@coolstanley said:
I hope Steve Garvey gets in. Always enjoyed watching his Dodgers in the Post-season. Great player.
While I always object to identifying any team as "his" team, if you're going to do that with the Dodgers then you should use Ron Cey, the best player on that team in those years. Cey was the best player on the team most seasons, and there wasn't even a single season where Garvey was the best, including 1974 when he won the MVP and Jimmy Wynn was the best Dodger by a mile and a half.
Thats your opinion and I disagree.
Why? Wynn had a much higher OPS and played a more demanding position. He was much better than Garvey.
And a nice 250 BA lol. Wynn only played 2 yrs with the Dodgers.
What’s your point? Both your statements are true, but irrelevant.
@JoeBanzai said:
I was surprised at how high Garvey's SLG was and at how seldom he walked. I was also amazed at how consistent Garvey was when looking at his splits.
Garvey got 200 hits year in and year out. Thing is, 200 hit seasons come in three forms:
1. They are among the greatest seasons ever
2. They are among the most overrated seasons ever
3. They happened in the 1920's and 1930's when 200-hit seasons are just called "seasons"
>
How about >4. Really nice hitting year with an OPS+ of 135 even with a low walk total NICE!
I didn't mention the 200 hit thing, although it's a very nice number. He had a decent SLG. although not really suited for a clean-up hitter which is where he spent most of his career.
I kind of like that he didn't walk too much (which would have helped his OB%), as the 4th hitter, he was trying to drive in runs, which he did quite well.
For 12 out of 13 seasons he basically played in every game and hit .300 while averaging driving in 100 runs.
I looked at his home/road, vs rhp/lhp, Batting order positions, 1st half/2nd half, bases occupied and clutch stats and the guy just seemed to hit .300 (or reasonably close) no matter the situation.
I'm not saying this qualifies him for induction, Was simply impressed that he was able to perform at a high level in all situations.
Ted Williams never got 200 hits, Mickey Mantle never got 200 hits, Willie Mays only did it once. Unless you are one of the greatest hitters to ever walk the planet, accumulating 200 hits in a single season requires that you swing at almost every pitch. If, in 100 ABs, you get 30 hits and make 70 outs, you are nowhere near as valuable as the guy who got 25 hits, 15 walks, and made 60 outs. Anyone who simply can't control themselves should put some masking tape on their computer screens to block out the columns showing hits and batting average on baseball-reference. Any player whose greatness rests on those, and isn't immediately obvious from looking at everything else, is not great.
Williams walked too much to get 200 hits, Mantle only had two years of very high BA and he walked a lot too, Mays had a couple of 195 hit seasons and a 190.
I don't know why you are pointing this out, these guys are power hitters who drew walks Garvey didn't have the SLG of these guys and wasn't in the same universe as a hitter. Pete Rose got 200 hits a lot. with a much lower SLG.
Nope, no bums. But some less than great players. Unless your vision of the HOF includes Toby Harrah, who was no bum, it's time to get a little perspective on Steve Garvey. Harold Baines, by the way, scores 225, which is below Gene Tenace, Ken Griffey, Sr., and Kent Hrbek - and just a hair above Ron Fairly. Still no bums, but come on.
Come on? Where are we going?
Hrbek was a VERY nice player and his defense at 1B was fantastic! Fairly and Griffey had pretty low SLG but were nice players. Tenace walked a lot.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@coolstanley said:
Is defense and Post-season factor into win shares? People on message boards can debate eye test vs analytics. Its called a Hall Of Fame and Garvey was easily one of the top 5-10 most popular players in his era.
Defense, yes. Post-season, no, because it would change nothing if done objectively. Changing it subjectively based on what your feels tell you post-season is worth is always an option, but that should never be confused with statistics, facts, or anything of actual importance.
It cannot be stressed strongly enough how absolutely terrible an idea it is to consider "popularity" as a HOF qualification. Garvey was undeniably popular because he was handsome, had a high batting average, and played on an excellent team. That people who don't know a lot about baseball think a high batting average is meaningful is certainly true, but since we know it doesn't, all that leaves us is that Garvey looked good and had teammates better than he was. If that says "HOF" to you, you should get your ears checked.
@JoeBanzai said: He (Garvey) had a decent SLG.
Tenace walked a lot.
The contrast here startled me. Adjusted for the parks they played in, Garvey's SLG was 1% higher than Tenace's. They were essentially equal in that department. Adjusted for the parks they played in, Tenace's OBP was 20% better than Garvey's (who was almost exactly league average). Parse it how you want, phrase it how you want, but Tenace was a better hitter than Garvey, and it's not particularly close.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Justacommeman said:
If Garvey ever gets in before Keith Hernandez I might get violent and go full shaman
m
Both excellent players. Many of their numbers are pretty close. Hernandez had a little better OB%. Garvey more Total Bases.
Hernandez has the reputation as a all time great defensive player.
What else makes him better? Just curious.
Win Shares. The difference is startling.
He defense is accounted for in that number. It's a fairly complete picture. Plus the eye test. After seeing both play a lot I would take Hernandez everytime
m
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......
@Justacommeman said:
If Garvey ever gets in before Keith Hernandez I might get violent and go full shaman
m
Both excellent players. Many of their numbers are pretty close. Hernandez had a little better OB%. Garvey more Total Bases.
Hernandez has the reputation as a all time great defensive player.
What else makes him better? Just curious.
Win Shares. The difference is startling.
He defense is accounted for in that number. It's a fairly complete picture. Plus the eye test. After seeing both play a lot I would take Hernandez everytime
m
Fair enough. I was more of an AL guy, so I didn't see much of either of them play. Seems like two very good/great players.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Parse it how you want, phrase it how you want, but Tenace was a better hitter than Garvey, and it's not particularly close.
Tenace was a much, much better walker than Garvey.
In every other aspect of the game Garvey was FAR superior player than Mr Tenace who was a fine player.
A 1% advantage in SLG is "FAR superior"? I appear to have hit a nerve, because that makes no sense.
And since you said "every" aspect of the game, please regale me with Mr. Garvey's exploits as a catcher. Tenace also played first base, and made an All-Star team as one, and appears to have handled the rigors of playing the easiest position just fine. The only time Garvey played another position it was 3B and he was so terrifically awful he almost played himself out of baseball entirely. Any method of allocating fielding value that isn't completely nonsensical puts Tenace on top of Garvey.
On offense, they were equals as sluggers, and Tenace had an enormous advantage in OBP. Translate that to the best offensive stat on bb-ref - batter runs - and you have 267 for Tenace and 167 for Garvey. Tenace is tied with Johnny Bench, Garvey is tied with Richie Hebner.
Garvey's JAWS score is 33.4, tying him with George Scott for 50th best among first basemen. Tenace's JAWS score is 40.9, placing him immediately behind Thurman Munson as the 13th best catcher.
I have no idea what you are looking at that tells you that Steve Garvey was a better player than Gene Tenace, and I am certain that there is nothing to look at, because nothing exists, that is telling you that he was FAR superior to Gene Tenace at anything at all. Garvey played a lot longer, because Tenace was a catcher, and if you want to peg Garvey's superiority to that then just say so. But other than hanging around, Garvey wasn't better than Tenace at any meaningful aspect of the game.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Can we at least agree that Steve Garvey was better looking then Gene Tenace?
m
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......
The highest Tenace ever slugged in a full season was ,464, and no we are not going to add any points to that. If he could have run better he would have had more doubles and a higher SLG. The ballpark didn't rob him of his speed, he was already slow.
Garvey slugged higher than that 6 times with three years at or above .497.
When you have a career 53 point advantage in BA and a 17 point advantage in SLG, and do it for twice as long you are the far superior hitter.
Total Bases, Tenace's high was 226, that's not a typo. Garvey had 6 years over 300 and another 5 over Tenace's best year.
