Helton's stats, away from Coors, doubled to a full career:
AB 7848 Hits 2250 BA .287 HR 284 RBI 1094 OBP .386 SLG .469
Compare that to:
AB 7869 Hits 2336 BA .297 HR 287 RBI 1257 OBP .381 SLG .477
These are contemporary players and they're pretty comparable. You would, at least, need to see a lot more information than this to determine which one was better. The second set of stats belong to Bernie Williams, who got 3.3% of the vote on his second and last HOF ballot. Unless voters are blinded by Coors, Helton will do about the same.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Taking stats out of it for a second when I think of Todd Helton I don't think HOF.
Mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
He did have some great years on the road as well. No one is ignoring reality, Walker had some terrible hitting years on the road, but not all of them were bad.
I could also say that ignoring the 12th highest SLG% of all time isn't facing reality either. OPS+ of 141 is huge and that's park adjusted.
Oh well, we'll never agree on Larry, that's ok too, he'll be fine.
Larry @ Coors = .710 SLG Larry @ Anywhere else = .500 SLG
At Coors, he's basically Babe Ruth. Away from Coors, he's Jim Bottomley or Ryan Klesko.
Regardless, the question was asked why he's not in the HOF. All I've done is answer the why. Agree or disagree, fact is, Larry is seen as a product of Coors Field. The numbers, by and large, back that up and he's punished for it - unlike, say, Sandy Koufax at Dodger Stadium.
By the way only 84 hitters have a .500 SLG% or better in the history of the game.
OK I will stop.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
BTW Norm Cash is a first ballot HOFer compared to Steve Garvey.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
AB 6956 Hits 1934 BA .278 HR 336 RBI 1128 OBP ..370 SLG .495
Compare that to:
AB 7037 Hits 2134 BA .303 HR 332 RBI 1287 OBP .369 SLG .516
Again, these are close enough that you'd need more stats to determine who was better, but they were contemporaries and obviously similar. The second set of stats here are Moises Alou's, who got 1.1% ov the vote on his one and only HOF ballot. And again, unless the voters are blinded by Coors, Walker has already maxed out on his HOF vote.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
BTW Norm Cash is a first ballot HOFer compared to Steve Garvey.
mark
Garvey was a superstar. How many other 10 time all-stars are not in the hall?
Other than guys not retired, roid guys, and Pete Rose, only Bill Freehan has 10+ ASGs and isn't in the Hall.
Freehan deserves more consideration for the HOF than Garvey.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
BTW Norm Cash is a first ballot HOFer compared to Steve Garvey.
mark
Garvey was a superstar. How many other 10 time all-stars are not in the hall?
Other than guys not retired, roid guys, and Pete Rose, only Bill Freehan has 10+ ASGs and isn't in the Hall.
Freehan deserves more consideration for the HOF than Garvey.
Freehan got a whopping 0.5% hof vote. Garvey led his teams to 5 world series. Garvey was a superstar. Freehan -not even close.
Garvey was also Mr. Iron man before anybody heard of Cal Ripken.
Garvey was a superstar in your eyes but you are easily impressed by names. Did you know that light hitting shortstop Ozzie Smith had a higher life time OBP then Garvey? It's true.
Jon Olerud was better then Garvey. Bill Buckner and Steve Garvey were close. I give the slight edge to Garvey.
Garvey, HOF. Surely not
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Freehan was considerably better than Garvey. And how are you determining that Garvey "led" his teams to 5 World Series?
1974: Jimmy Wynn was easily the best player on the Dodgers, and the pitching was easily the best in the league.
1977: Reggie Smith was easily the best player on the Dodgers and the pitching was again the best in the league.
1978: There was no obvious best player on the Dodgers, with Cey, Garvey, Smith and Lopes all contributing about equally, but again the pitching was better than the hitting.
1981: It's an insult to the pitchers to even mention any Dodger hitters, they were so good, but Cey, Baker and Guerrero were all clearly better than Garvey.
1984: Garvey wasn't among the 10 best Padres; Gwynn and McReynolds led the Padres to the World Series.
The best player on the Dodgers over their entire World Series run was Ron Cey, and by a relative mile. Garvey was never the best player on the Dodgers in any season, and it's not clear if he was even ever better than Cey in any season. For their careers, Garvey had 37.7 WAR (tied for 569th all-time) to Cey's 53.5 (tied for 246th). Freehan, being a catcher, had a shorter career but he still beats Garvey easily with 44.7. Per game, Freehan and Cey both had .025, Garvey .016. I think Freehan probably deserves to be in the HOF - he really did lead his team to a World Series, too - and Cey getting in would be kind of silly but he is at least better than enough other HOFers that it wouldn't be the end of the world. But Garvey? That's just ridiculous. Gil Hodges was little more than a byproduct of a HOF lineup and an easy hitter's park, but he was still better than Garvey.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Garvey was a very good hitter. HOF worthy- I'm not sure. But when you hit .294 in almost 9000 AB's, you're doing something right.
Dallas doesn't like him because he didn't walk much. It looks fancy when he uses win shares, etc etc. ad nauseum. But it all boils down to one thing for Dallas. Walks. That's the only criteria Dallas uses.
Darrell Evans- walked a lot- great hitter. Steve Garvey- didn't walk much- not such a great hitter.
Originally posted by: Darin Garvey was a very good hitter. HOF worthy- I'm not sure. But when you hit .294 in almost 9000 AB's, you're doing something right.
Dallas doesn't like him because he didn't walk much. It looks fancy when he uses win shares, etc etc. ad nauseum. But it all boils down to one thing for Dallas. Walks. That's the only criteria Dallas uses.
Darrell Evans- walked a lot- great hitter. Steve Garvey- didn't walk much- not such a great hitter.
I would describe how stupid this is, and what that says about you, but you just did it so convincingly that to elaborate would be overkill. Nicely done.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Garvey was a very good hitter. HOF worthy- I'm not sure.
