Why isn't Steve Garvey in the HOF?

[Rob L]

Re: Why isn't Steve Garvey in the HOF?

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

[legaleagle92481]

Re: Why isn't Steve Garvey in the HOF?

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

[MJB14]

Re: Why isn't Steve Garvey in the HOF?

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.[3] Among all major league players during that time, Rice was the leader in five of these categories (Mike Schmidt is next, having led in four).

[ahuff]

Re: Why isn't Steve Garvey in the HOF?

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.

[Mark17]

Re: Why isn't Steve Garvey in the HOF?

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

[Mark17]

Re: Why isn't Steve Garvey in the HOF?

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

[legaleagle92481]

Re: Why isn't Steve Garvey in the HOF?

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.

[joelsabi]

Re: Why isn't Steve Garvey in the HOF?

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.

[Mark17]

Re: Why isn't Steve Garvey in the HOF?

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.

[legaleagle92481]

Re: Why isn't Steve Garvey in the HOF?

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.

[earlywynnfan]

Re: Why isn't Steve Garvey in the HOF?

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

[MJB14]

Re: Why isn't Steve Garvey in the HOF?

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.

[legaleagle92481]

Re: Why isn't Steve Garvey in the HOF?

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.

[Mark17]

Re: Why isn't Steve Garvey in the HOF?

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.[3] Among all major league players during that time, Rice was the leader in five of these categories (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, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Stan Musial, Mel Ott, Babe Ruth and 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.

[PwKw13]

Re: Why isn't Steve Garvey in the HOF?

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.