Let's talk about Hall of Fame candidates who have been "neglected"

[tod41]

Originally Posted by Tabe

If he was truly dominant, the stats would reflect that. Dominant corner infielders don't hit 21 or fewer homers in 16 of their 19 seasons. They don't end up with a career .775 OPS. Dominant players have seasons over 140 OPS+ (Garvey: 0).

Garvey was a fine player but he was a (mostly) singles hitter at a position where power is the norm.

Consider the Era he played in. There were not many power hitting First Basemen like Rose, Hernandez, Chris Chambliss, Al Oliver, Rod Carew and others. Garvey has a higher OPS than Mantle in the post season. It should count for something. Garvey also had a 130 OPS+ five times including a 138+ in 1978.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by tod41

Consider the Era he played in. There were not many power hitting First Basemen like Rose, Hernandez, Chris Chambliss, Al Oliver, Rod Carew and others. Garvey has a higher OPS than Mantle in the post season. It should count for something. Garvey also had a 130 OPS+ five times including a 138+ in 1978.

Playing in an era of mediocre first basemen doesn't make Garvey any better. He had basically the same OPS as Dan Driessen. Funny that you left out Willie Stargell and Jason Thompson when naming his contemporaries.

Yes, he was a very good postseason performer, beating out Mantle in OPS by .002, but that's not nearly enough to offset his simply "pretty good" regular season numbers.

Yes, he topped 130 in OPS+ but that's not "dominant". It's good but it's not dominant. He had one season in top 10 for OPS (10th place in 1978). One season over 5 in WAR. Two seasons top 10 in slugging, none over .500.

Garvey had a really nice career and I like the man. He was EXTREMELY nice to my friend & I when we met him a few years ago. But he wasn't dominant and he simply wasn't good enough for the Hall.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Playing in an era of mediocre first basemen doesn't make Garvey any better. He had basically the same OPS as Dan Driessen. Funny that you left out Willie Stargell and Jason Thompson when naming his contemporaries.

Yes, he was a very good postseason performer, beating out Mantle in OPS by .002, but that's not nearly enough to offset his simply "pretty good" regular season numbers.

Yes, he topped 130 in OPS+ but that's not "dominant". It's good but it's not dominant. He had one season in top 10 for OPS (10th place in 1978). One season over 5 in WAR. Two seasons top 10 in slugging, none over .500.

Garvey had a really nice career and I like the man. He was EXTREMELY nice to my friend & I when we met him a few years ago. But he wasn't dominant and he simply wasn't good enough for the Hall.

The metrics aren't so good for Gil Hodges either.

[Misunderestimated]

Jack Glasscock - he would be the only 1880's SS in the HOF ... George Wright is a pioneer who was done by the 1870's. Great long career and he did most of it without a glove.

Bobby Caruthers - a great pitcher who could play everyday and hit really well .. I guess Ohtani is the modern version and it hasn't happened since Ruth in about 1920.

JIm McCormick - He lost 40 in one season but his WAR is still higher than just about anyone eligible for the HOF (not named Clemens or Bonds).... and even higher than Mike Trout for the time being ...

Bill Dahlen - Great player who was recognized as a big deal in his own era. Strange how he got missed in the 50's when it seemed like they were putting everyone from the early 20th Century in the HOF who was a little famous. Even stranger that they missed George Davis until Bill James seems to have recovered him. Davis is statistically near the very top of Shortstops all-time.

Minnie Minoso -

Buck O'Neil - A lifetime achievement award.... He was a very good player and a good manager/coach too. But it's the whole package. This is generally not something the HOF is good at crediting. They like to compartmentalize the candidates.

Lou Whitaker

[TUM301]

Comparing Ozzie Smith and Omar Vizquel`s careers never really understood why one player is a hall of famer while the later barely gets 50% of the necessary votes. Omar`s numbers, minus the back flip, more than match up with Smith`s yet he rarely gets noticed.

[tod41]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Playing in an era of mediocre first basemen doesn't make Garvey any better. He had basically the same OPS as Dan Driessen. Funny that you left out Willie Stargell and Jason Thompson when naming his contemporaries.

Yes, he was a very good postseason performer, beating out Mantle in OPS by .002, but that's not nearly enough to offset his simply "pretty good" regular season numbers.

Yes, he topped 130 in OPS+ but that's not "dominant". It's good but it's not dominant. He had one season in top 10 for OPS (10th place in 1978). One season over 5 in WAR. Two seasons top 10 in slugging, none over .500.

Garvey had a really nice career and I like the man. He was EXTREMELY nice to my friend & I when we met him a few years ago. But he wasn't dominant and he simply wasn't good enough for the Hall.