But when you hit .294 in almost 9000 AB's, you're doing something right.
Dallas doesn't like him because he didn't walk much.
It looks fancy when he uses win shares, etc etc. ad nauseum.
But it all boils down to one thing for Dallas.
Walks.
That's the only criteria Dallas uses.
Darrell Evans- walked a lot- great hitter.
Steve Garvey- didn't walk much- not such a great hitter.
I don't like him for the HOF because he didn't get on base enough and I don't like singles hitters as my first baseman. He didn't walk, he was slow and he didn't hit a lot of extra base hits. He had decent stats if he were a shortstop. Although he would be behind the hitting machine known as Ozzie Smith in that regard as well. Mattingly and Olerud have lights out numbers compared to Garvey.
Steve Garvey did have nice hair.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Garvey was no question a superstar and one of the most popular players of his time.
MVP winner Finished top 10 in MVP voting 5 times 6 seasons of 200+ hits 5 seasons 100+ RBI Hit a good amount of home runs for his size(5'10) 2 time All star MVP 2 time Post-season MVP 11 Post season Home runs, 338 batting average Great defensive player(4 Gold gloves) Played in 1207 consecutive games - (NATIONAL LEAGUE RECORD)
If that's not Hof material, I don't know what is? lol
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
And what an absolutely horrible MVP pick that was. Schmidt, Morgan, Bench, Wynn and Evans were the class of the NL that year; Rose, Stargell and Cedeno were well behind in Tier II. Then you get to Tier III with Garvey, Ralph Garr and Don Money. Schmidt was clearly the best player in the NL in 1974, and if you're in love with picking players from a winning team, Jimmy Wynn was very clearly the best Dodger. That Garvey won the MVP was a mistake; to use his mistaken MVP as evidence that he's a HOFer would be a much bigger mistake.
Finished top 10 in MVP voting 5 times
I won't belabor the point; Garvey deserved to be in the top 10 only once - in 1974.
6 seasons of 200+ hits
I have to concede this one, but it would be a lot more impressive if he'd ever done it in less than 685 at bats.
Hit a good amount of home runs for his size(5'10)
OK, you're just joking about this one. Right?
2 time All star MVP
True. And what is this, the 1,493rd most impressive accomplishment a player can have?
2 time Post-season MVP
True, and we've even cracked the Top 200 of important accomplishments. If he'd done it in the World Series I'd even put it in the Top 100.
11 Post season Home runs, 338 batting average
True, but you're mostly repeating the prior accomplishment.
Great defensive player(4 Gold gloves)
He was a great first baseman, which is almost as valuable as being an average fielder anywhere else in the infield. I think this is clearly his #1 argument for being a HOFer; it's just a really weak argument to be at the top.
Played in 1207 consecutive games - (NATIONAL LEAGUE RECORD)
True, but trivial.
If you look at it another way, if Garvey had played for the Expos instead of the Dodgers then he never would have gone to the postseason until he was on the Padres, he would probably never have gotten 200 hits because he wouldn't have gotten to bat as often, he wouldn't have been MVP in 1974, and he probably would never have made the top 10. In that event, he would have left, at most, that he was a great defensive first baseman, 1 NLCS MVP and 2 All-Star MVPs. Had Garvey not played for the Dodgers when he did nobody, not even Mrs. Garvey, would think he deserved to be in the HOF. The HOF is littered with mediocre players whose primary accomplishment was playing with teammates better than themselves. We don't need to add Garvey, or Hodges, to that litter.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Originally posted by: mb2005 I'm surprised no one has mentioned Shoeless Joe Jackson. He would be #1 on the list for me of people who should be in.
There's no question that Jackson and Rose are the best players not in the HOF. I'd rather they just shut it down than allow either one of them in, though.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Garvey is arguably one of the more overrated players in history. He was photogenic, on TV frequently in an era that preceded cable TV, and played for the Dodgers when they were one of the few teams with national appeal so his popularity transcended his talent level. The fixation on batting average and superficial and subjective data like MVP voting (based on popularity in many cases as much as merit) to the exclusion of other, more revealing stats and measures of performance do create a facade in which he is very favorably regarded, but if you delve deeper into those stats and measures of performance at the position he played, a more accurate picture begins to emerge. I will give him credit for postseason performance; he was very good in the playoffs, and that does count for something.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Palmeiro deserved the Gold Glove he was awarded in 1999, as well, I suppose, LOL..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
And I suppose Joe Gordon deserved the MVP in 1942 over Triple Crown winning Ted Williams, too, LOL..
Yes, the voters always base their decisions on merit.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
So Garvey was never close to getting voted in. Rightfully so. Thank goodness for common sense. You are the ONLY one in this thread who think Garvey is HOF material. The BWA don't think he deserves it either. What does that suggest?
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Garvey was no question a superstar and one of the most popular players of his time.
MVP winner
Finished top 10 in MVP voting 5 times
6 seasons of 200+ hits
5 seasons 100+ RBI
Hit a good amount of home runs for his size(5'10)
2 time All star MVP
2 time Post-season MVP
11 Post season Home runs, 338 batting average
Great defensive player(4 Gold gloves)
Played in 1207 consecutive games - (NATIONAL LEAGUE RECORD)
If that's not Hof material, I don't know what is? lol
Obviously you don't know what HOF material is cuz he ain't in
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Originally posted by: garnettstyle Hall of Fame - BBWAA
Garvey - 42.6%
So Garvey was never close to getting voted in. Rightfully so. Thank goodness for common sense. You are the ONLY one in this thread who think Garvey is HOF material. The BWA don't think he deserves it either. What does that suggest?
mark
He got over 40% 3 different years. So obviously there are a lot of others who believe he should be in. 42% is higher than some players that are already in.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
So Garvey was never close to getting voted in. Rightfully so. Thank goodness for common sense. You are the ONLY one in this thread who think Garvey is HOF material. The BWA don't think he deserves it either. What does that suggest?
mark
He got over 40% 3 different years. So obviously there are a lot of others who believe he should be in. 42% is higher than some players that are already in.