When you play in more than 155 games in 11 seasons (and all 110 in 1981) you're better than the guy who could only do it 3 times.
"Hanging around"? Garvey was better than Tenace's best year at the age of 37, Tenace is the one that hung around, not being able to play in more than 66 games in a year for his last three years. THAT'S "hanging around".
Oh yes! Tenace WAS fantastic in 1982 with an OPS+ of 161 with his 124 AB, at the same age Garvey was still playing in every game with 617 AB. A guy with 32 hits and 36 walks has a better year than a guy with 175 hits and 27 doubles. Must be because Garvey had so few walks...........again.
A back up player is not as good as a starting player, otherwise he would be a starter.
I did find a second thing Tenace was better at, pinch hitting!
If you're finding stats that say Tenace is equal to Johnny Bench, you better start looking somewhere else for your information.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Garvey's JAWS score is 33.4, tying him with George Scott for 50th best among first basemen. Tenace's JAWS score is 40.9, placing him immediately behind Thurman Munson as the 13th best catcher.
You like to cite this stat. However, Tenace is barely a catcher. He played less than 60% of his games there, just 892 total. He actually started at catcher in less than half of his games. And, in a lot of those, he got pulled or moved to a different position.
@JoeBanzai said:
The highest Tenace ever slugged in a full season was ,464, and no we are not going to add any points to that. If he could have run better he would have had more doubles and a higher SLG. The ballpark didn't rob him of his speed, he was already slow.
Garvey slugged higher than that 6 times with three years at or above .497.
When you have a career 53 point advantage in BA and a 17 point advantage in SLG, and do it for twice as long you are the far superior hitter.
Or you play in a far easier park. Tenace's career SLG on the road was .441, Garvey's was .434. The "advantage" you see is a park effect, and one so obvious that the only way not to see it is to close your eyes and shout "la la la" so nobody can puncture the bubble your illusions live in.
Total Bases, Tenace's high was 226, that's not a typo. Garvey had 6 years over 300 and another 5 over Tenace's best year.
No catcher has ever done it and not been swiftly elected to the HOF. Lots of players have done it in seasons that wouldn't be among Tenace's top 3 seasons. In 1974, Garvey walked 31 times and got 71 singles with the bases empty. He turned a bases empty situation into a runner on first situation 102 times. The same year, Tenace walked 110 times and got a bases empty single 31 times; bases empty turned into runner on first 141 times. And in all of those PAs, Garvey gets 40 total bases that Tenace doesn't get. You can embarrass yourself and try to explain why a bases empty single is "better" than a walk, but it would be painful to watch so please don't. Garvey's advantage in TB is a function of two things: bases empty singles vs. walks, and Garvey getting to bat many more times.
When you play in more than 155 games in 11 seasons (and all 110 in 1981) you're better than the guy who could only do it 3 times.
LOL. And Johnny Bench only did it twice, while Munson, Fisk and Carter each did it once. This argument is so limp not even Viagra could save it.
"Hanging around"? Garvey was better than Tenace's best year at the age of 37, Tenace is the one that hung around, not being able to play in more than 66 games in a year for his last three years. THAT'S "hanging around".
I already conceded that the sole facet of the game in which Garvey bested Tenace was hanging around; no need to beat this dead horse.
Oh yes! Tenace WAS fantastic in 1982 with an OPS+ of 161 with his 124 AB, at the same age Garvey was still playing in every game with 617 AB. A guy with 32 hits and 36 walks has a better year than a guy with 175 hits and 27 doubles. Must be because Garvey had so few walks...........again.
Tenace was an absolute stud in 1982, and there's no way the Cards make the playoffs without him. Tenace's WAR that year was higher than George Hendricks who played every day and drove in over 100 runs. And how many arguments in a row are you going to make that ignore that Tenace was a catcher? It's getting amusing.
If you're finding stats that say Tenace is equal to Johnny Bench, you better start looking somewhere else for your information.
Bench was much more durable and a hell of a lot better catcher; as total packages, they're not even close. But as hitters, Tenace was about Bench's equal when Tenace was able to play. I wouldn't say I had to "find" any stats to show that; you have to work awfully hard not to see them.
@Justacommeman said:
Can we at least agree that Steve Garvey was better looking then Gene Tenace?
m
Absolutely, and therein lies the actual reason why Garvey ever got in a HOF discussion. Had he looked like Cey, and vice versa, we'd be having this conversation about Cey instead. That Garvey's got male fanboys (see above) 30+ years after he retired tells you just how good looking he was.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
You like to cite this stat. However, Tenace is barely a catcher. He played less than 60% of his games there, just 892 total. He actually started at catcher in less than half of his games. And, in a lot of those, he got pulled or moved to a different position.
Yes and no. I get your point and you're certainly not wrong, but it was catching that destroyed Tenace's knees and the reason his career is so short. The A's tried to save his career by moving him to first, but he ended up catching a lot anyway, and the Padres needed him to catch full time and that was that.
But yes, the JAWS comparison is kind of apples to oranges for Garvey / Tenace, and since it isn't necessary to prove Tenace was better than Garvey I hereby withdraw it. Bill James ranks Tenace as the 23rd best catcher when the formula he says he uses to rank them clearly would rank him much higher. I assume James is ranking Tenace on the catcher's list because that's his primary position, but then adjusting his spot on that list as a way of recognizing that he also played a fair amount at 1B. He ranks Garvey as the 31st best first baseman; that gap is probably a better representation of the true difference between them than the JAWS difference.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
'Key fact: Excluding players linked to PEDs and the banned-for-life Pete Rose, the only eligible player with more All-Star appearances than Garvey’s 10 not in the Hall of Fame is Bill Freehan (11)
From 1974-80, Garvey was the epitome of consistency, with a batting average between .297 and .319 and an OPS between .808 and .852, never finishing lower than 14th in MVP voting. He was at his clutch best in the postseason, with a .910 OPS. His NL record of 1,307 consecutive games played will probably never be broken. He was a hit machine, with at least 200 of them in six different seasons. Eight of his All-Star appearances were with the Dodgers, but he left as a free agent to join the Padres for his final five seasons.'
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
I liked the topic you brought up and I even participated in that, but the discussion totally went into another universe. The Garvey discussion is a worthy topic that deserved its own thread.
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
Tenace was an absolute stud in 1982, and there's no way the Cards make the playoffs without him. Tenace's WAR that year was higher than George Hendricks who played every day and drove in over 100 runs. And how many arguments in a row are you going to make that ignore that Tenace was a catcher? It's getting amusing.
Tenace was so amazing in 1982 that he played just 23 complete games. He was very productive in limited PAs but "studs" play more than 1/6th of the season when they're not hurt.
And his WAR for the year was 2.2. They won the division by 3 games.
Tenace was an absolute stud in 1982, and there's no way the Cards make the playoffs without him. Tenace's WAR that year was higher than George Hendricks who played every day and drove in over 100 runs. And how many arguments in a row are you going to make that ignore that Tenace was a catcher? It's getting amusing.
Tenace was so amazing in 1982 that he played just 23 complete games. He was very productive in limited PAs but "studs" play more than 1/6th of the season when they're not hurt.
And his WAR for the year was 2.2. They won the division by 3 games.
Dallas' arguments with his part time players are all dependent on a single word; IF.
If Tenace (or any of the part time guys he likes) played in all the games, he would have been better than whoever played every game. Theoretically and mathematically he might be right. So yes, in theory Tenace would have been in the conversation IF he had played. However dallas could just as easily be wrong and Tenace (or whoever) could have played worse. There's also no way of knowing if Garvey would have played better if he only had to play in 2/3 of the games.
In fact he rips other players for "sitting against tough left handers" so he's being inconsistent here. Apparently a lot of pitchers were "too tough" for Tenace.