Stargell was essentially and usually exclusively a Left Fielder in his prime. He did not start playing first base exclusively until 1975 and then he never came close to playing a full season. The most games he played was 126 in his co-mvp year (which was a make-up for his 1973 season) and he often played far less then that. So I would not consider him a contemporary of Garvey at first base. The fact is that you have to look pretty hard to find the power hitting first baseman that you see in other eras. That's why I think you have to judge a player in the era they played and not compare to other times. When you do that, you have to search and find a Jason Thompson as opposed to a Jim Thome. So considering everything, Garvey compares favorably in my humble opinion..

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by tod41

Stargell was essentially and usually exclusively a Left Fielder in his prime. He did not start playing first base exclusively until 1975 and then he never came close to playing a full season. The most games he played was 126 in his co-mvp year (which was a make-up for his 1973 season) and he often played far less then that. So I would not consider him a contemporary of Garvey at first base. The fact is that you have to look pretty hard to find the power hitting first baseman that you see in other eras. That's why I think you have to judge a player in the era they played and not compare to other times. When you do that, you have to search and find a Jason Thompson as opposed to a Jim Thome. So considering everything, Garvey compares favorably in my humble opinion..

Eh, he was mostly a 1B as early as 1972.

And Garvey compares favorably to who? In 1977, one of his best years, he was middle of the pack in OPS+ among 1B. His contemporaries also included Tony Perez, Willie McCovey, and others. Heck, Bill Robinson outhit him.

The fact that Jason Thompson - a guy "you have to search and find" had a higher OPS+ than Garvey speaks volumes about Garvey being "dominant".

[Peter_Spaeth]

Garvey was a 10 time all star so I guess there is that. It seems like perhaps more than anyone in history, his metrics were crushed by not walking.

[moogpowell]

I'll add a wrinkle to the Garvey discussion. I think he suffers from dare I say a "branding" or perception issue. I think a strong case can be made that he deserves to be in the HOF. Garvey was SEEN as a slugger but his numbers do not show someone with abundant power. And yet Garvey had 6 seasons with 200 hits, 1 with 190 and 3 with 175+. He sported a career .294 avg. and batted over .300 7 times. So Garvey, when identified or compared to the prototypical "slugger" pales and yet his numbers paint him more as an excellent pure hitter who had impressive, but not incredible, power.

To make an investing comparison, he is a like a stock that is growing revenue/earnings far less than a stock like Amazon, so it won't fetch a generous valuation/multiple yet his relative power obscures how good a batsman he was so he doesn't get sufficient credit for that. In a sense he is in no man's land. Harmon Killebrew had a mediocre batting average but had power in spades (growth) and Rod Carew had hits and a high average (value). Falling into either profile I think makes it easier for people to judge someone's overall career. Granted, many all-time greats straddle both categories and have received proper recognition but that is because they were so accomplished there was nothing to debate — think Aaron, Mays, F. Robby, etc.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Eh, he was mostly a 1B as early as 1972.

And Garvey compares favorably to who? In 1977, one of his best years, he was middle of the pack in OPS+ among 1B. His contemporaries also included Tony Perez, Willie McCovey, and others. Heck, Bill Robinson outhit him.

The fact that Jason Thompson - a guy "you have to search and find" had a higher OPS+ than Garvey speaks volumes about Garvey being "dominant".

To Veterans Committee HOF picks. He received over 40% of the BBWAA votes 3 times including his 1st time on the ballot. That typically signals that a player will get in eventually. Like Curt Schilling, his case was hurt by negative publicity in his personal life when he was on the ballot.

Willie McCovey 6 time All Star. Tony Perez 7 time All Star. Steve Garvey 10 time All Star. His contemporaries thought he belonged in that group.

[bbcard1]

I for one wish there weren't executives in the hall of fame. It just clutters up the place and no one ever paid to see Morgan Bulkeley's plaque.

[tod41]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Eh, he was mostly a 1B as early as 1972.

And Garvey compares favorably to who? In 1977, one of his best years, he was middle of the pack in OPS+ among 1B. His contemporaries also included Tony Perez, Willie McCovey, and others. Heck, Bill Robinson outhit him.

The fact that Jason Thompson - a guy "you have to search and find" had a higher OPS+ than Garvey speaks volumes about Garvey being "dominant".

Not true. He played 1B in 72, before Garvey was a starter. He played amost exclusively in OF in 73 and 74. Not a valid comparison to Garvey.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by tod41

Not true. He played 1B in 72, before Garvey was a starter. He played amost exclusively in OF in 73 and 74. Not a valid comparison to Garvey.

He was a 1B for 6 of the 8 years from 72 to 79. How is that not "mostly a 1B"?