Why isn't Steve Garvey in the HOF?

[Mark17]

Throughout his playing career, I always assumed Garvey was a Hall of Fame player. He won many Gold Gloves, was MVP twice, won a World Series and played in four others, hit the big home run to give the Padres a pennant (over the Cubs,) and was easily on the All Star team year after year.

He finished with 2,599 hits and a .294 average, plus 272 home runs. Six times he had 200 or more hits, and five times over 100 RBI.

Clutch:
Division Series average (1981): .368
League Championship average (5 of them): .356
World Series average (5 of them): .319
All Star Games (10 of them): .393

I know it's weak to compare guys to players in the lower rungs of the Hall For example, look at Joe Tinker and his 600+ errors and .262 average for a 15-year career. You can make an argument for almost any 15-year shortstop compared to that.

But when you look at Garvey next to Jim Rice and Ryne Sandberg, two recent inductees, what am I missing?

[bscott]

It may have something to do with this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD9eYpcIl88

or this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-84YsYrAxc



Videotape doesn't lie.


-bscott

[cjclong]

I think the number speak for themselves. Garvey was a very good player but most people don't think he deserves the HOF. Less than a .300 average and less than 300 home runs. Tommy Henrich who played with the Yankees during the Joe DiMaggio eara and was called "old relieable" and is not in the HOF had what were similar numbers for his time. If we put every good player who was an All Star at one time in the Hall we would have to triple the size of the building and inducting 20 players every year. You see arguments of people who want Don Mattingly and others. A person can be an excellent player and an All Star and not merit that very top group that belongs in the HOF.

[sox83cubs84]

I really don't care for the guy...when he went free agent after 1982, he feigned interest in joining the Cubs. He never was serious about coming to Chicago...he just wanted to create a competitior (one he never truly would be signing with) to bleed a few extra dollars out of San Diego. I hope he NEVER makes it!:mad:

Dave Miedema
Chicago area
Steve Garvey is NOT my Padre!

[legaleagle92481]

Reasons he is not in from a purely on the field perspective:

1. He is a first baseman with under 300 homers who played nearly two decades. Outside of middle infield positions it is rare for a player who did not play in the dead ball era to get in with so few homers and for a first baseman it is unheard of. Plus five 100 rbi seasons is nothing special for a first baseman. 2599 hits is alot but would still have taken him three solid years to get to 3000. A .294 BA is very good but for instance Keith Hernadez hit .296 and he is not in the hall either.

2. Defense at first base does not hold the weight it does at other positions. I.e. Ozzie Smith at shortstop, Brooks Robinson at third base. To use this example again Keith Hernadez was also a tremendous first baseman who won nine or ten gold gloves and he has not sniffed the Hall either.

3. One mvp does not do that much for a hof case. Hernadez won one also. Jeff Burroughs won one so did Sal Bando, Don Mattingly and Canseco.

4. Allstar appearances mean very little as players are not always chosen on merit or a specfic position is just weak for a few years. Alot of many time allstars are not in. Silver slugger awards a much greater measure of a hitter's greatness and he won zero.

5. Winning a world series is impressive but a hofer it does not make. Look at the NBA Robert Horry contributed to many titles often huge game turning lays but is not a HOFer. Hernadez won two series' Garvey only won one as well.

6. Rice was regarded as the premier player of his era and Sandberg was a power hitting, slick fielding secobd baseman the likes of which the game had never seen so those are poor comparisions.

[Mark17]

Reasons he is not in from a purely on the field perspective:

1. He is a first baseman with under 300 homers who played nearly two decades. Outside of middle infield positions it is rare for a player who did not play in the dead ball era to get in with so few homers and for a first baseman it is unheard of. Plus five 100 rbi seasons is nothing special for a first baseman. 2599 hits is alot but would still have taken him three solid years to get to 3000. A .294 BA is very good but for instance Keith Hernadez hit .296 and he is not in the hall either.

2. Defense at first base does not hold the weight it does at other positions. I.e. Ozzie Smith at shortstop, Brooks Robinson at third base. To use this example again Keith Hernadez was also a tremendous first baseman who won nine or ten gold gloves and he has not sniffed the Hall either.