I weep for you. Tragic
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Not sure where to start- Steve Garvey was good player- bordered on great- and was a player to look up to in terms of his character. I lived in Dodger country back in the day of Garvey's playing days. He deserves credit for being a good person- and just being someone whom you could respect. That may not be enough for the HOF but there are some characteristics that are more important.
I did write that Marichal was the more imposing pitcher than Koufax... and I stand by that. There is a difference.
As for Stan Hack being in the HOF, I suspect nothing would make the old time Cubs fans happier unless Bill Nicholson was added too. Stan Hack was a much better player than the stats reflect. And the sad part of even having this discussion is the stats basically dictate who is in and who is out instead of relying more on an oral history of the players that have the best insight and even the fans that witnessed MLB history in the making.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Actually, we are talking about Cub fans over 80 that will agree. And those Cub fans that appreciate baseball- so I am doubtful 30 would even be the threshold for this one. The 1945 World Series is something that must discussed with someone who lived through it to be appreciated. It was a sad but still a special moment for Cubs fans.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
The Hall of Fame would have no trouble writing the plaque:
HOLDS NATIONAL LEAGUE RECORD FOR CONSECUTIVE GAMES PLAYED (1,201). VOTED THE 1974 NL MVP AND SELECTED TO THE ALL-STAR GAME 10 TIMES. HAD AS MANY AS 200 HITS IN A SEASON SIX TIMES AND MORE THAN 100 RBIS IN FIVE SEASONS. BATTED .338 IN 11 POSTSEASON SERIES AND .417 IN THE 1981 WORLD SERIES, WHEN HIS DODGERS BEAT THE YANKEES IN SIX GAMES. A FOUR-TIME GOLD GLOVE WINNER, HE ONCE HELD THE RECORD FOR MOST CONSECUTIVE GAMES AT 1B WITHOUT AN ERROR (193).
The problem with Steve Garvey, though, is that he's not going to Cooperstown anytime soon, at least not as a member of baseball's most exclusive and maddeningly incomplete fraternity. "I don't think I was imagining it," said George Brett, who is in the club. "I know I read a lot of stories about 'future Hall of Famer' Steve Garvey."
For a lot of us who saw him on a regular basis, Garvey was a clutch hitter who could hit for average or power, depending on what the Dodgers needed; an excellent fielder, albeit with an unpredictable arm; and a paragon who played the game the right way and treated people with consideration. He single-handedly carried his second team, the Padres, into the 1984 World Series -- when "The Natural" was shown on a plane from Chicago to San Diego for the start of the Series, the passengers chanted, "Gar-vey! Gar-vey!" at the climax.
In Bill James' seminal book on the Hall of Fame, "The Politics of Glory," first published in 1995, he used a point system called the Hall of Fame Monitor to predict which current and recently retired players would be voted in by the Baseball Writers' Association of America. He had Garvey going into the Hall in 1997, along with Phil Niekro. But Garvey would never finish higher than fourth (1996), or come close to the 75 percent of the vote needed for induction (a high of 42.6 percent in '95), even though he did outpoll future HOFers Jim Rice, Bruce Sutter and Bert Blyleven in some years. When Garvey finally fell off the ballot in 2007 after the maximum 15 years, he was 11th in the voting.
"To be honest, I am disappointed," Garvey said. "I always thought of my career as a body of work and not just about numbers."
Garvey is not the only player from that era to get short shrift. Among the others James predicted would make it via the writers' vote were Al Oliver, Dave Parker, Jim Kaat, Ted Simmons, Dale Murphy, Don Mattingly, Jack Morris, Lee Smith, Tim Raines, Alan Trammell and Lou Whitaker.
What happened to Garvey is partly schadenfreude: Writers turned on him for a complicated personal life that smudged an image so golden that he once had a middle school named after him. But he's also one of the great players from that period who have been hurt by the inflation of statistics fueled by the increasing use of PEDs, which happened to coincide with the HOF eligibility for the earlier era. And, as Garvey points out, "That was also a period when the veteran writers who relied on what they saw gave way to younger writers who focused on statistics."
The irony, of course, is that the writers are now punishing the players whose numbers they feel were artificially bolstered. Wouldn't it be nice if they could channel their disillusionment into a more positive re-examination of those who have been relegated to the scrap heap?
Like Garvey, Dave Parker will have to wait until the veterans committee gets around to sifting through players of the modern era, looking for gold. Not to diminish Jim Rice, but as someone who covered Parker and Rice in their primes, I can testify that Parker was the superior player in almost every regard.
"I went to Cooperstown for Barry Larkin's induction last year," said Parker, who took Larkin under his wing in Cincinnati. "It would've been nice to have gone as a fellow Hall of Famer. I think I belong there. Let's put it this way -- on almost every team I played, I was 'The Guy' or one of them. The system needs to be changed."
That won't happen anytime soon. But minds can be changed: How else did Bert Blyleven go from 14.1 percent in his second year of eligibility to 79.7 percent in his 14th year? Voters need to take a closer look at players they may have bypassed because they didn't see them. And just as they agonize over what the "Valuable" means in Most Valuable Player, they need to think about what the "Fame" in Hall of Fame really means. (Uh, 10 All-Star Games is a pretty good definition.)
"I know voters are worried about steroids this year," Garvey said. "I would much rather they think about the shot of adrenaline that a few more players would give the Hall of Fame."
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Freehan got a whopping 0.5% hof vote. Garvey led his teams to 5 world series. Garvey was a superstar. Freehan -not even close.
