Options
1974 Steve Garvey MVP??
Skinpinch
Posts: 1,531
in Sports Talk
Just some random examining, and when I look at the 1974 MVP race I just scratch my head and wonder how Garvey wins this award. There are so many candidates much more qualified than him it is ridiculous. I already know the answer, they won the division, he was handsome, he batted over .300, had good RBI totals, and it was basically his coming out year. None of which truly define how good a player truly is. Yet the ignorant flock to those justifications. Just shows how ridiculous people think sometimes. He had two teammates alone that were much more qualified than him.
Jimmy Wynn had a much better year than Garvey, yet it is that darn fascination with batting average that does him in. Forget the fact that Wynn was better offensively AND defensively! No, .312 to .271 is the deciding factor in the mids of the inept. Then I just did a quick glance at the men on numbers and I say Wynn is the RUNAWAY MVP of the Dodgers!
Schmidt, Bench, Morgan, all astronomicallly better than Garvey that year, but they didn't win a division, so give it to a lesser player on a better team. Though I hesitate calling LA better than Cincy just because they edged them by four games, as the surrounding years showed who indeed was better. Things just fell into place a little better for LA that year.
What about Ralph Garr?
Stargell had the division, and was also infinately better than Garvey! He missed 22 games, and I give the voters a pass on that one due to time missed, although 140 games of Stargell and 22 games of any reserve is STILL MUCH BETTER than Garvey!
Heck, Richie Zisk and Al Oliver from the same division winning pirates both better than Garvey. Even Richie Hebner was right there with Garvey!
Phil Nikkro, YES.
His other teammate? Andy Messersmith, certainly a bigger contributor to winning than Garvey. One can even make a case for another of his teammates, Mike Marshall! I wouldn't even entirely dismiss the catching combination of Yeager/Ferguson as being contributors of more wins than Garvey. In fact, after looking a little harder at the catchers, they TOO ARE AHEAD OF GARVEY.. The only problem is that it is a combination at a positin and not one guy. Nonetheless, the catching position for LA in 1974 was responsible for more run producing/run preventing than Garvey. I also add Ron Cey to the mix as well when defesne and positin are considered, as that makes him in a virtual tie with Garvey. Davey lopes and Willie Crawford are also knocking on the door.
How one can justify Garvey winning the award is beyond me. The only justification is based on irrelevant, or over-inflated things. Yet there are a lot of people who believe in the hype, or are just too stupid to know any better(boy is the world filled with those type of thinkers). He is certainly not even the best player on his team, and probably in the 3-4 range, with others just as good. The league? My goodness, he is the bat boy of the team photo, yet he walks away with the award.
P.S., for the moron who is going to dismiss my assertion of the catchers being better than Garvey, put this into your pipe and smoke it. Garvey SLG% of .469, the catching position .455. Garvey OB% of .342, catching position .366.
OPS: Garvey .811, catchers .821 !!
Even if you are an ignoramous who will totally dismiss the OPS numbers of that comparison, how on earth can you justify Garvey being the MVP of the league when his catchers are right in line with him offensively? Realize that those catchers brought much more defensive value to the table than Garvey. So Garvey is the LEAGUE MVP, when his teammate catchers create more runs and prevent more runs??
Jimmy Wynn had a much better year than Garvey, yet it is that darn fascination with batting average that does him in. Forget the fact that Wynn was better offensively AND defensively! No, .312 to .271 is the deciding factor in the mids of the inept. Then I just did a quick glance at the men on numbers and I say Wynn is the RUNAWAY MVP of the Dodgers!
Schmidt, Bench, Morgan, all astronomicallly better than Garvey that year, but they didn't win a division, so give it to a lesser player on a better team. Though I hesitate calling LA better than Cincy just because they edged them by four games, as the surrounding years showed who indeed was better. Things just fell into place a little better for LA that year.
What about Ralph Garr?
Stargell had the division, and was also infinately better than Garvey! He missed 22 games, and I give the voters a pass on that one due to time missed, although 140 games of Stargell and 22 games of any reserve is STILL MUCH BETTER than Garvey!
Heck, Richie Zisk and Al Oliver from the same division winning pirates both better than Garvey. Even Richie Hebner was right there with Garvey!
Phil Nikkro, YES.