3. One mvp does not do that much for a hof case. Hernadez won one also. Jeff Burroughs won one so did Sal Bando, Don Mattingly and Canseco.

4. Allstar appearances mean very little as players are not always chosen on merit or a specfic position is just weak for a few years. Alot of many time allstars are not in. Silver slugger awards a much greater measure of a hitter's greatness and he won zero.

5. Winning a world series is impressive but a hofer it does not make. Look at the NBA Robert Horry contributed to many titles often huge game turning lays but is not a HOFer. Hernadez won two series' Garvey only won one as well.

6. Rice was regarded as the premier player of his era and Sandberg was a power hitting, slick fielding secobd baseman the likes of which the game had never seen so those are poor comparisions.

You make some good points. Here are my responses:

1. "...it is rare for a player who did not play in the dead ball era to get in with so few homers and for a first baseman it is unheard of.." True, but Garvey topped your example, Keith Hernandez, by 110 in HRs. And he didn't play in a ballpark like Fenway to help him out, as Rice did.

2. Ozzie and Brooks may be the best to ever play at their positions, Brooks for certain, so comparing to that standard is about impossible for anyone. But a 4-time gold-glove first baseman should top an average left-fielder like Rice, I would think.

3. Agreed, one MVP isn't a huge deal by itself. But Rice only won it once as well, same with Sandberg.

4. Garvey made 10 all-star teams (same for Sandberg.) Again, by itself, not a deal-closer, but I'd expect a HOFer to be a perennial All-Star, and he qualifies in that respect. Rice, in comparison, only played in 7.

5. You're resorting to a basketball example here, perhaps because the other players we're comparing Garvey to either never played in a World Series (Sandberg,) or lost the only one they were in (Rice.) Hernandez, with his extremely weak HR total of 162, with only 2182 hits, is out of contention in my opinion. Garvey played in 5, and hit .419 in helping his team to the WS title in 1981.

6. I'll concede Sandberg as being one of the top guys at his position. I don't agree Rice was the premier player of his era, as Robin Yount and George Brett were much, much better and were elected to the Hall in 1999. Rice waited until 10 years later.

I'm not saying Garvey should be in.... I'm just curious about the reasoning why he isn't.


Jim Rice, Steve Garvey, Ryne Sandberg, Keith Hernandez stats:

G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS AVG
2089 8225 1249 2452 373 79 382 1451 670 1423 58 34 .298
2332 8835 1143 2599 440 43 272 1308 479 1003 83 62 .294
2164 8385 1318 2386 403 76 282 1061 761 1260 44 107 .285
2088 7370 1124 2182 426 60 162 1071 1070 1012 98 63 .296

[joelsabi]

You make some good points. Here are my responses:

1. "...it is rare for a player who did not play in the dead ball era to get in with so few homers and for a first baseman it is unheard of.." True, but Garvey topped your example, Keith Hernandez, by 110 in HRs. And he didn't play in a ballpark like Fenway to help him out, as Rice did.

2. Ozzie and Brooks may be the best to ever play at their positions, Brooks for certain, so comparing to that standard is about impossible for anyone. But a 4-time gold-glove first baseman should top an average left-fielder like Rice, I would think.

3. Agreed, one MVP isn't a huge deal by itself. But Rice only won it once as well, same with Sandberg.

4. Garvey made 10 all-star teams (same for Sandberg.) Again, by itself, not a deal-closer, but I'd expect a HOFer to be a perennial All-Star, and he qualifies in that respect. Rice, in comparison, only played in 7.

5. You're resorting to a basketball example here, perhaps because the other players we're comparing Garvey to either never played in a World Series (Sandberg,) or lost the only one they were in (Rice.) Hernandez, with his extremely weak HR total of 162, with only 2182 hits, is out of contention in my opinion. Garvey played in 5, and hit .419 in helping his team to the WS title in 1981.

6. I'll concede Sandberg as being one of the top guys at his position. I don't agree Rice was the premier player of his era, as Robin Yount and George Brett were much, much better and were elected to the Hall in 1999. Rice waited until 10 years later.

I'm not saying Garvey should be in.... I'm just curious about the reasoning why he isn't.