Freehan is one of the more criminally underrated players of the last 50 years. An elite defensive catcher - the best of his era - and All-Star 12 times in his 14 full seasons with 2 Top-3 MVP finishes (and a 7th place). I don't think he hit enough to be a HOFer (OPS+ of 112, only 200 HRs) but his peak was higher than Garvey's. His 1968 with an OPS of .819, 25 HRs and 84 RBI under the most difficult hitting conditions since the deadball era, combined with his usual Gold Glove defense at catcher, is better than anything Garvey ever did.
But, even though I'm a big Tigers fan and Freehan is a hero to Tigers fans, I don't think he's HOFer.
He was a popular player and a fan favorite, no question about that, maybe we can induct him into the personality hall of fame.
Blyleven's induction was an example of baseball writers and voters finally realizing the significance of more revealing stats than simple won-loss records.
Garvey is the opposite~he starts off already overrated and his argument for HOF induction only gets weaker from there.
But he was popular and a fan favorite, did I mention that?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Playing every game each season at an albeit less stressful position as 1B is a laudable feat, but alas, it really has no bearing on how to properly evaluate how good a hitter (or fielder) a player was. For most fans, that is.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Originally posted by: garnettstyleI mean, not giving credit where credit is due makes you look like an old fool.
I have gone out of my way to give Garvey the credit he deserves in my posts; no more but no less. He was nearly as good as Cecil Cooper, and Cecil Cooper was a fine player. And note that I didn't "take away" either of his All-Star MVPs in my hypothetical. Even had he played for the Expos he would still have been an All-Star; he was frequently the best first baseman in the NL in the 70's and would have been an All-Star wherever he played.
It is you who is not giving credit where credit is due, but rather giving credit where it is not due. I don't know if you're old, but it is certainly making you look like a fool.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Originally posted by: TabeI don't think he hit enough to be a HOFer (OPS+ of 112, only 200 HRs) but his peak was higher than Garvey's. His 1968 with an OPS of .819, 25 HRs and 84 RBI under the most difficult hitting conditions since the deadball era, combined with his usual Gold Glove defense at catcher, is better than anything Garvey ever did.
But, even though I'm a big Tigers fan and Freehan is a hero to Tigers fans, I don't think he's HOFer.
As a Tiger fan I urge you to rethink this (not that it will change anything, but you should be confidently trumpeting Freehan).
Yes, his OPS+ was "only" 112, and he hit "only" 200 HR. But you need to put those numbers in context. You started to with your reference to 1968, but it goes beyond that. Yogi Berra and Johnny Bench - the two greatest catchers of all time - had OPS+ figures of 125 and 126; Fisk had 117, Carter 115. And none of them played much of their careers in the second deadball era, which included 1968 but was not confined to 1968. Freehan's 112 is much more than respectable, it's great.
Being a catcher a long, long time ago was torture on the men who played there. People like Roger Bresnahan get ridiculed for being in the HOF, but he was a true Iron Man for catching almost 8,000 innings. As time has passed the wear and tear of being a catcher has diminished, and the treatments available to recover from the abuse have improved, but in any era it is always the case that it is much more difficult to be a catcher than any other position. Catchers don't play every game because it's impossible for them to, and they don't accumulate HR or anything else to the degree that players at other positions do. Catchers who can hit like Freehan, who have peaks like Freehan (he should have been MVP in 1968 - he was better than 31 game winner McLain), who can last as long as Freehan and who can play the position as exceptionally well as Freehan are rare.
As equipment and medical care have improved, catching continues to get easier and the distinction between catchers and others continues to shrink. Freehan is somewhere between the 10th and 15th best catcher of all time, but fully half of those who are better came after Freehan. At the time he retired he was somewhere between the 5th and 10th best catcher of all time. He deserves to be in the HOF.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Originally posted by: garnettstyle Dallas whats funny is even your Beloved Bill James predicted Garvey would make the hall.
What's funny is that you don't realize the contempt in which Bill James holds HOF voters. He predicted Jim Rice would make the HOF, too, but he also went to great lengths to explain why he thought Rice didn't deserve to make the HOF, and why Roy White was a better player. Suffice it to say that Bill James does not think Garvey deserves to be in the HOF, any more than he thinks Cecil Cooper does.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Freehan might be in the top 30 all time catchers but no where near the top 10.
I think it's time you simply took a knee in this thread...maybe start a thread about Ohio State, instead, lol..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Originally posted by: garnettstyleI mean, not giving credit where credit is due makes you look like an old fool.
I have gone out of my way to give Garvey the credit he deserves in my posts; no more but no less. He was nearly as good as Cecil Cooper, and Cecil Cooper was a fine player. And note that I didn't "take away" either of his All-Star MVPs in my hypothetical. Even had he played for the Expos he would still have been an All-Star; he was frequently the best first baseman in the NL in the 70's and would have been an All-Star wherever he played.
It is you who is not giving credit where credit is due, but rather giving credit where it is not due. I don't know if you're old, but it is certainly making you look like a fool.
He is has to be very young
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Maybe we have to look at players more in the context of their times. Garvey had some above average counting type numbers that were looked on favorably during the 1970's. They obviously didn't have the advanced stats we have today, so players like garvey were seen as stars or superstars. I think that is why he was looked at as a future hofer back then. He only starts to tarnish when we take him out of context and view him through the lense of modern statistics.
Originally posted by: craig44He only starts to tarnish when we take him out of context and view him through the lense of modern statistics.
But looking at his counting stats deprives you of any context. It is the modern stats that provide the context, and demonstrate conclusively that Garvey wasn't as good as people at the time thought he was.
