Options
Will Steve Garvey ever make the HOF?
JimMeant
Posts: 341 ✭✭✭
He’s an interesting case for sure and had a really strong run in the decade of the 70’s.
What are the odds he eventually makes it in?
-Collecting anything vintage
0
JimMeant
Posts: 341 ✭✭✭
Comments
A small chance in my opinion. He was a better player than many who are inducted but he just doesn't seem to have much traction overall. If he had remained a Dodger till the end, I think his odds would be better.
He should be in already. His personal life probably has more to do with his omission than his playing career.
He should be in.
Getting dumped for Marvin Hamlisch is disqualifying.
And his popularity and media image has a lot to do with him even being considered for the Hall. He did well on nationally televised games, All star games, NLCS.
38 career WAR over 18 years ranks 51st among First basemen. Mattingly, Grace, K.Hernandez, W.Clark, Olerud, just to name a few retirees above him, and C.Cooper and K.Hrbek about the same.
117 career OBS+ comparable to Cecil Fielder and Wally Joyner.
Career numbers most similar to Garvey is Garrett Anderson. Is Garrett Anderson HOF worthy?
With today's sabermetrics, Ron Cey beats him in WAR, OBA, OBS+ and it's been argued that, while Garvey got the spotlight and had good "traditional stats", he wasn't even the best Dodger during the 70s/80s.
normally i would have said no way, but hey, they let Harold Baines and jack morris in.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Of all those I’d rather see C Cooper than Farvey.
That list leaves out Norm Cash, Dick Allen, and Boog Powell. And of all those, including the ones already mentioned, I'd rather see any of them than Garvey.
In 1973, Joe Ferguson was the best Dodger, and Cey was better than Garvey.
Garvey won the MVP in 1974. He may have been the 10th best player in the NL that year, and better than Cey, but Jim Wynn was clearly the best Dodger.
In 1975, Cey was the best Dodger.
In 1976, Cey was the best Dodger.
In 1977, Reggie Smith was the best Dodger, and Cey and Garvey were about equal.
In 1978, Davey Lopes was the best Dodger, and Cey and Garvey were about equal.
In 1979, Davey Lopes was the best Dodger, and Cey was better than Garvey.
In 1980, Dusty Baker was the best Dodger, and Cey and Garvey were about equal.
In 1981, Valenzuela was the best Dodger, and Cey was better than Garvey.
In 1982 Pedro Guerrero was the best Dodger, and Cey was better than Garvey.
Ron Cey was the best Dodger on the 70s/80s Dodgers, and I'd definitely rather see him in the HOF than Garvey.
If you're looking for who is the best of any of various categories who is not enshrined, you'll just never get to Garvey. Garvey was a good, not very good, hitter who played the least important defensive position and played it pretty badly. At some point people got the idea that Garvey was an All-Star and he was one several times, but from 30-50 years later, it's not clear why. Baseball Reference explains WAR in part as 5+ WAR signifies "All-Star", but Garvey reached that level only in 1975 when he had 5.1. It is a mystery as to why Garvey won the MVP award in 1974 when you compare him to his teammate Jim Wynn. Wynn had 11 more home runs and only three fewer RBI. He leads in stolen bases 18-5 and walks a whopping 108-31. OBP .387 to .342 and SLG .497 to .469. Perhaps they thought that Garvey playing 1B instead of CF made up for the obviously inferior offense.
Note that in suggesting Wynn was much more deserving of MVP than Garvey I'm not using any advanced metrics that weren't well known in 1974. I'm also not suggesting Wynn was the "real" MVP that year. FWIW, Garvey's WAR was fourth on his TEAM behind (also) Messersmith and Cey.
Garvey had 182 batting runs. There are 21 players between 180 and 190 if you count Monte Irvin's time in the Negro Leagues. It's a mix of players who were good to great defensively at more important positions, like Evan Longoria, Ken Boyer and Roger Maris, and people who have never seriously been considered for the Hall, like Don Baylor, Toby Harrah, or Eddie Yost.
But here's the thing: similar cases can be made for Kaat, McGriff, and Hodges. I can't conceive of a case for Fowler. The Committees are not having the strongest candidates nominated (Parker instead of Grich or Whitaker?) and aren't selecting the best offered to them. With those criteria, it's easy to see that if Garvey has friends on a Committee, he can get in. It's happened to players far less worthy, and almost as long as there have been Committees.