Also his use of the park factor BS, that's just amazing, he adds to his guys SLG and subtracts (or ignores) the other guys SLG and then says they're the same.
Funny thing is, you don't actually get a walk when you are sitting on the bench, you also don't get credit for the guy who doesn't exist, the oft mentioned "replacement" player, because when you are deemed not good enough to get on the field, or stay there, you are below that level.
It's like saying "gee teacher, even though I was absent for 1/3 of the tests, I got all A's and B's, the "replacement" student would have gotten C's, so instead of a "D", I should get a "B".
You don't get a "C" for not playing, you get an "F"!
I doubt that most would say that Garvey is deserving of HOF consideration. I suspect Tenace's vote would be at MOST 1.
Finally to those of you who don't like the thread turning into a Garvey/Tenace debate, if you don't like it, don't read it. Threads go off topic all the time. You aren't the moderator.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
It is very odd that Garvey should be considered a better player if he sits vs JR Richard and the resulting effect is that his season OPS is higher thus making him 'better'
Before marveling at Tenace's OPS, be sure to add all those 0 for 4's he dodged by not playing vs Nolan Ryan etc.. Clearly Tenace sat more vs RH pitchers, especially in comparison to Garvey.
Garvey's ability to play in every situation, whether he wasn't 100% or if JR Richard was on the mound...was a benefit to winning. His team could deploy that left handed bat somewhere else instead, and they could save money by not employing someone to fill in for Garvey so often, and spend on pitching.
In contrast, the A's either had to utilize their best replacement for Tenace when they could have used him elsewhere more needed, or they had to employ a viable replace...or they had to suffer with a low level replacement player in Tenace's stead.
Rate stats are dangerous if the platoon effect is not looked into, and if career length is not taken into account. WAR and Runs produced above average are rate stats too...even though they are expressed in whole numbers.
Garvey also has Teance beat in WPA 27 to 21, and that is a rate stat too.
@Tabe said:
Tenace was so amazing in 1982 that he played just 23 complete games. He was very productive in limited PAs but "studs" play more than 1/6th of the season when they're not hurt.
And his WAR for the year was 2.2. They won the division by 3 games.
Don't confuse WAR with actual wins. Tenace was a stud that year and there's no way the Cards win the division without him. I say this as a Cardinal fan who watched them all season. And Tenace wasn't "hurt", he was a broken down man, with the knees of an 80-year-old. But still caught when we needed him to, and he came through as a PH over and over again.
@JoeBanzai said:
Also his use of the park factor BS, that's just amazing, he adds to his guys SLG and subtracts (or ignores) the other guys SLG and then says they're the same.
"Park factor BS"? Are you seriously saying that acknowledging that one park is harder to hit in than another park is BS? Hit in Coors, hit in Oakland, it's all the same thing? Discussing baseball intelligently without acknowledging park factors is like discussing satellites while not acknowledging gravity - it can't be done.
Garvey also has Teance beat in WPA 27 to 21, and that is a rate stat too.
No, WPA is not a rate stat, it's a cumulative stat. Convert it into a rate stat - WPA / PA - and Tenace is .0039 and Garvey is .0029; Tenace's rate of WPA beats Garvey's by 35%.
Now, several valid points were made regarding platooning, and that Tenace hit against LHP at a higher rate than Garvey. And it is absolutely fair to consider the huge gap in their OPS+ in that light. Was Tenace a 16% better hitter than Garvey? Yes, but some of that is because Tenace didn't face as many RHP. How much? Not as much as you think.
Tenace faced 1,845 LHP and 3,692 RHP; if you adjust his ratio to be identical to Garvey's you get 1,488 PA against LHP and 4,049 against RHP - a shift of 357 PAs from LHP to RHP. Recalculate his OPS and it drops from .817 to .812; Garvey's OPS was .775. Tenace's OPS+ drops from 136 to 135, and he's no longer 16% higher than Garvey, he's 15% higher.
The thing is, Tenace was benched against RHP a fair amount, but he hit better against RHP than Garvey did, and he better against LHP than Garvey did. In fact, Tenace hit as well against RHP as Garvey did against LHP. There is no way to massage, combine, interpret, or analyze the data that doesn't lead to the conclusion that Tenace was a better hitter than Garvey. None. Garvey played longer,of this there is no doubt. And this is the single only argument to be made on his behalf that doesn't vanish like a fart in the wind if you'll only think about it.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Tabe said:
Tenace was so amazing in 1982 that he played just 23 complete games. He was very productive in limited PAs but "studs" play more than 1/6th of the season when they're not hurt.
And his WAR for the year was 2.2. They won the division by 3 games.
Don't confuse WAR with actual wins. Tenace was a stud that year and there's no way the Cards win the division without him. I say this as a Cardinal fan who watched them all season. And Tenace wasn't "hurt", he was a broken down man, with the knees of an 80-year-old. But still caught when we needed him to, and he came through as a PH over and over again.
@JoeBanzai said:
Also his use of the park factor BS, that's just amazing, he adds to his guys SLG and subtracts (or ignores) the other guys SLG and then says they're the same.
"Park factor BS"? Are you seriously saying that acknowledging that one park is harder to hit in than another park is BS? Hit in Coors, hit in Oakland, it's all the same thing? Discussing baseball intelligently without acknowledging park factors is like discussing satellites while not acknowledging gravity - it can't be done.
Garvey also has Teance beat in WPA 27 to 21, and that is a rate stat too.
No, WPA is not a rate stat, it's a cumulative stat. Convert it into a rate stat - WPA / PA - and Tenace is .0039 and Garvey is .0029; Tenace's rate of WPA beats Garvey's by 35%.
Now, several valid points were made regarding platooning, and that Tenace hit against LHP at a higher rate than Garvey. And it is absolutely fair to consider the huge gap in their OPS+ in that light. Was Tenace a 16% better hitter than Garvey? Yes, but some of that is because Tenace didn't face as many RHP. How much? Not as much as you think.
Tenace faced 1,845 LHP and 3,692 RHP; if you adjust his ratio to be identical to Garvey's you get 1,488 PA against LHP and 4,049 against RHP - a shift of 357 PAs from LHP to RHP. Recalculate his OPS and it drops from .817 to .812; Garvey's OPS was .775. Tenace's OPS+ drops from 136 to 135, and he's no longer 16% higher than Garvey, he's 15% higher.
The thing is, Tenace was benched against RHP a fair amount, but he hit better against RHP than Garvey did, and he better against LHP than Garvey did. In fact, Tenace hit as well against RHP as Garvey did against LHP. There is no way to massage, combine, interpret, or analyze the data that doesn't lead to the conclusion that Tenace was a better hitter than Garvey. None. Garvey played longer,of this there is no doubt. And this is the single only argument to be made on his behalf that doesn't vanish like a fart in the wind if you'll only think about it.
Dallas, that is incorrect. You need to ADD 3,000 worth of plate appearances vs RH to Tenace's line in order for him to begin to be equally compared to Garvey. Keep in mind that his career OPS VS RH includes his prime years when he was able to do good against them. In fact he sat vs them more at the end of his career when his skills had declined, and at the beginning when they were not his prime years.
So in reality, you need to add 3,000 worth of at bats with an OPS value of about .650...if it is even that high....because he would have to be able to do that at age 36, 37 etc....because those are the years with the missing at bats. He may very well be putting up .450 OPS at age 37.
If you wanted to do it in reverse, then removed Garvey's old man years from the equation. Then during Garvey's prime remove a percentage of at bats vs RH pitchers as well.
You will see that Garvey has much more value to a team as I already explained because it makes ZERO sense that if Garvey sat every game vs JR Richard, that it somehow makes him better because his OPS is now higher. Zero sense.