Garvey, as well or better than most, illuminates the key fallacies of most baseball fans with regard to player evaluation. First, they believe that a single is much more valuable than a walk; it is more valuable, but not by nearly as much as people think. Garvey hit more than half of his singles with the bases empty; those singles are obviously identical in value to a walk. He hit about a quarter of his singles with runners in scoring position; those are the singles that really mattered. The ones that don't matter outnumber the ones that do. Second, they do not appreciate the difference in value between a single and an extra-base hit to the degree they should. Both fallacies converge in batting average; it's a statistic rendered completely useless now that OBP and Slugging Average are widely available, but people still refer to it, and evaluate players based on it.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Right Dallas, I think we r kind of on the same page here. I agree that garvey is vastly over rated. I was just saying that in the context of the 1970's, people looked at batting average, 200 hit seasons and the like as the indicators of how good a player was. We r a bit more sophisticated now, but at the time, that explains why he was seen as a future hofer
We have a few posters who only know what they read on the back of old baseball cards
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Comments
Will Todd Helton suffer the same fate when his turn comes up in 2019?
Yep.
AB 7848
Hits 2250
BA .287
HR 284
RBI 1094
OBP .386
SLG .469
Compare that to:
AB 7869
Hits 2336
BA .297
HR 287
RBI 1257
OBP .381
SLG .477
These are contemporary players and they're pretty comparable. You would, at least, need to see a lot more information than this to determine which one was better. The second set of stats belong to Bernie Williams, who got 3.3% of the vote on his second and last HOF ballot. Unless voters are blinded by Coors, Helton will do about the same.
Mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
He did have some great years on the road as well. No one is ignoring reality, Walker had some terrible hitting years on the road, but not all of them were bad.
I could also say that ignoring the 12th highest SLG% of all time isn't facing reality either. OPS+ of 141 is huge and that's park adjusted.
Oh well, we'll never agree on Larry, that's ok too, he'll be fine.
Larry @ Coors = .710 SLG
Larry @ Anywhere else = .500 SLG
At Coors, he's basically Babe Ruth. Away from Coors, he's Jim Bottomley or Ryan Klesko.
Regardless, the question was asked why he's not in the HOF. All I've done is answer the why. Agree or disagree, fact is, Larry is seen as a product of Coors Field. The numbers, by and large, back that up and he's punished for it - unlike, say, Sandy Koufax at Dodger Stadium.
By the way only 84 hitters have a .500 SLG% or better in the history of the game.
OK I will stop.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
AB 6956
Hits 1934
BA .278
HR 336
RBI 1128
OBP ..370
SLG .495
Compare that to:
AB 7037
Hits 2134
BA .303
HR 332
RBI 1287
OBP .369
SLG .516
Again, these are close enough that you'd need more stats to determine who was better, but they were contemporaries and obviously similar. The second set of stats here are Moises Alou's, who got 1.1% ov the vote on his one and only HOF ballot. And again, unless the voters are blinded by Coors, Walker has already maxed out on his HOF vote.
BTW Norm Cash is a first ballot HOFer compared to Steve Garvey.
mark
Garvey was a superstar. How many other 10 time all-stars are not in the hall?
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
BTW Norm Cash is a first ballot HOFer compared to Steve Garvey.
mark
Garvey was a superstar. How many other 10 time all-stars are not in the hall?
Other than guys not retired, roid guys, and Pete Rose, only Bill Freehan has 10+ ASGs and isn't in the Hall.
BTW Norm Cash is a first ballot HOFer compared to Steve Garvey.
mark
Garvey was a superstar. How many other 10 time all-stars are not in the hall?
Other than guys not retired, roid guys, and Pete Rose, only Bill Freehan has 10+ ASGs and isn't in the Hall.
Freehan deserves more consideration for the HOF than Garvey.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
BTW Norm Cash is a first ballot HOFer compared to Steve Garvey.
mark
Garvey was a superstar. How many other 10 time all-stars are not in the hall?
Other than guys not retired, roid guys, and Pete Rose, only Bill Freehan has 10+ ASGs and isn't in the Hall.
Freehan deserves more consideration for the HOF than Garvey.
Freehan got a whopping 0.5% hof vote. Garvey led his teams to 5 world series. Garvey was a superstar. Freehan -not even close.
Garvey was also Mr. Iron man before anybody heard of Cal Ripken.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
BTW Norm Cash is a first ballot HOFer compared to Steve Garvey.
mark
Garvey was a superstar. How many other 10 time all-stars are not in the hall?
Other than guys not retired, roid guys, and Pete Rose, only Bill Freehan has 10+ ASGs and isn't in the Hall.
Freehan deserves more consideration for the HOF than Garvey.
Freehan got a whopping 0.5% hof vote. Garvey led his teams to 5 world series. Garvey was a superstar. Freehan -not even close.
Garvey was also Mr. Iron man before anybody heard of Cal Ripken.
Garvey was a superstar in your eyes but you are easily impressed by names. Did you know that light hitting shortstop Ozzie Smith had a higher life time OBP then Garvey? It's true.
Jon Olerud was better then Garvey. Bill Buckner and Steve Garvey were close. I give the slight edge to Garvey.
Garvey, HOF. Surely not
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
1974: Jimmy Wynn was easily the best player on the Dodgers, and the pitching was easily the best in the league.
1977: Reggie Smith was easily the best player on the Dodgers and the pitching was again the best in the league.
1978: There was no obvious best player on the Dodgers, with Cey, Garvey, Smith and Lopes all contributing about equally, but again the pitching was better than the hitting.
1981: It's an insult to the pitchers to even mention any Dodger hitters, they were so good, but Cey, Baker and Guerrero were all clearly better than Garvey.
1984: Garvey wasn't among the 10 best Padres; Gwynn and McReynolds led the Padres to the World Series.
The best player on the Dodgers over their entire World Series run was Ron Cey, and by a relative mile. Garvey was never the best player on the Dodgers in any season, and it's not clear if he was even ever better than Cey in any season. For their careers, Garvey had 37.7 WAR (tied for 569th all-time) to Cey's 53.5 (tied for 246th). Freehan, being a catcher, had a shorter career but he still beats Garvey easily with 44.7. Per game, Freehan and Cey both had .025, Garvey .016. I think Freehan probably deserves to be in the HOF - he really did lead his team to a World Series, too - and Cey getting in would be kind of silly but he is at least better than enough other HOFers that it wouldn't be the end of the world. But Garvey? That's just ridiculous. Gil Hodges was little more than a byproduct of a HOF lineup and an easy hitter's park, but he was still better than Garvey.