Jim Rice, Steve Garvey, Ryne Sandberg, Keith Hernandez stats:

G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS AVG
2089 8225 1249 2452 373 79 382 1451 670 1423 58 34 .298
2332 8835 1143 2599 440 43 272 1308 479 1003 83 62 .294
2164 8385 1318 2386 403 76 282 1061 761 1260 44 107 .285
2088 7370 1124 2182 426 60 162 1071 1070 1012 98 63 .296


most of the time it's more fair comparison if among other first basemen not in the HOF, like Allen, Hernandez, Mattingly, and Bagwell.

[legaleagle92481]

Alot of players one can argue are HOF worthy. For example look at Bernie Williams won four gold gloves playing a premiumn defensive position. He had more homers than Garvey, a higher ba, 51 less rbis than Garvey with the same amount of 100 rbi seasons, several all star games, 6 world series winning four and he played more than 200 games less than Garvey.

[MJB14]

You make some good points. Here are my responses:



6. I don't agree Rice was the premier player of his era, as Robin Yount and George Brett were much, much better and were elected to the Hall in 1999. Rice waited until 10 years later.



Rice not being a premier player in his era?

From 1975 to 1986, Rice led the AL in total games played, at bats, runs scored, hits, homers, RBIs, slugging average, total bases, extra base hits, go-ahead RBIs, multi-hit games, and outfield assists (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/wiki/Assist_(baseball)).[3] (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/#cite_note-2) Among all major league players during that time, Rice was the leader in five of these categories (Mike Schmidt (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/wiki/Mike_Schmidt) is next, having led in four).

Rice could hit for both power and average, and currently only nine other retired players rank ahead of him in both career home runs and batting average: Hank Aaron (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/wiki/Hank_Aaron), Jimmie Foxx (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/wiki/Jimmie_Foxx), Lou Gehrig (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/wiki/Lou_Gehrig), Mickey Mantle (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/wiki/Mickey_Mantle), Willie Mays (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/wiki/Willie_Mays), Stan Musial (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/wiki/Stan_Musial), Mel Ott (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/wiki/Mel_Ott), Babe Ruth (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/wiki/Babe_Ruth) and Ted Williams (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/wiki/Ted_Williams)

In addition to winning the American League MVP award in 1978, he finished in the top five in MVP voting five other times (1975, 1977, 1979, 1983, 1986).

How is that not premier?

[legaleagle92481]

most of the time it's more fair comparison if among other first basemen not in the HOF, like Allen, Hernandez, Mattingly, and Bagwell.

Bagwell is not yet eligible for Cooperstown it will be interesting to see if he gets in. Throughout his career he was often talked about as a future HOfer. Another interesting guy is McGriff he had over 490 homers and did not get in on his first try.

[PwKw13]

Throughout his playing career, I always assumed Garvey was a Hall of Fame player.

Just based on watching him play and his stature in the game at that time for winning teams, I always had the same impression.

[Mark17]

Rice not being a premier player in his era?

From 1975 to 1986, Rice led the AL in total games played, at bats, runs scored, hits, homers, RBIs, slugging average, total bases, extra base hits, go-ahead RBIs, multi-hit games, and outfield assists (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/wiki/Assist_(baseball)).[3] (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/#cite_note-2) Among all major league players during that time, Rice was the leader in five of these categories (Mike Schmidt (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/wiki/Mike_Schmidt) is next, having led in four).

Rice could hit for both power and average, and currently only nine other retired players rank ahead of him in both career home runs and batting average: Hank Aaron (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/wiki/Hank_Aaron), Jimmie Foxx (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/wiki/Jimmie_Foxx), Lou Gehrig (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/wiki/Lou_Gehrig), Mickey Mantle (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/wiki/Mickey_Mantle), Willie Mays (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/wiki/Willie_Mays), Stan Musial (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/wiki/Stan_Musial), Mel Ott (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/wiki/Mel_Ott), Babe Ruth (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/wiki/Babe_Ruth) and Ted Williams (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/wiki/Ted_Williams)

In addition to winning the American League MVP award in 1978, he finished in the top five in MVP voting five other times (1975, 1977, 1979, 1983, 1986).

How is that not premier?