His other teammate? Andy Messersmith, certainly a bigger contributor to winning than Garvey. One can even make a case for another of his teammates, Mike Marshall! I wouldn't even entirely dismiss the catching combination of Yeager/Ferguson as being contributors of more wins than Garvey. In fact, after looking a little harder at the catchers, they TOO ARE AHEAD OF GARVEY.. The only problem is that it is a combination at a positin and not one guy. Nonetheless, the catching position for LA in 1974 was responsible for more run producing/run preventing than Garvey. I also add Ron Cey to the mix as well when defesne and positin are considered, as that makes him in a virtual tie with Garvey. Davey lopes and Willie Crawford are also knocking on the door.
How one can justify Garvey winning the award is beyond me. The only justification is based on irrelevant, or over-inflated things. Yet there are a lot of people who believe in the hype, or are just too stupid to know any better(boy is the world filled with those type of thinkers). He is certainly not even the best player on his team, and probably in the 3-4 range, with others just as good. The league? My goodness, he is the bat boy of the team photo, yet he walks away with the award.
P.S., for the moron who is going to dismiss my assertion of the catchers being better than Garvey, put this into your pipe and smoke it. Garvey SLG% of .469, the catching position .455. Garvey OB% of .342, catching position .366.
OPS: Garvey .811, catchers .821 !!
Even if you are an ignoramous who will totally dismiss the OPS numbers of that comparison, how on earth can you justify Garvey being the MVP of the league when his catchers are right in line with him offensively? Realize that those catchers brought much more defensive value to the table than Garvey. So Garvey is the LEAGUE MVP, when his teammate catchers create more runs and prevent more runs??
0
Comments
This isn't even a case of writers giving it to the guy with better teammates. In this case the Angels win their division, but they aren't even better than the Red Sox as the Angels win 88 games and Boston 91. So Don Baylor wins the award on the basis of the Red Sox misfortune of having the two best teams in the league in THEIR divison, instead of Baylor's. As that is waht prevents Boston from winning their division, while allowing California to win theirs, while ultimately leading to Don Baylor winning the MVP because of idiocy in the minds of the voters.
So instead of Don Baylor writing thank you notes to his teammates for winning the MVP(the very same notes Colon used to thank his teammates for the Cy Young this year), he sends them to the Baltimore Orioles and Milwaukee Brewers for not being in his division, which allows his inferior team to win an inferior division, ultimately leading to an inferior player winning the MVP.
Edited to add. Did you know Fred Lynn won the triple crown in 1979? No, not that one, but a more important one...He led the league in OB%, SLG%, and OPS.
We should just have you do it.
SD
<< <i>I think that we should petition MLB and have them change the voting rules. They should not have the writers, managers and coaches pick anymore awards.
We should just have you do it.
SD >>
That's pretty funny.
<< <i>I think that we should petition MLB and have them change the voting rules. They should not have the writers, managers and coaches pick anymore awards.
We should just have you do it.
SD >>
That would be a good start. Then add about 100 more people that know what they are talking about, then we are on to something. The writers are obviously retarded, no need to elaborate on them. The ability to construct sentences and paragraphs should not be the requisite to vote, yet that is basically what it is. It is quite obvious that knowledge certainly isn't.
The coaches are good at the jobs that they have been hired to do, but not necessarily picking things, as evident by all the idotic all-star picks, and by giving a gold glove to a guy who didn't even play in the field. Coaching ability doesn't equate to analytical ability. Niether does professional level playing ability. Those are quite evident. There are some bright guys in those jobs, don't get me wrong, but that isn't the norm. Fact is, a lot of them aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed. They too fall prey to misinformation, hype etc..., just like average Joe. Heck, just listen to Carl Everett speak. Or Joe Morgan. Ask Morgan if Banks was helped tremendously by having the baskets up at Wrigley Field, like he said he was. Go ahead and ask him, then research that subject and see what you come up with.
Those two examples I laid out above, especially the Garvey one, should shed let on what we are dealng with here.
Well, that leaves me out.
SD
Not to mention that Gonzalez wasn't even the best slugger that year! Belle, Griffey, McGwire, and Thomas were all better hitters than Gonzalez. Griffey was worlds apart when defense is added! So how on earth does Gonzalez win that award?? OH, they won their division! I get it. But Albert Belle won his division too, and he was better than Gonzalez. Stupidity!
In 1998 Juan Gonzlez beats out another SS, Nomar Garciaparra. They were extremely close in hitting, and obviously Nomar's defensive value was much higher than the butcher's. So how does Juan Gonzalez beat out two SS in MVP races, one who was a better hitter, and one who was equal, while someone like Eddie Murray doesn't beat out a couple of SS, where Murray was definately a better hitter? Writers, which is it?
