell should be in wthout a doubt. I have Whitaker a bit below Grich but Whitaker should be in as well. He is either top 10 or at worst top 12 all time for 2B.

I'll add a few pitchers I think should get some extra consideration. None are slam dunks but all should get much more of a look:

Kevin Brown
David Cone
Bille Pierce
Rick Reuschel
Bret Saberhagen
Dave Stieb

I also think that Willie Randolph should get more of a look than he has gotten.

Heinie Groh and Stan Hack and Darrell Evans should get more of a look. Graig Nettles should be in.

Minnie Minoso should be in. Jimmy Wynn should get more of a look. Dwight Evans should be in. Reggie Smith should be in. Dick Allen should be in. Gary Sheffield should get far more love than he has.

And Edgar Martinez needs to get in.

Tom C

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by rats60

And that's the problem Sabermetrics. The "eye test" is more important than any "formula." If you take advanced statistics, that is one of the first things that you are taught. With sabermaticians, they say if your observations don't fit their formula, ignore them. That is unscientific. Scientists make their formulas fit their observations.

I disagree on Grich. Like Simmons, he is better than mistakes in the HOF. He is not top 10 in my opinion. He is not even the best 2b not in the HOF, that is Lou Whitaker. He is not a slam dunk, but I am fine with him in or out of HOF once Whitaker and Garvey are in.

We do agree that Garvey would be towards the bottom of the 1st basemen in the HOF. I just have him a lot higher than you. I have him only behind Keith Hernandez, who along with Alan Trammell are my 2 slam dunks. If we are taking guys who in my mind are marginal candidates, I would take a winner like Garvey and guys who had higher peaks like Mattingly and Murphy. Guys who everyone knew were superstars, but just were not for long enough. It is the Hall of Fame with emphasis on fame, not being above average for a long time.

this is absolute nonsense.
the "eye test" HAS BEEN PROVEN to be garbage. confirmation bias (as exhibited by you) recency bias..etc skew reality for people.


Not to mention that a formula applied to everyone will result in an applicable ratio of production even if not an accurate one. so even if WAR didn't nail player's exact win value, it DOES give an accurate measure of production relative to each other.

[the 'stache]

Oh, come on, Ron Fairly on par with Steve Garvey is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Yes, their career advanced metrics are strikingly similar. Only because from age 32 on, Garvey's offensive performance fell off a cliff. From 1981 to 1986, the last six plus years of his career, his OPS + was 101. If 100 is league average, Garvey was a league average hitter. But from 1974 to 1980, his OPS + was 130. The thing is, Fairly was consistently average throughout his entire career, with a few clunkers thrown into the mix. But he had absolutely nowhere near the peak that Garvey had. Fairly never received a single MVP vote. Not one. Garvey was a league MVP, and had four other top ten finishes. Did he get those because he had great hair? No. He was one of the catalysts on one of the best teams in baseball. Maybe the old metrics have been shown to be inferior for judging players. But for the longest time, a .300 hitter with 200 hits, 20 + home runs, and 100 + RBI was considered a superstar. And that was Steve Garvey from '74 to '80. He averaged 161 games played a season; 88 runs scored, 201 hits, 32 doubles, 23 home runs, and a .311 average.

As has been mentioned, Garvey's career OPS takes a beating because he didn't walk. First basemen have historically been the guys to hit for power, and drive in runs. The table setters atop the lineup are the ones that get on base.

Look at Fairly's average production from the same ages-25 to 31, and compare the numbers to Garvey. Fairly, from '64 to '70, averaged 134 games played, 19 doubles, 11 home runs, 59 RBI, and hit .260.

On what planet are those two players equally valuable? Fairly is as good a player as Garvey because he sucked less later in his career? Give me a break.

Sometimes you have to inject a little common sense into statistical analysis. I'll take a guy that was a star performer at his peak over a first baseman that walked more.

[btcarfagno]

OPS+ seasons with more than 300 plate appearances in order highest to lowest:

Ron Fairly 146 142 142 131 131 124 124 120 120 119 115 115 114 88 84.
St. Garvey 138 134 133 130 130 125 124 122 115 110 109 109 101 91 91

Fairly looks better here but those two highest seasons for him were fairly low on plate appearances whereas with Garvey they were high on the plate appearances.

Still, again, very similar players.

One bunched up the seasons on great teams with great offensive teammates. The other spread out the very good seasons throughout his career mostly on expansion teams through no fault of his own.

Tom C

[btcarfagno]

Also not sure why you would choose the same age years to compare the two. What does that prove? Garvey was better during those ages? Absolutely. Do you have any idea what Fairly's OPS+ was for the seven year period from age 30 to age 36? 127.

Garvey had a seven year peak and not a whole lot else before and after.

Fairly was a roller coaster with partial seasons, a few clunkers, some outstanding years.

They took different paths to arrive at pretty much the same place.

Again, I rank Garvey higher for his post season accomplishments. But during the regular season, although they arrived there in very different ways, they are very similar players.

Tom C

[btcarfagno]

Norm Cash was a MUCH better player than Garvey. Like....laughably ridiculously better. Equal on defense at same position. FFFFAAAARRRRR better hitter than Garvey.

Norm Cash should not be a HOFer.

So.....

Tom C

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

this is absolute nonsense.
the "eye test" HAS BEEN PROVEN to be garbage. confirmation bias (as exhibited by you) recency bias..etc skew reality for people.


Not to mention that a formula applied to everyone will result in an applicable ratio of production even if not an accurate one. so even if WAR didn't nail player's exact win value, it DOES give an accurate measure of production relative to each other.

I would like to see that proof. Perhaps you can give me a link to that PhD dissertation that disproves thousands of years of scientific thought. I am sure the whole Statistics community would be interested, it would be revolutionary. I won't however accept a link to some BS on a website that anyone can post on the internet. It must be from someone with actual credentials and be confirmed by other experts in the field of statistics.

Your second statement is 100% false. If there are errors in the formula, which there obviously are (Do you really believe Johnny Bench and Lou Whitaker were equivalent players?), it is going to going to produce inaccurate results. In science we say garbage in garbage out. As some have commented before, it is the best we have, so I try to use it when I can. In the end it is one person's opinion (fangraphs disagrees with bb reference). In areas where my opinion differs based on 50 years of playing and studying the game and a Master's Degree in Statistics, I am going to trust my professors, not somebody I don't know with unknown credentials.

[bravos4evr]

appeal to authority logical fallacy.....

and argument from incredulity

try again cupcake

[2dueces]

My only opinion on this subject is the Hall of Fame has become the Hall of pretty Good too often. I think it should be reserved for the best of the best of the best. It's been watered down so much that these conversations take on a life of their own. Even discussing the 51st best first baseman of all time shows it is true. BTW, I like Steve Garvey, but not a HOFer.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

appeal to authority logical fallacy.....

and argument from incredulity

try again cupcake

Just what I thought, you have nothing but your opinion and insults.