I like Garvey - seems he falls short of the HOF. Still an excellent player who earned our respect. While I am not going to debate who was the best Dodger from 1973-85, Garvey will always have a following and will be remembered. I see this question (Garvey-HOF??) as benefitting the discussion that warrants a question as to whether there is simply too much emphasis placed on the HOF. Sadly the careers of so many excellent players have been reduced to a footnote instead garnering the attention and respect they deserve.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
A great Dodger of the HOF and LA.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
Back in 1993, I was so sure Garvey would be a HOFer that I had him sign this Hall of Fame mini bat. This was during the All Star Game Fanfest at Camden Yards.
I got the bat signed there by Garvey, Jenkins, Aparicio, Feller and Brook Robinson. I'll always remember Aparicio was not happy about having to sign a bat.
I was a big Garvey fan back in the day but he may be one of those who always fall short, along with folks like Mattingly and Munson. You never know though: we just recently saw Oliva and Kaat inducted.
I looked at a few of the guys mentioned.
Will Clark was a better hitter.
Can't for the life of me see how Keith Hernandez has such a higher WAR.
I also noticed that Garvey had a stretch from 1974-1986 (with the exception of 1983) where he almost never missed a game. That's pretty impressive.
He was a 4 time Gold Glove winner, but I guess he was a bad fielder?
He seems to be another guy who would have scored a lot higher with numbers had he walked more.
I could see Clark, Hernandez and Garvey all getting in the HOF, the guys that have been getting in (Baines and Kaat especially) really make a case for a lot of players who were considered borderline in the past.
Clark was the best hitter by far
Hernandez was the best fielder by far
Garvey was the media darling by far
All 3 were clutch
To me, none are HOF worthy.
All 3 are more HOF worthy than Baines!
Garvey missed his chance when he was still a popular player. What hurt him back then was his hit total(which was viewed as more important at the time).
He didn't get full time at bats until age 25, and age 37 was the last year he got full time at bats. Had he played a little more earlier or a little more later, his hit total would have been close enough to 3,000 to warrant induction back then. He would have been in actually.
He is so far out of the limelight that I don't know how anything changes with him. In terms of cards I've been asking kids in their early 20's if they ever heard of him, and unless I told them about him previously, none of them really heard of him.
Maybe a successful run in his Senate bid could get him some juice for a veterans committee. Actually, if he pulled off a miracle Senate win for his party, and win a seat in California, that would put him in my HOF
.
If you are looking at the card aspect, he could be back in the limelight soon...but his bid is an absolute long shot.
Garvey wasn't a bad fielder, he had a bad arm. The Dodgers moved him from third base - where he was possibly the worst in MLB history - to first base so he wouldn't need to throw. But other than his arm, he was a great first baseman. Very good range, very good hands, saved a lot of errors for his infielders by snaring their bad throws. And they gave him the Gold Gloves because what they saw was a great first baseman. They ignored what they didn't see - the throws he didn't make to get the lead runner choosing to step on first base instead.
WAR thinks Garvey was a lot worse than he was; it penalizes the lack of assists too much. Gold Glove voters thought Garvey was a lot better than he was; they didn't penalize the lack of assists enough. I'd rate him as "very good", but that's just an opinion; first base is a very hard position to evaluate in large part because the difference between a great first baseman and a poor first baseman has very little effect on winning games.
Hernandez defense helped win some games...
Garvey was a good player and not a great player.
This is another reason I am hesitant to put stock in WAR, when comparing Garvey to Hernandez.
Looks like Garvey had about 64 assists per year and Hernandez had 99. Every 5 games Keith got an additional assist. Garvey's dWAR is -11.6 while Hernandez is at +1.3.
I also disagree with the oWAR numbers. Garvey hit 100 more home runs and Hernandez walked 600 more times. Other than that their hitting was pretty close.
I'll take the home runs. Steve played in 244 more games, scored a few more runs and drove in 230 more.
Sure, but how many? If they were both good/great fielders, how much does 1 more assist every 5 games translate into a 162 game season?
I would say he was a great player, but not quite a HOF caliber player, but then we get Baines and Kaat.
Hopefully not.
Garvey will get in after Hernandez gets in. Garvey was super clutch. Has a higher OPS than Mantle in the postseason.
You should definitely be hesitant to put stock in defensive WAR; it's next to useless.
But we part ways here. Hernandez was an order of magnitude better hitter than Garvey. There's lots of ways to measure that, but the best easy way is by looking at batter runs, an advanced metric that places a value on each plate appearance and the number of runs it would be expected to produce given average teammates. Hernandez has 328.6, Garvey has 166.9, about half as many. Garvey did hit more HR, but Hernandez did everything else better. On the all-time list, Hernandez is virtually tied with Joe Medwick and Babe Herman; Garvey is virtually tied with Richie Hebner and Oscar Gamble.