I was responding to Eagle's comment that Rice was THE premier player of his era. I agree he was A premier player. Yount and Brett, who finished their careers in 1993, were elected in 1999. Rice's last season was 1989, and he didn't get into the HOF until 20 years later. So, apparently there are a lot of people who would list Yount and Brett ahead of Rice.

Overall, everyone has made a good case against Garvey for the HOF, and I suppose I have to agree. He's close, but lack of power at the first base position is the one thing that really hurts him. 100 more HRs and he'd have to be in, I'd think.

[legaleagle92481]

I was responding to Eagle's comment that Rice was THE premier player of his era. I agree he was A premier player. Yount and Brett, who finished their careers in 1993, were elected in 1999. Rice's last season was 1989, and he didn't get into the HOF until 20 years later. So, apparently there are a lot of people who would list Yount and Brett ahead of Rice.

Overall, everyone has made a good case against Garvey for the HOF, and I suppose I have to agree. He's close, but lack of power at the first base position is the one thing that really hurts him. 100 more HRs and he'd have to be in, I'd think.

I think in their primes Rice was more domiant than Brett and Yount. Brett and Yount got in first because they stuck around long enough to accumulate the magic number of 3000 hits. Magic numbers get you in. Rice and Dawson suffered the same bias. The steroid era made their career power numbers look puny for outfielders and they were short of one of the magic numbers. Dawson got in in year nine rather than 15 because the writers finally woke up and realized holding the lack of certain milestones against clean players was wrong. For what it is worth imo that era had some of the weakest "domiant" players ever imo. Many of the guys fell short of the HOF i.e. Mattingly, Strawberry, Gooden, Canseco, Jack Morris, etc. No Mays, Aaron, Mantle, Ted Williams, Griffey, Pujols in the group.

[MJB14]

A large part of Rice's not being elected to the HOF for so long was the fact that he and the media butted heads over his 15 yr career. And the media (still can't figure out why) are the ones who have the control and power to vote the players in.

[earlywynnfan]

I think in their primes Rice was more domiant than Brett and Yount. Brett and Yount got in first because they stuck around long enough to accumulate the magic number of 3000 hits. Magic numbers get you in. Rice and Dawson suffered the same bias. The steroid era made their career power numbers look puny for outfielders and they were short of one of the magic numbers. Dawson got in in year nine rather than 15 because the writers finally woke up and realized holding the lack of certain milestones against clean players was wrong. For what it is worth imo that era had some of the weakest "domiant" players ever imo. Many of the guys fell short of the HOF i.e. Mattingly, Strawberry, Gooden, Canseco, Jack Morris, etc. No Mays, Aaron, Mantle, Ted Williams, Griffey, Pujols in the group.

I can totally agree with your point on Yount, not to say he isn't HOF material, but I disagree on Brett. He answers all kinds of Bill James' questions, esp. that he was without a doubt the best 3B in his league for basically his entire career.

Personally, if it's a big game that needs to be won, I'd give the ball to Jack Morris before half the HOF pitchers. But that probably isn't enough to get him in, esp. with his surly disposition.

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

[legaleagle92481]

I can totally agree with your point on Yount, not to say he isn't HOF material, but I disagree on Brett. He answers all kinds of Bill James' questions, esp. that he was without a doubt the best 3B in his league for basically his entire career.

Personally, if it's a big game that needs to be won, I'd give the ball to Jack Morris before half the HOF pitchers. But that probably isn't enough to get him in, esp. with his surly disposition.

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

i agree morris should be in but if got in he would have highest era of any hofer and he fell short of 300 so he will probably never make it. but koufax or spahn or seaver he was not. i also agree half the hall pitchers and many position players dont belong in there but that was the wonderful veterans committee of yore for you. i think younts a hofer but just not one of the premier players of his era he got in so fast because of the hits total. 3rd base is least represented position in the hall and i think scmhidt was better but i defintely agree brett's a first ballot hofer.

[Mark17]

i think younts a hofer but just not one of the premier players of his era he got in so fast because of the hits total. 3rd base is least represented position in the hall and i think scmhidt was better but i defintely agree brett's a first ballot hofer.