I can removed Garvey from the lineup retroactively against pitchers that are sub optimal at bats...if you wanted to work it that way. Then remove Garvey's old man years to the point he has the same plate appearances as Tenace does...and Garvey's OPS will skyrocket. Then OPS will be a more fair comparison. It is not valid comparison at all in the way you are doing it.
PS WPA IS a rate stat. It falls below average, and if you do something below average it puts it into a negative. If you are in situations that you have more OPTIMAL times, then you will not be punished as much. If Tenace strikes out with the bases loaded vs JR Richard, that knocks his WPA negative. He avoided those situations...yet Garvey was still ahead of him.
So in a nutshell, Tenace's and Garvey's career at the plate comes down to this:
Garvey comes up to the plate with the bases loaded facing JR Richard. Garvey strikes out. His WPA takes a huge hit in that situation.
Tenace comes up to the plate with the bases loaded facing JR Richard, and gets pinch hit for. The pinch hitter grounds out to end the inning. Tenace's WPA stays in tact, and stays AHEAD of Garvey. The pinch hitter gets penalized for making the out.
So how in the world is the guy who is getting pinched hit for, or benched, better??
Two words. Ken Phelps. If you apply all that stuff you are saying about Tenace, to Phelps...then aside from being a catcher, Phelps is a HOFer too....and better better hitter than Dave Winfield, Paul Molitor, and Eddie Murray...since Phelps has a higher career OPS+ than all of them. Phelps is clearly NOT better than any of those guys...but OPS+ is saying he is because the platoon factor NOR the career length are not being taken into account.
Tenace is a beefier version of Ken Phelps. Great to have on your team...but not as good as the hitters who can do it every game every at bat, and not pass the rate stat killer at bats off to the bench players.
The notion of awarding players who were not good enough to play every day or very long, and vault them ahead of players who DID do both, and whom hurt their percentages as a result...but still had viable percentages in the extra at bats during the season and at the end of the career is absolutely silly.
For instance, if I force Garvey to retire at age 31 and he ends his career with an OPS+ of 126 over 5,906 FULL TIME plate appearances...how does that make him better than the real Steve Garvey who went on to add ANOTHER 3,500 FULL TIME plate appearances at a rate of 101 OPS+....making his career total 9,466 plate appearances with 117 OPS+.
I stress FULL TIME plate appearances because those are more valuable than Phelps or Tenace who had platoon advantage beefing up their rate.
At what point do those 3,500 extra plate appearances that Garvey added get credit over a player who was not good enough to play or have a job in MLB?? 3,5000 extra FULL time plate appearances at BETTER than a league average hitter.
Do you know what they call players who produce 3,500 FULL TIME plate appearances with an OPS+ of 101 in MLB??
Tenace was a stud that year and there's no way the Cards win the division without him.
Highly doubt it.
And Tenace wasn't "hurt", he was a broken down man, with the knees of an 80-year-old.
Yeah, that's exactly my point. He wasn't hurt, he just sucked so much that he barely ever played. If he'd been good, he would have played more.
But still caught when we needed him to, and he came through as a PH over and over again.
I'll give him credit, he got on a lot as a PH. .474 OBP is impressive. Generally not the role of the PH to walk a ton though. And he did nothing when swinging the bat (.250 BA & SLG). Overall .724 is definitely not impressive, especially when combined with 0 XBH and 0 RBI.
Also, the Cards were 4-15 in games he batted as a PH.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Dallas, that is incorrect. You need to ADD 3,000 worth of plate appearances vs RH to Tenace's line in order for him to begin to be equally compared to Garvey. Keep in mind that his career OPS VS RH includes his prime years when he was able to do good against them. In fact he sat vs them more at the end of his career when his skills had declined, and at the beginning when they were not his prime years.
LOL. If I add 3,000 worth of PAs to Tenace, then the sole factor that was working in Garvey's favor - the length of his career - also vanishes like a fart in the wind. No, adding 3,000 PAs is not the correct way of looking at this; Tenace was not benched 3,000 times with a RHP on the mound. If I add 3,000 PAs the result is no longer Gene Tenace, but whoever it is will still be better than Steve Garvey.
PS WPA IS a rate stat. It falls below average, and if you do something below average it puts it into a negative. If you are in situations that you have more OPTIMAL times, then you will not be punished as much. If Tenace strikes out with the bases loaded vs JR Richard, that knocks his WPA negative. He avoided those situations...yet Garvey was still ahead of him.
Again, no, WPA is not a rate stat. Rate stats measure the "rate" of something per something else. WPA/PA is a rate stat; WPA is not. Tenace's OPS went up 15% with RISP, Garvey's went up only 5%; that's the primary reason, among several others, that Tenace won more games per PA than Garvey did.
Interesting note: I have commented before that Tenace drew walks at a remarkably consistent rate regardless of his position in the batting order - about once every 5.5 PA (Garvey's rate is 1 per 20 PA). But what I just saw was that he continued to draw walks at almost the same rate (once every 6.5 PA; Garvey 1 per 29) with the bases loaded. If Tenace was ever benched against JR Richard with the bases loaded I would be surprised, mostly at the stupidity of the manager who would do that. I doubt that it ever happened.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
The notion of awarding players who were not good enough to play every day or very long, and vault them ahead of players who DID do both, and whom hurt their percentages as a result...but still had viable percentages in the extra at bats during the season and at the end of the career is absolutely silly.
Hi, and welcome to the boards!
This is (I'm guessing) one of dallas' favorite hobbies; he finds a player who had a couple of good years and then was quickly out of the league, and because of the POOR statistics he finds that show the lousy player has a higher OPS+ than a obviously superior player, he shouts it from the rooftops. "Gene Tenace, better than Steve Garvey".
We all know (as does he) that is a joke. I think that in truth, dallas HATES these stats and throws them out there because they are so idiotic. Then he defends his (artificial) position to the bitter end, NEVER giving up, NEVER giving in. Quite refreshing at times.
He even made the insane claim that Jon Matlack was a better pitcher than Catfish Hunter.................I know right?
Explain to him how much the base on balls is over rated in measuring the ability of a hitter and he'll go on FOREVER!
;-)
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
Also his use of the park factor BS, that's just amazing, he adds to his guys SLG and subtracts (or ignores) the other guys SLG and then says they're the same.
"Park factor BS"? Are you seriously saying that acknowledging that one park is harder to hit in than another park is BS? Hit in Coors, hit in Oakland, it's all the same thing? Discussing baseball intelligently without acknowledging park factors is like discussing satellites while not acknowledging gravity - it can't be done.
No, I was saying you were full of B.S.
When a batters only ability is the base on balls, park factor has no effect. Same distance from home to first.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I'll give him credit, he got on a lot as a PH. .474 OBP is impressive. Generally not the role of the PH to walk a ton though. And he did nothing when swinging the bat (.250 BA & SLG). Overall .724 is definitely not impressive, especially when combined with 0 XBH and 0 RBI.
Also, the Cards were 4-15 in games he batted as a PH.
Exactly my point. He got on base and didn't help his team win.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
it's like Larkin started this game by whispering the secret question to Keets............."do you think Vizquel's HOF chances are diminished by the latest revelation?"
then it goes all the way around the horn and the final person whispers back to Larkin, "so, did you ask Keets if he thought Steve Garvey was hotter than Gene Tenace?"
@galaxy27 said:
oh how i love me some threads like this
it's like Larkin started this game by whispering the secret question to Keets............."do you think Vizquel's HOF chances are diminished by the latest revelation?"
then it goes all the way around the horn and the final person whispers back to Larkin, "so, did you ask Keets if he thought Steve Garvey was hotter than Gene Tenace?"
He'll never say "what about Steve Garvey" (or words to that effect) again!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Dallas, that is incorrect. You need to ADD 3,000 worth of plate appearances vs RH to Tenace's line in order for him to begin to be equally compared to Garvey. Keep in mind that his career OPS VS RH includes his prime years when he was able to do good against them. In fact he sat vs them more at the end of his career when his skills had declined, and at the beginning when they were not his prime years.