They are so contradictory it is ridiculous. They are so misinformed it is ridiculous. They fall prey to hype, and base the awards on things that are irrelevant to a players value. They don't know crapola.
Quit trying to impress people with your 'knowledge' and 'superior intellect'...it's just annoying.
Unfocused, impulsive collector of everything ...
<< <i>Who has the time and or energy to research an MVP race from 30+ years ago? >>
Ax, with 4,964 posts on these message boards since July 2004, I would say you do
Besides, somebody was happy to hear about Wynn. How often are Richie Zisk, and RIchie Hebner mentioned? Good to hear about Steve Yeager and Joe Ferguson too!
Let it go man! Focus on the here and now!
I collect the set because I enjoy the black borders, and I enjoy the set. What exactly does that have to do with you bringing up an MVP race 30+ years ago?
Do you see me here posting 'the 1971 set is the most under appreciated set of all time! Let me tell you why *I* know more about this than any of you peons!'
You made the goofy comment of "who has the TIME to worry about the 1974 MVP race." Ax, I replied that you certainly do as evidenced by your insane amount of posts within a year and a half...98% of which were immature. Now, if you are going to convict me for spending some time examining the 1974 MVP race, then you must study that figure in the mirror and examine how it spends its own time
If you feel that you are a peon, well that may be justified, but I read a lot of posters who most certainly are not.
Skip, you come here with your 'high and mighty' antics, and no one is amused. No one enjoys being preached to, which you do on a continual basis.
And a majority of my posts are quick quips bantering with fools like you who don't even collect cards, yet feel the need to post here incessantly.
Yes I have a high post count...what, are you jealous? Are you afraid of my HUGE post count? Are you intimidated, and feel that somehow the number of times I post means ANYTHING?
and 98% of my posts are immature? Oh well, beats your 100% 'look at me I is smart! post count.
They say the hardest thing to do is to debate with an ignoramous, thanks for proving that statement true.
<< <i>Again I'll ask, who really cares about an MVP race from 30+ years ago? Let alone from an elitist like yourself...you claim to know more than the voters, you claim to know more than those who have lived the game.
Let it go man! Focus on the here and now! >>
What a sourpuss! A lot of people care about a 30 year old MVP race. If you do not care, go to another post. No one forced you here. FWIW Garvey did not even make the top ten in position players in WAR for the NL in 74. Schmidt was 1st. Garvey's teammate Wynn was 4th.
<< <i>Who has the time and or energy to research an MVP race from 30+ years ago?
Quit trying to impress people with your 'knowledge' and 'superior intellect'...it's just annoying. >>
I wonder what 1985fan would have to say about this comment
<< <i>Skip-
I collect the set because I enjoy the black borders, ' >>
What if it had red borders
<< <i>
<< <i>Who has the time and or energy to research an MVP race from 30+ years ago?
Quit trying to impress people with your 'knowledge' and 'superior intellect'...it's just annoying. >>
I wonder what 1985fan would have to say about this comment
Looking back at that post, I probably should have not used the following words, "inept," "ignorant flock," and especially, "Yet there are a lot of people who believe in the hype, or are just too stupid to know any better(boy is the world filled with those type of thinkers)."
That was a condescending tone, so my apologies to anyone If I ever direct that tone at you...I just tend to get excited and into the debates. However, don't mistake that kindness for weakness, lol, because I still sometimes use the tone when it is directed at me first, lol...though I try not too!
Ax was out of his mind with those 'points', and for a while I always found ways to destroy his arguments or points...but after the Arod stuff where I really kept at him, I decided that I should just let bygones be bygones and stop doing that. Enough was enough, time to move on.
<< <i>FWIW-the site baseballthinkfactory.com looks for the best player each year. For 1974, Garvey finished 25th (across both leagues). Schmidt won. >>
Upon reflection, back in the day, I judged players on the same things too, so I guess I should apologize for some hypocrisy by calling the voters out
I still have a couple issues with the comprehenisve methods, most notably the cross-era measuring performance, how they take on the longevity factor, and their positional adjustments(I agree there needs to be some, but I believe they may go a little too far). Defensive measurements are inherently hard to judge, but they are getting better...and are certainly better than the eye test(though I don't completely discount the use of eyes).
More than anything, I am happy to see how many guys on this board are really immersing themselves into the more effective methods. You, NVbaseball(he is good!), Baseball, Dallasactuary, etc... Sorry if I missed anyone!
Dallas is no longer posting, but he was awesome!