Yount was the premier shortstop of his era. I know some people were awed with Ozzie and his backflips and all that, but Ozzie was a very average offensive player, hitting just .262 with a whopping 28 home runs (Yount hit over 250, more than eight times as many.) Ozzie stole a lot of bases but scored 100 runs just once, Yount 5 times, and Ozzie never came close to 100 RBI, while Yount did it 3 times.

Robin Yount also had the versatility to spend the second half of his career at another demanding, premier defensive position: centerfield. And he won 2 MVP awards (to Ozzie's zero), one as a SS, one as a centerfielder.

[joelsabi]

Yount was the premier shortstop of his era. I know some people were awed with Ozzie and his backflips and all that, but Ozzie was a very average offensive player, hitting just .262 with a whopping 28 home runs (Yount hit over 250, more than eight times as many.) Ozzie stole a lot of bases but scored 100 runs just once, Yount 5 times, and Ozzie never came close to 100 RBI, while Yount did it 3 times.

Robin Yount also had the versatility to spend the second half of his career at another demanding, premier defensive position: centerfield. And he won 2 MVP awards (to Ozzie's zero), one as a SS, one as a centerfielder.

Comparing players from different positions statistically produces nonsensical results. If statistics were the only basis, you would hardly have any shortstops, second basemen, or catchers in the HOF. Instead it should be comparison among players playing the same position. When players from these three positions win the MVP, its usually because they had one of the greatest years for a players for a certain position although a player playing the corner or outfield had a better year statistically. As you stated Yount was a unique player having won MVPs while playing two important defensive positions. Beside Yount is the face of the Milwaukee Brewers.

As far as Garvey, I think you have to look at other first basemen such as Allen, Bagwell, Mattingly, and Hernandez. Allen and Bagwell were better than Garvey offensively while Mattingly and Hernandez were better than Garvey defensively.

An interesting observation was that Garvey's HOF vote % dipped the season McGwire had his 70 HR season. Was this a move by writers to make room for McGwire knowing that he played firstbase and trying to sustain an position equilibrium for HOFers. Maybe. Anyways, let's see if the Veteran Committee will vote Garvey in.

[legaleagle92481]

Yount was the premier shortstop of his era. I know some people were awed with Ozzie and his backflips and all that, but Ozzie was a very average offensive player, hitting just .262 with a whopping 28 home runs (Yount hit over 250, more than eight times as many.) Ozzie stole a lot of bases but scored 100 runs just once, Yount 5 times, and Ozzie never came close to 100 RBI, while Yount did it 3 times.

Robin Yount also had the versatility to spend the second half of his career at another demanding, premier defensive position: centerfield. And he won 2 MVP awards (to Ozzie's zero), one as a SS, one as a centerfielder.

Who mentioned Ozzie? My vote is for Cal Ripken Jr. whose career overlapped with Yount's from 81 to 93. I think he was far superior to either player.

[Mark17]

Who mentioned Ozzie? My vote is for Cal Ripken Jr. whose career overlapped with Yount's from 81 to 93. I think he was far superior to either player.

I mentioned Ozzie because he was more a contemporary SS. Aside from Cal's handful of games in 1981, he and Yount were both shortstops only 3 years, 82-84, when Robin played his final game at that position. So, I think it's fair to say that for the decade Robin Yount was a shortstop, 1974-1984, he was the best in baseball at his position.

Overall, I'll agree Cal was better in the power department, and generally I think a premier SS is more valuable than a premier CF, but the numbers are pretty comparable. Ripken dominates in home runs, Yount in stolen bases. I do agree, Ripken has the edge but it's close:

Ripken, Yount
G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS AVG
3001 11551 1647 3184 603 44 431 1695 1129 1305 36 39 .276 2856 11008 1632 3142 583 126 251 1406 966 1350 271 105 .285

[Mark17]

Sorry, I'll try again:

G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS AVG
Ripken:

3001 11551 1647 3184 603 44 431 1695 1129 1305 36 39 .276

Yount:

2856 11008 1632 3142 583 126 251 1406 966 1350 271 105 .285

[ahuff]

Don't even get me started on this one.

I agree, Steve Garvey is a borderline guy in my book. The stats are missing, but he has numerous accolades that show he could be in, as well. I too think it simply comes down to his position and the voters love of the long ball. See Mark Grace...only two guys have led their league in hits for a decade and are not in the Hall - Pete Rose and Mark Grace. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Grace should be in, but during the 90's he was well on his way.