LOL. If I add 3,000 worth of PAs to Tenace, then the sole factor that was working in Garvey's favor - the length of his career - also vanishes like a fart in the wind. No, adding 3,000 PAs is not the correct way of looking at this; Tenace was not benched 3,000 times with a RHP on the mound. If I add 3,000 PAs the result is no longer Gene Tenace, but whoever it is will still be better than Steve Garvey.
PS WPA IS a rate stat. It falls below average, and if you do something below average it puts it into a negative. If you are in situations that you have more OPTIMAL times, then you will not be punished as much. If Tenace strikes out with the bases loaded vs JR Richard, that knocks his WPA negative. He avoided those situations...yet Garvey was still ahead of him.
Again, no, WPA is not a rate stat. Rate stats measure the "rate" of something per something else. WPA/PA is a rate stat; WPA is not. Tenace's OPS went up 15% with RISP, Garvey's went up only 5%; that's the primary reason, among several others, that Tenace won more games per PA than Garvey did.
Interesting note: I have commented before that Tenace drew walks at a remarkably consistent rate regardless of his position in the batting order - about once every 5.5 PA (Garvey's rate is 1 per 20 PA). But what I just saw was that he continued to draw walks at almost the same rate (once every 6.5 PA; Garvey 1 per 29) with the bases loaded. If Tenace was ever benched against JR Richard with the bases loaded I would be surprised, mostly at the stupidity of the manager who would do that. I doubt that it ever happened.
In other words, you agree that Ken Phelps is better hitter than Winfield, Murray, and Molitor
Yes, in order for Tenace to match Garvey's value and ability, you need to add 3,000 more at bats at the end of his career, and againt s RH pitchers only...then and only then will he be able to match Garvey. Until then, he is inferior to Garvey because Tenace was not good enough to play every day for very long AND he was not good enough to play effectively after age 33.
Otherwise, you are comparing him to Garvey much like Phelps would be compared to Winfield..and both Tenace and Phelps come out on top because they saved their percentages by playing mostly at the most advantageous times.
Yes, WPA is still a rate, just expressed differently. It is compared vs league average. The run expectancy charts are based on league average. Again, when you play only in the most opportune times, you will increase your WPA more than someone who plays in the tougher times and situations.
And YES, Tenace may not have had that exact scenario of getting pinch hit vs JR RIchard...but he did worse...he didn't even play. So yes, he saved his WPA by avoiding the games more where he would be making more outs, which would put his WPA negative in those games. He also avoided games when he was older and no longer as good, so he he saved a bunch of negative WPA when you add those 3,000 at bats at the END of his career.
Like I said, if I only used Garvey's numbers while in his prime, and took away his plate appearances vs the toughest RH pitchers, then he would be put in the same category as Tenace. His OPS+ would be great, but it would only be 5,000 worth of plate appearances. That does not make that Garvey BETTER than the real Steve Garvey just because his OPS+ ends up higher.
So,if I ONLY look at Garvey's performance in ONLY the highest leverage times like Phelps, I mean Tenace. I'm simply going to fire Garvey after 1980 and don't play him before 1972, then he has a similar amount of plate apperances as Tenace does.
Yeah I know, ballpark. Ok, even if I gave you that at wholesale price, I stilll need to bench Garvey vs the toughest RH's to mimic Teance. Plus there is no guarantee that the ballpark figures are 100% accurate for the two. Dodger Stadium is not a hitters park.
Once I do that, Garvey beats him easily in that SAME time frame with the same high optimum playing time....and that is completely ignoring the contributions that Garvey did AFTER 1980 and ALLLL those thousands of plate appearances he contributed while Tenace was sitting on a couch.
Garvey wins. Sorry Dallas. Sometimes you cannot win them all.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
So,if I ONLY look at Garvey's performance in ONLY the highest leverage times like Phelps, I mean Tenace. I'm simply going to fire Garvey after 1980 and don't play him before 1972, then he has a similar amount of plate apperances as Tenace does.
Yeah I know, ballpark. Ok, even if I gave you that at wholesale price, I stilll need to bench Garvey vs the toughest RH's to mimic Teance. Plus there is no guarantee that the ballpark figures are 100% accurate for the two. Dodger Stadium is not a hitters park.
Once I do that, Garvey beats him easily in that SAME time frame with the same high optimum playing time....and that is completely ignoring the contributions that Garvey did AFTER 1980 and ALLLL those thousands of plate appearances he contributed while Tenace was sitting on a couch.
Garvey wins. Sorry Dallas. Sometimes you cannot win them all.
Simply put a crappy hitter is not a great hitter because he fails in a "pitchers" ballpark.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Garvey wins. Sorry Dallas. Sometimes you cannot win them all.
I'm going to ignore all the rambling that it took to get to your conclusion and repeat, for about the 73rd time, that Garvey played longer than Tenace and if you want to declare him the winner on that basis I can't stop you. Whether you realize it or not, that's all you're doing no matter how much time you waste trying to dress it up differently.
And you're embarrassing yourself with the comparison of Tenace and Phelps. Tenace hit RHP almost exactly as well as Garvey hit LHP; there was a dropoff for Tenace against RHP, but it wasn't nearly as dramatic as it was for Phelps. Phelps was a platoon player his entire career. Tenace was a catcher who needed to be rested and, not being morons, his managers chose to match up his rest days with days when a RHP was on the mound. Still, Tenace faced RHP twice as often as LHP while Phelps, a lefty, faced RHP eight times as often as LHP. In other words, Tenace faced the hard pitchers twice as often as the easy pitchers, Phelps faced the easy pitchers eight times as often as the hard pitchers. If you're just engaging in masturbatory rehash by bringing Phelps into this I'm in no position to complain. But if you honestly think he's relevant here, you're in way over your head. But the whole "add 3,000 PAs at the end of Tenace's career, and all against RHP" is so monumentally dumb that I'm pretty sure it had to be masturbatory rehash. And well done; it's possible someone here even fell for it.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Comments
In other words, you having nothing to add.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
>
How about >4. Really nice hitting year with an OPS+ of 135 even with a low walk total NICE!
I didn't mention the 200 hit thing, although it's a very nice number. He had a decent SLG. although not really suited for a clean-up hitter which is where he spent most of his career.
I kind of like that he didn't walk too much (which would have helped his OB%), as the 4th hitter, he was trying to drive in runs, which he did quite well.
For 12 out of 13 seasons he basically played in every game and hit .300 while averaging driving in 100 runs.
I looked at his home/road, vs rhp/lhp, Batting order positions, 1st half/2nd half, bases occupied and clutch stats and the guy just seemed to hit .300 (or reasonably close) no matter the situation.
I'm not saying this qualifies him for induction, Was simply impressed that he was able to perform at a high level in all situations.
Williams walked too much to get 200 hits, Mantle only had two years of very high BA and he walked a lot too, Mays had a couple of 195 hit seasons and a 190.
I don't know why you are pointing this out, these guys are power hitters who drew walks Garvey didn't have the SLG of these guys and wasn't in the same universe as a hitter. Pete Rose got 200 hits a lot. with a much lower SLG.
Come on? Where are we going?
Hrbek was a VERY nice player and his defense at 1B was fantastic! Fairly and Griffey had pretty low SLG but were nice players. Tenace walked a lot.
Both excellent players. Many of their numbers are pretty close. Hernandez had a little better OB%. Garvey more Total Bases.
Hernandez has the reputation as a all time great defensive player.
What else makes him better? Just curious.
Defense, yes. Post-season, no, because it would change nothing if done objectively. Changing it subjectively based on what your feels tell you post-season is worth is always an option, but that should never be confused with statistics, facts, or anything of actual importance.
