Surprisingly low WAR

[tod41]

Originally Posted by G1911

That an argument for Garvey is his OPS is a little higher than a defense first shortstop tells one everything they need to know about why Garvey is a poor candidate.

Garvey's post season numbers make him an interesting candidate. He was a dominant player in his era which was not a great offensive era.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by tod41

Garvey's post season numbers make him an interesting candidate. He was a dominant player in his era which was not a great offensive era.

He really was not. He topped out at a 138 OPS+, which for a 1B's best season is pretty low. He did not actually dominate his era outside of the hearts of his fans. 117 OPS+ is pretty average for a 1B.

[tod41]

Originally Posted by G1911

He really was not. He topped out at a 138 OPS+, which for a 1B's best season is pretty low. He did not actually dominate his era outside of the hearts of his fans. 117 OPS+ is pretty average for a 1B.

Who was a better than him in the National League at 1B from 74 to 80? While he topped out at a 138 OPS+, Garvey had seasons of 130, 134, 133 and 130 during that span.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by tod41

Who was a better than him in the National League at 1B from 74 to 80? While he topped out at a 138 OPS+, Garvey had seasons of 130, 134, 133 and 130 during that span.

So there wasn't the finest crop of NL first basemen in the late '70s.
But Stargell was better in '74, the year Steve Garvey won his MVP.
Hernandez was better in '77, '79 and '80.
Bob Watson was a better hitter from '75 thru '77.
Pete Rose was just as good in '80.

Steve Garvey was consistent, but never amazing.

Hernandez was easily the better player from '77 thru '80. Hernandez' OPS+ was several points higher than Garvey's, and he was a much better fielder.

Hernandez was only a Rookie in '75 and only had 188 at bats, so its not a fair comparison for '74 and '75.

[tod41]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

So there wasn't the finest crop of NL first basemen in the late '70s.
But Stargell was better in '74, the year Steve Garvey won his MVP.
Hernandez was better in '77, '79 and '80.
Bob Watson was a better hitter from '75 thru '77.
Pete Rose was just as good in '80.

Steve Garvey was consistent, but never amazing.

Hernandez was easily the better player from '77 thru '80. Hernandez' OPS+ was several points higher than Garvey's, and he was a much better fielder.

Hernandez was only a Rookie in '75 and only had 188 at bats, so its not a fair comparison for '74 and '75.

Willie Stargell was an outfielder that year. He played one game at First Base the whole season. Your other arguments are a stretch.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by tod41

Willie Stargell was an outfielder that year. He played one game at First Base the whole season. Your other arguments are a stretch.

Sorry, I meant Willie Stargell had a higher OPS+ in 1975, 1977 and 1978, and 1979 and 1980 (all while a first baseman).
Yes, I realize Stargell had fewer at bats.

As for Garvey being a better hitter than Hernandez from '77 -'80. Please make your case with numbers, not fanboy feelings.

[Seven]

I always believed Alfonso Soriano was much better than his WAR indicated. WAR by itself, is a flawed statistic however.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by tod41

Who was a better than him in the National League at 1B from 74 to 80? While he topped out at a 138 OPS+, Garvey had seasons of 130, 134, 133 and 130 during that span.

Who was a better catcher in the AL than Bill Freehan from the mid 60s to the mid 70s? It's not that meaningful, all depends on the competition at the time.

I am sure there was a long stretch when Bert Campaneris was the best SS in the AL. And what of it?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by tod41

Who was a better than him in the National League at 1B from 74 to 80? While he topped out at a 138 OPS+, Garvey had seasons of 130, 134, 133 and 130 during that span.

Charles handles this in 88, but even if we just assume Garvey was the best 1B in a period of 6 selected years - how does that mean he dominated the league? Garvey did not, in any way using metrics ancient or modern, dominate the league. That is a clearly false claim, which was the claim made.

[perezfan]

Couple of observations, having lived in SoCal during Garvey's entire career, and watching zillions of Dodgers games...

He got a lot of cheap hits (seeing-eye pop-ups, bloopers, Texas Leaguers, etc.) He had very strong forearms, so guess we should credit him for being able to "muscle" the ball into the outfield when he got jammed.

He was the best I've ever seen at continually scooping bad throws from Cey, Lopes, Russell and Co. He saved many an error by having their backs. He was a very steadying presence, defensively.

FWIW, I despised him and his squeaky clean image. We were displaced Reds fans living in OC. But we were just kids, and now I truly respect what he did. I don't think he'll ever enter the hall, as his numbers fall pretty far short of HOF status for a First Baseman. But he was still an excellent player.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Are there any other players with six 200 hit seasons whose numbers don't even put them close? Strange case.

PS Michael Young I think had six.

[packs]

Juan Pierre had four and just missed a fifth with 196. Not a guy you think of as a hit king either.