But when you hit .294 in almost 9000 AB's, you're doing something right.
Dallas doesn't like him because he didn't walk much.
It looks fancy when he uses win shares, etc etc. ad nauseum.
But it all boils down to one thing for Dallas.
Walks.
That's the only criteria Dallas uses.
Darrell Evans- walked a lot- great hitter.
Steve Garvey- didn't walk much- not such a great hitter.
Garvey was a very good hitter. HOF worthy- I'm not sure.
But when you hit .294 in almost 9000 AB's, you're doing something right.
Dallas doesn't like him because he didn't walk much.
It looks fancy when he uses win shares, etc etc. ad nauseum.
But it all boils down to one thing for Dallas.
Walks.
That's the only criteria Dallas uses.
Darrell Evans- walked a lot- great hitter.
Steve Garvey- didn't walk much- not such a great hitter.
I would describe how stupid this is, and what that says about you, but you just did it so convincingly that to elaborate would be overkill. Nicely done.
Garvey was a very good hitter. HOF worthy- I'm not sure.
But when you hit .294 in almost 9000 AB's, you're doing something right.
Dallas doesn't like him because he didn't walk much.
It looks fancy when he uses win shares, etc etc. ad nauseum.
But it all boils down to one thing for Dallas.
Walks.
That's the only criteria Dallas uses.
Darrell Evans- walked a lot- great hitter.
Steve Garvey- didn't walk much- not such a great hitter.
I don't like him for the HOF because he didn't get on base enough and I don't like singles hitters as my first baseman. He didn't walk, he was slow and he didn't hit a lot of extra base hits. He had decent stats if he were a shortstop. Although he would be behind the hitting machine known as Ozzie Smith in that regard as well. Mattingly and Olerud have lights out numbers compared to Garvey.
Steve Garvey did have nice hair.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
MVP winner
Finished top 10 in MVP voting 5 times
6 seasons of 200+ hits
5 seasons 100+ RBI
Hit a good amount of home runs for his size(5'10)
2 time All star MVP
2 time Post-season MVP
11 Post season Home runs, 338 batting average
Great defensive player(4 Gold gloves)
Played in 1207 consecutive games - (NATIONAL LEAGUE RECORD)
If that's not Hof material, I don't know what is? lol
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
And what an absolutely horrible MVP pick that was. Schmidt, Morgan, Bench, Wynn and Evans were the class of the NL that year; Rose, Stargell and Cedeno were well behind in Tier II. Then you get to Tier III with Garvey, Ralph Garr and Don Money. Schmidt was clearly the best player in the NL in 1974, and if you're in love with picking players from a winning team, Jimmy Wynn was very clearly the best Dodger. That Garvey won the MVP was a mistake; to use his mistaken MVP as evidence that he's a HOFer would be a much bigger mistake.
Finished top 10 in MVP voting 5 times
I won't belabor the point; Garvey deserved to be in the top 10 only once - in 1974.
6 seasons of 200+ hits
I have to concede this one, but it would be a lot more impressive if he'd ever done it in less than 685 at bats.
Hit a good amount of home runs for his size(5'10)
OK, you're just joking about this one. Right?
2 time All star MVP
True. And what is this, the 1,493rd most impressive accomplishment a player can have?
2 time Post-season MVP
True, and we've even cracked the Top 200 of important accomplishments. If he'd done it in the World Series I'd even put it in the Top 100.
11 Post season Home runs, 338 batting average
True, but you're mostly repeating the prior accomplishment.
Great defensive player(4 Gold gloves)
He was a great first baseman, which is almost as valuable as being an average fielder anywhere else in the infield. I think this is clearly his #1 argument for being a HOFer; it's just a really weak argument to be at the top.
Played in 1207 consecutive games - (NATIONAL LEAGUE RECORD)
True, but trivial.
If you look at it another way, if Garvey had played for the Expos instead of the Dodgers then he never would have gone to the postseason until he was on the Padres, he would probably never have gotten 200 hits because he wouldn't have gotten to bat as often, he wouldn't have been MVP in 1974, and he probably would never have made the top 10. In that event, he would have left, at most, that he was a great defensive first baseman, 1 NLCS MVP and 2 All-Star MVPs. Had Garvey not played for the Dodgers when he did nobody, not even Mrs. Garvey, would think he deserved to be in the HOF. The HOF is littered with mediocre players whose primary accomplishment was playing with teammates better than themselves. We don't need to add Garvey, or Hodges, to that litter.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Shoeless Joe Jackson. He would be #1 on the list for me of people who should be in.
There's no question that Jackson and Rose are the best players not in the HOF. I'd rather they just shut it down than allow either one of them in, though.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Dallas - Your posts are getting more ridiculous by the day. I mean, not giving credit where credit is due makes you look like an old fool.
We can 'would've, could've' or 'what if he played on another team' excuse game all day long.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Yes, the voters always base their decisions on merit.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Garvey - 42.6%
Freehan - 0.5%
Evans - 1.7%
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Hall of Fame - BBWAA
Garvey - 42.6%
So Garvey was never close to getting voted in. Rightfully so. Thank goodness for common sense. You are the ONLY one in this thread who think Garvey is HOF material. The BWA don't think he deserves it either. What does that suggest?
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Garvey was no question a superstar and one of the most popular players of his time.