It cannot be stressed strongly enough how absolutely terrible an idea it is to consider "popularity" as a HOF qualification. Garvey was undeniably popular because he was handsome, had a high batting average, and played on an excellent team. That people who don't know a lot about baseball think a high batting average is meaningful is certainly true, but since we know it doesn't, all that leaves us is that Garvey looked good and had teammates better than he was. If that says "HOF" to you, you should get your ears checked.
The contrast here startled me. Adjusted for the parks they played in, Garvey's SLG was 1% higher than Tenace's. They were essentially equal in that department. Adjusted for the parks they played in, Tenace's OBP was 20% better than Garvey's (who was almost exactly league average). Parse it how you want, phrase it how you want, but Tenace was a better hitter than Garvey, and it's not particularly close.
Win Shares. The difference is startling.
He defense is accounted for in that number. It's a fairly complete picture. Plus the eye test. After seeing both play a lot I would take Hernandez everytime
m
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......
Fair enough. I was more of an AL guy, so I didn't see much of either of them play. Seems like two very good/great players.
Parse it how you want, phrase it how you want, but Tenace was a better hitter than Garvey, and it's not particularly close.
Tenace was a much, much better walker than Garvey.
In every other aspect of the game Garvey was FAR superior player than Mr Tenace who was a fine player.
A 1% advantage in SLG is "FAR superior"? I appear to have hit a nerve, because that makes no sense.
And since you said "every" aspect of the game, please regale me with Mr. Garvey's exploits as a catcher. Tenace also played first base, and made an All-Star team as one, and appears to have handled the rigors of playing the easiest position just fine. The only time Garvey played another position it was 3B and he was so terrifically awful he almost played himself out of baseball entirely. Any method of allocating fielding value that isn't completely nonsensical puts Tenace on top of Garvey.
On offense, they were equals as sluggers, and Tenace had an enormous advantage in OBP. Translate that to the best offensive stat on bb-ref - batter runs - and you have 267 for Tenace and 167 for Garvey. Tenace is tied with Johnny Bench, Garvey is tied with Richie Hebner.
Garvey's JAWS score is 33.4, tying him with George Scott for 50th best among first basemen. Tenace's JAWS score is 40.9, placing him immediately behind Thurman Munson as the 13th best catcher.
I have no idea what you are looking at that tells you that Steve Garvey was a better player than Gene Tenace, and I am certain that there is nothing to look at, because nothing exists, that is telling you that he was FAR superior to Gene Tenace at anything at all. Garvey played a lot longer, because Tenace was a catcher, and if you want to peg Garvey's superiority to that then just say so. But other than hanging around, Garvey wasn't better than Tenace at any meaningful aspect of the game.
Can we at least agree that Steve Garvey was better looking then Gene Tenace?
m
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......
The highest Tenace ever slugged in a full season was ,464, and no we are not going to add any points to that. If he could have run better he would have had more doubles and a higher SLG. The ballpark didn't rob him of his speed, he was already slow.
Garvey slugged higher than that 6 times with three years at or above .497.
When you have a career 53 point advantage in BA and a 17 point advantage in SLG, and do it for twice as long you are the far superior hitter.
Total Bases, Tenace's high was 226, that's not a typo. Garvey had 6 years over 300 and another 5 over Tenace's best year.
When you play in more than 155 games in 11 seasons (and all 110 in 1981) you're better than the guy who could only do it 3 times.
"Hanging around"? Garvey was better than Tenace's best year at the age of 37, Tenace is the one that hung around, not being able to play in more than 66 games in a year for his last three years. THAT'S "hanging around".
Oh yes! Tenace WAS fantastic in 1982 with an OPS+ of 161 with his 124 AB, at the same age Garvey was still playing in every game with 617 AB. A guy with 32 hits and 36 walks has a better year than a guy with 175 hits and 27 doubles. Must be because Garvey had so few walks...........again.
A back up player is not as good as a starting player, otherwise he would be a starter.
I did find a second thing Tenace was better at, pinch hitting!
If you're finding stats that say Tenace is equal to Johnny Bench, you better start looking somewhere else for your information.
Catcher is a POSITION not an aspect of the game btw.
You like to cite this stat. However, Tenace is barely a catcher. He played less than 60% of his games there, just 892 total. He actually started at catcher in less than half of his games. And, in a lot of those, he got pulled or moved to a different position.
Or you play in a far easier park. Tenace's career SLG on the road was .441, Garvey's was .434. The "advantage" you see is a park effect, and one so obvious that the only way not to see it is to close your eyes and shout "la la la" so nobody can puncture the bubble your illusions live in.
No catcher has ever done it and not been swiftly elected to the HOF. Lots of players have done it in seasons that wouldn't be among Tenace's top 3 seasons. In 1974, Garvey walked 31 times and got 71 singles with the bases empty. He turned a bases empty situation into a runner on first situation 102 times. The same year, Tenace walked 110 times and got a bases empty single 31 times; bases empty turned into runner on first 141 times. And in all of those PAs, Garvey gets 40 total bases that Tenace doesn't get. You can embarrass yourself and try to explain why a bases empty single is "better" than a walk, but it would be painful to watch so please don't. Garvey's advantage in TB is a function of two things: bases empty singles vs. walks, and Garvey getting to bat many more times.
LOL. And Johnny Bench only did it twice, while Munson, Fisk and Carter each did it once. This argument is so limp not even Viagra could save it.
I already conceded that the sole facet of the game in which Garvey bested Tenace was hanging around; no need to beat this dead horse.
Tenace was an absolute stud in 1982, and there's no way the Cards make the playoffs without him. Tenace's WAR that year was higher than George Hendricks who played every day and drove in over 100 runs. And how many arguments in a row are you going to make that ignore that Tenace was a catcher? It's getting amusing.
Bench was much more durable and a hell of a lot better catcher; as total packages, they're not even close. But as hitters, Tenace was about Bench's equal when Tenace was able to play. I wouldn't say I had to "find" any stats to show that; you have to work awfully hard not to see them.
Absolutely, and therein lies the actual reason why Garvey ever got in a HOF discussion. Had he looked like Cey, and vice versa, we'd be having this conversation about Cey instead. That Garvey's got male fanboys (see above) 30+ years after he retired tells you just how good looking he was.
Yes and no. I get your point and you're certainly not wrong, but it was catching that destroyed Tenace's knees and the reason his career is so short. The A's tried to save his career by moving him to first, but he ended up catching a lot anyway, and the Padres needed him to catch full time and that was that.
But yes, the JAWS comparison is kind of apples to oranges for Garvey / Tenace, and since it isn't necessary to prove Tenace was better than Garvey I hereby withdraw it. Bill James ranks Tenace as the 23rd best catcher when the formula he says he uses to rank them clearly would rank him much higher. I assume James is ranking Tenace on the catcher's list because that's his primary position, but then adjusting his spot on that list as a way of recognizing that he also played a fair amount at 1B. He ranks Garvey as the 31st best first baseman; that gap is probably a better representation of the true difference between them than the JAWS difference.
.
From MLB.com
'Key fact: Excluding players linked to PEDs and the banned-for-life Pete Rose, the only eligible player with more All-Star appearances than Garvey’s 10 not in the Hall of Fame is Bill Freehan (11)
From 1974-80, Garvey was the epitome of consistency, with a batting average between .297 and .319 and an OPS between .808 and .852, never finishing lower than 14th in MVP voting. He was at his clutch best in the postseason, with a .910 OPS. His NL record of 1,307 consecutive games played will probably never be broken. He was a hit machine, with at least 200 of them in six different seasons. Eight of his All-Star appearances were with the Dodgers, but he left as a free agent to join the Padres for his final five seasons.'
