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

[G1911]

Walks, on base, home runs, slugging percentage. the stats being used against Garvey were known in his time.

WAR doesn’t think he was great too, but I’m not using that against him. There are a lot of first basemen with better old stats than Garvey, some of which have already been highlighted.

I’d still love to see a logical argument for Garvey using any math, old or new. Surely there is a decent case to be made since he has quite a bit of support.

He performed well in the post season, he gets points for showing up every day and playing 162 games which I frankly think is underrated and works to his benefit. The problem is why he is better than dozens of other players with similar batting stats? Why should he leapfrog numerous players with better stats, old and new, to merit HOF induction?

[doug.goodman]

It's funny timing on this conversation, and that I didn't edit my post to be less player specific, because I meant my comment to be more of a general comment.

Night before last I had a conversation with a fellow baseball fan and said "I'm a Garvey guy, he's the entire reason I've been a Dodger fan since I was 10 years old, but sadly, I don't see him as a hall of famer, he's right there on the steps, but I can't let him in."

Sorry Steve, I still love you.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Walks, on base, home runs, slugging percentage. the stats being used against Garvey were known in his time.

WAR doesn’t think he was great too, but I’m not using that against him. There are a lot of first basemen with better old stats than Garvey, some of which have already been highlighted.

I’d still love to see a logical argument for Garvey using any math, old or new. Surely there is a decent case to be made since he has quite a bit of support.

He performed well in the post season, he gets points for showing up every day and playing 162 games which I frankly think is underrated and works to his benefit. The problem is why he is better than dozens of other players with similar batting stats? Why should he leapfrog numerous players with better stats, old and new, to merit HOF induction?

The argument really stems from memory and perception. Those of us who followed the game at the time, for better or worse, thought of Garvey as a superstar, fueled probably by the many 200 hit seasons and All Star selections, the All-American image and charisma (until that imploded), and his apparent clutch hitting ability. He surely was portrayed that way. And people weren't thinking SABRmetrically. I doubt anyone was thinking, man Garvey doesn't walk. Classic example of a player who suffered for the evolving understanding of statistics.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Classic example of a player who suffered for the evolving understanding of statistics.

That was the point I was trying to make (generally, not specifically about Garvey).

Thanx for Peter for wording it better than I was able to.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ah yes, I remember it well.

http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2012/...e-in-paradise/

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The argument really stems from memory and perception. Those of us who followed the game at the time, for better or worse, thought of Garvey as a superstar, fueled probably by the many 200 hit seasons and All Star selections, the All-American image and charisma (until that imploded), and his apparent clutch hitting ability. He surely was portrayed that way. And people weren't thinking SABRmetrically. I doubt anyone was thinking, man Garvey doesn't walk. Classic example of a player who suffered for the evolving understanding of statistics.

Sabermetrics are not what has kept Garvey out. When Garvey was up for election, it wasn't the sabermetric stats/voters that kept him out. He was being voted on during a time when the old school measurements were the deciding factor.

272 home runs just wasn't good enough for a corner position player. Several 200 hit seasons was certainly considered, but ending up with less than 3,000 hits and zero batting titles, those 200 hit seasons lost their luster a little, and weren't enough to make up for the non elite power.

He simply did not have the old school type counting stats and/or leaderboard stats to get in.

Garvey's peak wasn't good enough to overcome that. For example, Guys like George Foster and Greg Luzinski have hitting peaks that were as good or better better than Garvey's during that time. Pedro Guerrero has a better hitting peak too, though he was hurt a little more often.