MVP winner
Finished top 10 in MVP voting 5 times
6 seasons of 200+ hits
5 seasons 100+ RBI
Hit a good amount of home runs for his size(5'10)
2 time All star MVP
2 time Post-season MVP
11 Post season Home runs, 338 batting average
Great defensive player(4 Gold gloves)
Played in 1207 consecutive games - (NATIONAL LEAGUE RECORD)
If that's not Hof material, I don't know what is? lol
Obviously you don't know what HOF material is cuz he ain't in
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Hall of Fame - BBWAA
Garvey - 42.6%
So Garvey was never close to getting voted in. Rightfully so. Thank goodness for common sense. You are the ONLY one in this thread who think Garvey is HOF material. The BWA don't think he deserves it either. What does that suggest?
mark
He got over 40% 3 different years. So obviously there are a lot of others who believe he should be in. 42% is higher than some players that are already in.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Hall of Fame - BBWAA
Garvey - 42.6%
So Garvey was never close to getting voted in. Rightfully so. Thank goodness for common sense. You are the ONLY one in this thread who think Garvey is HOF material. The BWA don't think he deserves it either. What does that suggest?
mark
He got over 40% 3 different years. So obviously there are a lot of others who believe he should be in. 42% is higher than some players that are already in.
I weep for you. Tragic
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Not sure where to start- Steve Garvey was good player- bordered on great- and was a player to look up to in terms of his character. I lived in Dodger country back in the day of Garvey's playing days. He deserves credit for being a good person- and just being someone whom you could respect. That may not be enough for the HOF but there are some characteristics that are more important.
I did write that Marichal was the more imposing pitcher than Koufax... and I stand by that. There is a difference.
As for Stan Hack being in the HOF, I suspect nothing would make the old time Cubs fans happier unless Bill Nicholson was added too. Stan Hack was a much better player than the stats reflect. And the sad part of even having this discussion is the stats basically dictate who is in and who is out instead of relying more on an oral history of the players that have the best insight and even the fans that witnessed MLB history in the making.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Reggie Jackson
I'm sure Cubs fans older than 30 would agree.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
The Hall of Fame would have no trouble writing the plaque:
HOLDS NATIONAL LEAGUE RECORD FOR CONSECUTIVE
GAMES PLAYED (1,201). VOTED THE 1974 NL MVP
AND SELECTED TO THE ALL-STAR GAME 10 TIMES.
HAD AS MANY AS 200 HITS IN A SEASON SIX TIMES AND
MORE THAN 100 RBIS IN FIVE SEASONS. BATTED .338
IN 11 POSTSEASON SERIES AND .417 IN THE 1981
WORLD SERIES, WHEN HIS DODGERS BEAT THE YANKEES
IN SIX GAMES. A FOUR-TIME GOLD GLOVE WINNER, HE
ONCE HELD THE RECORD FOR MOST CONSECUTIVE GAMES
AT 1B WITHOUT AN ERROR (193).
The problem with Steve Garvey, though, is that he's not going to Cooperstown anytime soon, at least not as a member of baseball's most exclusive and maddeningly incomplete fraternity. "I don't think I was imagining it," said George Brett, who is in the club. "I know I read a lot of stories about 'future Hall of Famer' Steve Garvey."
For a lot of us who saw him on a regular basis, Garvey was a clutch hitter who could hit for average or power, depending on what the Dodgers needed; an excellent fielder, albeit with an unpredictable arm; and a paragon who played the game the right way and treated people with consideration. He single-handedly carried his second team, the Padres, into the 1984 World Series -- when "The Natural" was shown on a plane from Chicago to San Diego for the start of the Series, the passengers chanted, "Gar-vey! Gar-vey!" at the climax.
In Bill James' seminal book on the Hall of Fame, "The Politics of Glory," first published in 1995, he used a point system called the Hall of Fame Monitor to predict which current and recently retired players would be voted in by the Baseball Writers' Association of America. He had Garvey going into the Hall in 1997, along with Phil Niekro. But Garvey would never finish higher than fourth (1996), or come close to the 75 percent of the vote needed for induction (a high of 42.6 percent in '95), even though he did outpoll future HOFers Jim Rice, Bruce Sutter and Bert Blyleven in some years. When Garvey finally fell off the ballot in 2007 after the maximum 15 years, he was 11th in the voting.
"To be honest, I am disappointed," Garvey said. "I always thought of my career as a body of work and not just about numbers."
Garvey is not the only player from that era to get short shrift. Among the others James predicted would make it via the writers' vote were Al Oliver, Dave Parker, Jim Kaat, Ted Simmons, Dale Murphy, Don Mattingly, Jack Morris, Lee Smith, Tim Raines, Alan Trammell and Lou Whitaker.
What happened to Garvey is partly schadenfreude: Writers turned on him for a complicated personal life that smudged an image so golden that he once had a middle school named after him. But he's also one of the great players from that period who have been hurt by the inflation of statistics fueled by the increasing use of PEDs, which happened to coincide with the HOF eligibility for the earlier era. And, as Garvey points out, "That was also a period when the veteran writers who relied on what they saw gave way to younger writers who focused on statistics."
The irony, of course, is that the writers are now punishing the players whose numbers they feel were artificially bolstered. Wouldn't it be nice if they could channel their disillusionment into a more positive re-examination of those who have been relegated to the scrap heap?
Like Garvey, Dave Parker will have to wait until the veterans committee gets around to sifting through players of the modern era, looking for gold. Not to diminish Jim Rice, but as someone who covered Parker and Rice in their primes, I can testify that Parker was the superior player in almost every regard.
"I went to Cooperstown for Barry Larkin's induction last year," said Parker, who took Larkin under his wing in Cincinnati. "It would've been nice to have gone as a fellow Hall of Famer. I think I belong there. Let's put it this way -- on almost every team I played, I was 'The Guy' or one of them. The system needs to be changed."
That won't happen anytime soon. But minds can be changed: How else did Bert Blyleven go from 14.1 percent in his second year of eligibility to 79.7 percent in his 14th year? Voters need to take a closer look at players they may have bypassed because they didn't see them. And just as they agonize over what the "Valuable" means in Most Valuable Player, they need to think about what the "Fame" in Hall of Fame really means. (Uh, 10 All-Star Games is a pretty good definition.)