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
LarkinCollector,
I liked the topic you brought up and I even participated in that, but the discussion totally went into another universe. The Garvey discussion is a worthy topic that deserved its own thread.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
Tenace was so amazing in 1982 that he played just 23 complete games. He was very productive in limited PAs but "studs" play more than 1/6th of the season when they're not hurt.
And his WAR for the year was 2.2. They won the division by 3 games.
Dallas' arguments with his part time players are all dependent on a single word; IF.
If Tenace (or any of the part time guys he likes) played in all the games, he would have been better than whoever played every game. Theoretically and mathematically he might be right. So yes, in theory Tenace would have been in the conversation IF he had played. However dallas could just as easily be wrong and Tenace (or whoever) could have played worse. There's also no way of knowing if Garvey would have played better if he only had to play in 2/3 of the games.
In fact he rips other players for "sitting against tough left handers" so he's being inconsistent here. Apparently a lot of pitchers were "too tough" for Tenace.
Also his use of the park factor BS, that's just amazing, he adds to his guys SLG and subtracts (or ignores) the other guys SLG and then says they're the same.
Funny thing is, you don't actually get a walk when you are sitting on the bench, you also don't get credit for the guy who doesn't exist, the oft mentioned "replacement" player, because when you are deemed not good enough to get on the field, or stay there, you are below that level.
It's like saying "gee teacher, even though I was absent for 1/3 of the tests, I got all A's and B's, the "replacement" student would have gotten C's, so instead of a "D", I should get a "B".
You don't get a "C" for not playing, you get an "F"!
I doubt that most would say that Garvey is deserving of HOF consideration. I suspect Tenace's vote would be at MOST 1.
Finally to those of you who don't like the thread turning into a Garvey/Tenace debate, if you don't like it, don't read it. Threads go off topic all the time. You aren't the moderator.
It is very odd that Garvey should be considered a better player if he sits vs JR Richard and the resulting effect is that his season OPS is higher thus making him 'better'
Plate Appearances vs RH and LH
Player.......RH.....LH
Garvey 6,922....2,544
Tenace 3,682....1,854
Before marveling at Tenace's OPS, be sure to add all those 0 for 4's he dodged by not playing vs Nolan Ryan etc.. Clearly Tenace sat more vs RH pitchers, especially in comparison to Garvey.
Garvey's ability to play in every situation, whether he wasn't 100% or if JR Richard was on the mound...was a benefit to winning. His team could deploy that left handed bat somewhere else instead, and they could save money by not employing someone to fill in for Garvey so often, and spend on pitching.
In contrast, the A's either had to utilize their best replacement for Tenace when they could have used him elsewhere more needed, or they had to employ a viable replace...or they had to suffer with a low level replacement player in Tenace's stead.
Rate stats are dangerous if the platoon effect is not looked into, and if career length is not taken into account. WAR and Runs produced above average are rate stats too...even though they are expressed in whole numbers.
Garvey also has Teance beat in WPA 27 to 21, and that is a rate stat too.
Don't confuse WAR with actual wins. Tenace was a stud that year and there's no way the Cards win the division without him. I say this as a Cardinal fan who watched them all season. And Tenace wasn't "hurt", he was a broken down man, with the knees of an 80-year-old. But still caught when we needed him to, and he came through as a PH over and over again.
"Park factor BS"? Are you seriously saying that acknowledging that one park is harder to hit in than another park is BS? Hit in Coors, hit in Oakland, it's all the same thing? Discussing baseball intelligently without acknowledging park factors is like discussing satellites while not acknowledging gravity - it can't be done.
No, WPA is not a rate stat, it's a cumulative stat. Convert it into a rate stat - WPA / PA - and Tenace is .0039 and Garvey is .0029; Tenace's rate of WPA beats Garvey's by 35%.
Now, several valid points were made regarding platooning, and that Tenace hit against LHP at a higher rate than Garvey. And it is absolutely fair to consider the huge gap in their OPS+ in that light. Was Tenace a 16% better hitter than Garvey? Yes, but some of that is because Tenace didn't face as many RHP. How much? Not as much as you think.
Tenace faced 1,845 LHP and 3,692 RHP; if you adjust his ratio to be identical to Garvey's you get 1,488 PA against LHP and 4,049 against RHP - a shift of 357 PAs from LHP to RHP. Recalculate his OPS and it drops from .817 to .812; Garvey's OPS was .775. Tenace's OPS+ drops from 136 to 135, and he's no longer 16% higher than Garvey, he's 15% higher.
The thing is, Tenace was benched against RHP a fair amount, but he hit better against RHP than Garvey did, and he better against LHP than Garvey did. In fact, Tenace hit as well against RHP as Garvey did against LHP. There is no way to massage, combine, interpret, or analyze the data that doesn't lead to the conclusion that Tenace was a better hitter than Garvey. None. Garvey played longer,of this there is no doubt. And this is the single only argument to be made on his behalf that doesn't vanish like a fart in the wind if you'll only think about it.
Dallas, that is incorrect. You need to ADD 3,000 worth of plate appearances vs RH to Tenace's line in order for him to begin to be equally compared to Garvey. Keep in mind that his career OPS VS RH includes his prime years when he was able to do good against them. In fact he sat vs them more at the end of his career when his skills had declined, and at the beginning when they were not his prime years.
So in reality, you need to add 3,000 worth of at bats with an OPS value of about .650...if it is even that high....because he would have to be able to do that at age 36, 37 etc....because those are the years with the missing at bats. He may very well be putting up .450 OPS at age 37.
If you wanted to do it in reverse, then removed Garvey's old man years from the equation. Then during Garvey's prime remove a percentage of at bats vs RH pitchers as well.
You will see that Garvey has much more value to a team as I already explained because it makes ZERO sense that if Garvey sat every game vs JR Richard, that it somehow makes him better because his OPS is now higher. Zero sense.
I can removed Garvey from the lineup retroactively against pitchers that are sub optimal at bats...if you wanted to work it that way. Then remove Garvey's old man years to the point he has the same plate appearances as Tenace does...and Garvey's OPS will skyrocket. Then OPS will be a more fair comparison. It is not valid comparison at all in the way you are doing it.
PS WPA IS a rate stat. It falls below average, and if you do something below average it puts it into a negative. If you are in situations that you have more OPTIMAL times, then you will not be punished as much. If Tenace strikes out with the bases loaded vs JR Richard, that knocks his WPA negative. He avoided those situations...yet Garvey was still ahead of him.
So in a nutshell, Tenace's and Garvey's career at the plate comes down to this:
Garvey comes up to the plate with the bases loaded facing JR Richard. Garvey strikes out. His WPA takes a huge hit in that situation.
Tenace comes up to the plate with the bases loaded facing JR Richard, and gets pinch hit for. The pinch hitter grounds out to end the inning. Tenace's WPA stays in tact, and stays AHEAD of Garvey. The pinch hitter gets penalized for making the out.
So how in the world is the guy who is getting pinched hit for, or benched, better??
Two words. Ken Phelps. If you apply all that stuff you are saying about Tenace, to Phelps...then aside from being a catcher, Phelps is a HOFer too....and better better hitter than Dave Winfield, Paul Molitor, and Eddie Murray...since Phelps has a higher career OPS+ than all of them. Phelps is clearly NOT better than any of those guys...but OPS+ is saying he is because the platoon factor NOR the career length are not being taken into account.
Tenace is a beefier version of Ken Phelps. Great to have on your team...but not as good as the hitters who can do it every game every at bat, and not pass the rate stat killer at bats off to the bench players.
The notion of awarding players who were not good enough to play every day or very long, and vault them ahead of players who DID do both, and whom hurt their percentages as a result...but still had viable percentages in the extra at bats during the season and at the end of the career is absolutely silly.
For instance, if I force Garvey to retire at age 31 and he ends his career with an OPS+ of 126 over 5,906 FULL TIME plate appearances...how does that make him better than the real Steve Garvey who went on to add ANOTHER 3,500 FULL TIME plate appearances at a rate of 101 OPS+....making his career total 9,466 plate appearances with 117 OPS+.