I hate the way they vote for the Hall of Fame. There is so much bias and junk that goes with it. For instance, why is Blyleven not in?

How about the theory of "Domination". I think if you are from the New England states than you do see Jim Rice, Don Mattingly, and many of the others are deserving of a HOF nod because that is what you saw and read about on a daily basis. I read about Ozzie Smith (who I don't think belongs in), Ryne Sandberg, Andre Dawson, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, and the likes of them. Mattingly certainly had some awesome years, but he falls in the same line as Grace---just not enough studly years or numbers to put him in.

Someone was saying Jim Rice dominated his era. Well, I can say he didn't dominate even the Red Sox. When you look at the big stats, he lost to a guy that played on his own team (and isn't in the HOF). I compared Jim Rice, Dwight Evans, and Andre Dawson...Two of whom are in the HOF. Jim Rice only won one category when comparing the three (even when you adjust for the differences in at bats). He was a much than the other two in batting average. Otherwise, Dwight Evans was equally better in on base percentage and scoring runs. When you adjust for at bats, Dwight also takes home the most doubles. Andre had quite a few more at bats. However, even when you adjust for that he wins in hits, triples, stolen bases, and squeaks by in home runs (all three were within 14 home runs when adjusted for at bats). Prior to doing this little research, I didn't think Dawson was deserving, and I thought the 1987 season got him in. I still believe that season got him in, but he did have some great numbers when you look at it like this.

[MJB14]

Don't even get me started on this one.


Someone was saying Jim Rice dominated his era. Well, I can say he didn't dominate even the Red Sox. When you look at the big stats, he lost to a guy that played on his own team (and isn't in the HOF). I compared Jim Rice, Dwight Evans, and Andre Dawson...Two of whom are in the HOF. Jim Rice only won one category when comparing the three (even when you adjust for the differences in at bats). He was a much than the other two in batting average. Otherwise, Dwight Evans was equally better in on base percentage and scoring runs. When you adjust for at bats, Dwight also takes home the most doubles. Andre had quite a few more at bats. However, even when you adjust for that he wins in hits, triples, stolen bases, and squeaks by in home runs (all three were within 14 home runs when adjusted for at bats). Prior to doing this little research, I didn't think Dawson was deserving, and I thought the 1987 season got him in. I still believe that season got him in, but he did have some great numbers when you look at it like this.

I will repost this. This is from 1975-1986 before Rice's eyes started to go and the injuries started to pile up. He led the whole AL in these catergories and all of MLB in 5 of them. If he didn't dominate the Red Sox then how is it he led the whole league and in 5 cases all of baseball in these catergories?

From 1975 to 1986, Rice led the AL in total games played, at bats, runs scored, hits, homers, RBIs, slugging average, total bases, extra base hits, go-ahead RBIs, multi-hit games, and outfield assists (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/wiki/Assist_(baseball)).[3] (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/#cite_note-2) Among all major league players during that time, Rice was the leader in five of these categories (Mike Schmidt (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/wiki/Mike_Schmidt) is next, having led in four).

[legaleagle92481]

Rice-

Average season (based on 162 games)-30 hr 113 rbi .298 ba 97 runs 190 hits

Dawson-

Average season (based on 162 games) 27 hr 98 rbi .279 ba 171 hits 85 runs

Evans-

Average season (based on 162 games) 24 hr 86 rbi .272 ba 152 hits 91 runs

Individual milestones:

Rice
1 mvp- 3 homer titles, 2 rbi titles, 4 30 hr seasons, 8 100 rbi seasons, 4 200 hit seasons, 7 .300 seasons.

Dawson-
1 MVP-1 hr, 1 rbi- 1 hit title. 3 30 hr, 0 200 hit, 5 .300 ba, 4 100 rbi seasons

Evans-
2 30 hr, 4 100 rbi, 1 .300, 0 200 hit seasons never led league in major stat. category or won an mvp.

Rice runs circles around these guys. All stats are from baseball reference.com

[Rob L]

Another one that is on the cusp - Bobby Grich. Thoughts?