"I know voters are worried about steroids this year," Garvey said. "I would much rather they think about the shot of adrenaline that a few more players would give the Hall of Fame."
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Freehan got a whopping 0.5% hof vote. Garvey led his teams to 5 world series. Garvey was a superstar. Freehan -not even close.
Freehan is one of the more criminally underrated players of the last 50 years. An elite defensive catcher - the best of his era - and All-Star 12 times in his 14 full seasons with 2 Top-3 MVP finishes (and a 7th place). I don't think he hit enough to be a HOFer (OPS+ of 112, only 200 HRs) but his peak was higher than Garvey's. His 1968 with an OPS of .819, 25 HRs and 84 RBI under the most difficult hitting conditions since the deadball era, combined with his usual Gold Glove defense at catcher, is better than anything Garvey ever did.
But, even though I'm a big Tigers fan and Freehan is a hero to Tigers fans, I don't think he's HOFer.
Blyleven's induction was an example of baseball writers and voters finally realizing the significance of more revealing stats than simple won-loss records.
Garvey is the opposite~he starts off already overrated and his argument for HOF induction only gets weaker from there.
But he was popular and a fan favorite, did I mention that?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Nobody called 'Iron Man' can be overrated.
Playing every game each season at an albeit less stressful position as 1B is a laudable feat, but alas, it really has no bearing on how to properly evaluate how good a hitter (or fielder) a player was. For most fans, that is.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I have gone out of my way to give Garvey the credit he deserves in my posts; no more but no less. He was nearly as good as Cecil Cooper, and Cecil Cooper was a fine player. And note that I didn't "take away" either of his All-Star MVPs in my hypothetical. Even had he played for the Expos he would still have been an All-Star; he was frequently the best first baseman in the NL in the 70's and would have been an All-Star wherever he played.
It is you who is not giving credit where credit is due, but rather giving credit where it is not due. I don't know if you're old, but it is certainly making you look like a fool.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
But, even though I'm a big Tigers fan and Freehan is a hero to Tigers fans, I don't think he's HOFer.
As a Tiger fan I urge you to rethink this (not that it will change anything, but you should be confidently trumpeting Freehan).
Yes, his OPS+ was "only" 112, and he hit "only" 200 HR. But you need to put those numbers in context. You started to with your reference to 1968, but it goes beyond that. Yogi Berra and Johnny Bench - the two greatest catchers of all time - had OPS+ figures of 125 and 126; Fisk had 117, Carter 115. And none of them played much of their careers in the second deadball era, which included 1968 but was not confined to 1968. Freehan's 112 is much more than respectable, it's great.
Being a catcher a long, long time ago was torture on the men who played there. People like Roger Bresnahan get ridiculed for being in the HOF, but he was a true Iron Man for catching almost 8,000 innings. As time has passed the wear and tear of being a catcher has diminished, and the treatments available to recover from the abuse have improved, but in any era it is always the case that it is much more difficult to be a catcher than any other position. Catchers don't play every game because it's impossible for them to, and they don't accumulate HR or anything else to the degree that players at other positions do. Catchers who can hit like Freehan, who have peaks like Freehan (he should have been MVP in 1968 - he was better than 31 game winner McLain), who can last as long as Freehan and who can play the position as exceptionally well as Freehan are rare.
As equipment and medical care have improved, catching continues to get easier and the distinction between catchers and others continues to shrink. Freehan is somewhere between the 10th and 15th best catcher of all time, but fully half of those who are better came after Freehan. At the time he retired he was somewhere between the 5th and 10th best catcher of all time. He deserves to be in the HOF.
Dallas whats funny is even your Beloved Bill James predicted Garvey would make the hall.
What's funny is that you don't realize the contempt in which Bill James holds HOF voters. He predicted Jim Rice would make the HOF, too, but he also went to great lengths to explain why he thought Rice didn't deserve to make the HOF, and why Roy White was a better player. Suffice it to say that Bill James does not think Garvey deserves to be in the HOF, any more than he thinks Cecil Cooper does.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Freehan might be in the top 30 all time catchers but no where near the top 10.
I think it's time you simply took a knee in this thread...maybe start a thread about Ohio State, instead, lol..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I have gone out of my way to give Garvey the credit he deserves in my posts; no more but no less. He was nearly as good as Cecil Cooper, and Cecil Cooper was a fine player. And note that I didn't "take away" either of his All-Star MVPs in my hypothetical. Even had he played for the Expos he would still have been an All-Star; he was frequently the best first baseman in the NL in the 70's and would have been an All-Star wherever he played.
It is you who is not giving credit where credit is due, but rather giving credit where it is not due. I don't know if you're old, but it is certainly making you look like a fool.
He is has to be very young
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Freehan might be in the top 30 all time catchers but no where near the top 10.
I think it's time you simply took a knee in this thread...maybe start a thread about Ohio State, instead, lol..
Nah I think you should. I bet Garvey gets in before Freehan. Garvey will be on the ballot again this December
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
But looking at his counting stats deprives you of any context. It is the modern stats that provide the context, and demonstrate conclusively that Garvey wasn't as good as people at the time thought he was.
Garvey, as well or better than most, illuminates the key fallacies of most baseball fans with regard to player evaluation. First, they believe that a single is much more valuable than a walk; it is more valuable, but not by nearly as much as people think. Garvey hit more than half of his singles with the bases empty; those singles are obviously identical in value to a walk. He hit about a quarter of his singles with runners in scoring position; those are the singles that really mattered. The ones that don't matter outnumber the ones that do. Second, they do not appreciate the difference in value between a single and an extra-base hit to the degree they should. Both fallacies converge in batting average; it's a statistic rendered completely useless now that OBP and Slugging Average are widely available, but people still refer to it, and evaluate players based on it.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......