I stress FULL TIME plate appearances because those are more valuable than Phelps or Tenace who had platoon advantage beefing up their rate.
At what point do those 3,500 extra plate appearances that Garvey added get credit over a player who was not good enough to play or have a job in MLB?? 3,5000 extra FULL time plate appearances at BETTER than a league average hitter.
Do you know what they call players who produce 3,500 FULL TIME plate appearances with an OPS+ of 101 in MLB??
Millionaires.
.
It's literally right in the name of the stat.
Highly doubt it.
Yeah, that's exactly my point. He wasn't hurt, he just sucked so much that he barely ever played. If he'd been good, he would have played more.
I'll give him credit, he got on a lot as a PH. .474 OBP is impressive. Generally not the role of the PH to walk a ton though. And he did nothing when swinging the bat (.250 BA & SLG). Overall .724 is definitely not impressive, especially when combined with 0 XBH and 0 RBI.
Also, the Cards were 4-15 in games he batted as a PH.
.
.
Why? Yours is right here
.
LOL. If I add 3,000 worth of PAs to Tenace, then the sole factor that was working in Garvey's favor - the length of his career - also vanishes like a fart in the wind. No, adding 3,000 PAs is not the correct way of looking at this; Tenace was not benched 3,000 times with a RHP on the mound. If I add 3,000 PAs the result is no longer Gene Tenace, but whoever it is will still be better than Steve Garvey.
Again, no, WPA is not a rate stat. Rate stats measure the "rate" of something per something else. WPA/PA is a rate stat; WPA is not. Tenace's OPS went up 15% with RISP, Garvey's went up only 5%; that's the primary reason, among several others, that Tenace won more games per PA than Garvey did.
Interesting note: I have commented before that Tenace drew walks at a remarkably consistent rate regardless of his position in the batting order - about once every 5.5 PA (Garvey's rate is 1 per 20 PA). But what I just saw was that he continued to draw walks at almost the same rate (once every 6.5 PA; Garvey 1 per 29) with the bases loaded. If Tenace was ever benched against JR Richard with the bases loaded I would be surprised, mostly at the stupidity of the manager who would do that. I doubt that it ever happened.
.
Hi, and welcome to the boards!
This is (I'm guessing) one of dallas' favorite hobbies; he finds a player who had a couple of good years and then was quickly out of the league, and because of the POOR statistics he finds that show the lousy player has a higher OPS+ than a obviously superior player, he shouts it from the rooftops. "Gene Tenace, better than Steve Garvey".
We all know (as does he) that is a joke. I think that in truth, dallas HATES these stats and throws them out there because they are so idiotic. Then he defends his (artificial) position to the bitter end, NEVER giving up, NEVER giving in. Quite refreshing at times.
He even made the insane claim that Jon Matlack was a better pitcher than Catfish Hunter.................I know right?
Explain to him how much the base on balls is over rated in measuring the ability of a hitter and he'll go on FOREVER!
;-)
.
No, I was saying you were full of B.S.
When a batters only ability is the base on balls, park factor has no effect. Same distance from home to first.
Exactly my point. He got on base and didn't help his team win.
.
.
oh how i love me some threads like this
it's like Larkin started this game by whispering the secret question to Keets............."do you think Vizquel's HOF chances are diminished by the latest revelation?"
then it goes all the way around the horn and the final person whispers back to Larkin, "so, did you ask Keets if he thought Steve Garvey was hotter than Gene Tenace?"
He'll never say "what about Steve Garvey" (or words to that effect) again!
So you're saying you'd rather talk about Jon Matlack instead?
.
You're in luck, masturbatory rehash is my middle name.
In other words, you agree that Ken Phelps is better hitter than Winfield, Murray, and Molitor
Yes, in order for Tenace to match Garvey's value and ability, you need to add 3,000 more at bats at the end of his career, and againt s RH pitchers only...then and only then will he be able to match Garvey. Until then, he is inferior to Garvey because Tenace was not good enough to play every day for very long AND he was not good enough to play effectively after age 33.
Otherwise, you are comparing him to Garvey much like Phelps would be compared to Winfield..and both Tenace and Phelps come out on top because they saved their percentages by playing mostly at the most advantageous times.
Yes, WPA is still a rate, just expressed differently. It is compared vs league average. The run expectancy charts are based on league average. Again, when you play only in the most opportune times, you will increase your WPA more than someone who plays in the tougher times and situations.
And YES, Tenace may not have had that exact scenario of getting pinch hit vs JR RIchard...but he did worse...he didn't even play. So yes, he saved his WPA by avoiding the games more where he would be making more outs, which would put his WPA negative in those games. He also avoided games when he was older and no longer as good, so he he saved a bunch of negative WPA when you add those 3,000 at bats at the END of his career.
Like I said, if I only used Garvey's numbers while in his prime, and took away his plate appearances vs the toughest RH pitchers, then he would be put in the same category as Tenace. His OPS+ would be great, but it would only be 5,000 worth of plate appearances. That does not make that Garvey BETTER than the real Steve Garvey just because his OPS+ ends up higher.
Ken Phelps. Gene Tenace.
So,if I ONLY look at Garvey's performance in ONLY the highest leverage times like Phelps, I mean Tenace. I'm simply going to fire Garvey after 1980 and don't play him before 1972, then he has a similar amount of plate apperances as Tenace does.
Garvey 5,554 Plate Apperances and .818 OPS Runs 688. RBI 810
Tenace 5,527 Plate Apperances and .817 OPS. Runs 653. RBI 674
Yeah I know, ballpark. Ok, even if I gave you that at wholesale price, I stilll need to bench Garvey vs the toughest RH's to mimic Teance. Plus there is no guarantee that the ballpark figures are 100% accurate for the two. Dodger Stadium is not a hitters park.
Once I do that, Garvey beats him easily in that SAME time frame with the same high optimum playing time....and that is completely ignoring the contributions that Garvey did AFTER 1980 and ALLLL those thousands of plate appearances he contributed while Tenace was sitting on a couch.
Garvey wins. Sorry Dallas. Sometimes you cannot win them all.
Simply put a crappy hitter is not a great hitter because he fails in a "pitchers" ballpark.
Me too, but we ain't getting a room other than this one! ;-)
I'm going to ignore all the rambling that it took to get to your conclusion and repeat, for about the 73rd time, that Garvey played longer than Tenace and if you want to declare him the winner on that basis I can't stop you. Whether you realize it or not, that's all you're doing no matter how much time you waste trying to dress it up differently.
And you're embarrassing yourself with the comparison of Tenace and Phelps. Tenace hit RHP almost exactly as well as Garvey hit LHP; there was a dropoff for Tenace against RHP, but it wasn't nearly as dramatic as it was for Phelps. Phelps was a platoon player his entire career. Tenace was a catcher who needed to be rested and, not being morons, his managers chose to match up his rest days with days when a RHP was on the mound. Still, Tenace faced RHP twice as often as LHP while Phelps, a lefty, faced RHP eight times as often as LHP. In other words, Tenace faced the hard pitchers twice as often as the easy pitchers, Phelps faced the easy pitchers eight times as often as the hard pitchers. If you're just engaging in masturbatory rehash by bringing Phelps into this I'm in no position to complain. But if you honestly think he's relevant here, you're in way over your head. But the whole "add 3,000 PAs at the end of Tenace's career, and all against RHP" is so monumentally dumb that I'm pretty sure it had to be masturbatory rehash. And well done; it's possible someone here even fell for it.
Not just played longer. Hit better too. Same with Perez being better than Keith Hernandez.
As it stands, Tenace is closer to Phelps than you think, at least according to your methods you are using to compare Tenace to Garvey.