One thing, one very important thing, that all traditional analysis misses and all worthwhile analysis captures, is outs made. While Garvey was hitting 100 more HR and Hernandez was drawing 600 more BB, Garvey was also making about 1,200 more outs, and grounding into 90 more DPs. That isn't an interesting bit of trivia, it's a huge part of why Hernandez was so much better.
I won't say that Garvey wasn't "great" and I have no problem if you think he was. But if Garvey was "great", Hernandez was significantly better, and you'll need a word other than "great" to describe him. And whatever word you use, you'll need yet another word to describe bona fide Hall of Famers. I'd describe Eddie Murray as "great", Hernandez as "near-great" and Garvey as "very good".
If I owned a team or was a GM, I'd rather have had Hernandez for a neutral 10 year run.
I guess we'll have to disagree here and below. I think there is actually quite a bit of value between having, say, a Hernandez at 1B and a David Ortiz.
I also think it's a mistake to call Garvey "Very good", as I would reserve that for the likes of Olerud, Clark, and McGriff, MAYBE Mattingly. I rate Garvey as "Good". somewhere in the neighborhood of Bottomley, Youkilis, Hrbek, Rizzo, and Grace. Your nomenclature may differ, but then you need to find a word to describe the likes of Carlos Delgado, Norm Cash and Adrian Gonzalez, all of whom were much worse than Hernandez and much better than Garvey.
I think it is mostly a semantic distinction and also a problem of trying to measure defensive value at first base. Steve Garvey was very good, even great, at some aspects of playing first base, and he was terrible at the throwing part. Part of the problem is the opposite of the Buckner problem - Garvey would choose to make the out at first base himself rather than throw it to the pitcher. That's part of the reason that his assist totals are so low and his putout totals are so high, but it is entirely unrelated to how good he was. The other parts that explain his assist/putout totals are (1) he rarely threw anyone out at any base other than first (bad), and (2) he could scoop errant throws out of the dirt and turn errors into putouts with the best of them (good). How do you combine all that into an overall defensive rating? Hell if I know, and hell if anyone knows.
Bill James gives Garvey an A at first base, and credits him with several Gold Gloves. I'm certainly open to rating him less than an A, in fact I would, and since the distance in Win Shares between the best and second first baseman is rounding error, I'm open to the idea that he didn't deserve any Gold Gloves. But I saw the man play for years, and my impression was that he was very good, but a clear step or two below Hernandez who I saw play even more and thought was the best I'd ever seen.
So I'll stick with "very good" but I have no objection to you calling him "good". But, even had he been terrible, it wouldn't have made any difference to how many titles the Dodgers won; it just doesn't matter that much how good your first baseman is.
10 time allstar
mvp
played in multiple 5 ws - won 1
iron man
way above average player. imo. i grew up in the 70's, no one would have taken hernandez over garvey. i wouldn't either.
Re Jack morris
“went 3–0 in the 1984 postseason with two complete-game victories in the 1984 World Series, and 4–0 in the 1991 postseason with a ten-inning complete-game victory in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series.”
Come on man…….pick on someone else man - 4 World Series and critical to all of them in the regular season and post season….big game pitcher all day….
Kaat was a real head scratcher for me.
Was a big fan of his when he was here in Minnesota and he had a couple of good years after he left.
He was a slightly below average pitcher from 1973-83 except for 2 seasons with the White Sox.
I just can't see Kaat in the HOF, even though he was a personal favorite of mine.
Sorry Jim.🥴
Jack Morris, ERAs by series after 1984: 6.75, 4.05, 1.17, 6.57, 8.44
Career record of 7-4 in the postseason with a 3.80 ERA, just a hair lower than his 3.90 regular season. He wasn't a "big game pitcher" a la John Smoltz or Curt Schilling. He was a guy who had some good performances in big games but was pretty average overall. Full to 1991 - that performance was legendary.
Hey, I completely agree with Garvey as way above average. I'll be happy to put Garvey in a "Hall of Way Above Average". But not a "Hall of Very Good", much less a "Hall of Fame". And, note that there are a relative, but not absolute, unfortunately, few HoFers who wouldn't qualify for the "Hall of Way Above Average".
4 rings…key to them all…not just lucky….
Love smoltz so no argument there….
For the 1970's Carew and Garvey were the best first baseman.
The are several reasons why the Hall started putting in inferior players:
1) Non baseball reasons
2) They wouldn't let in the ones that should be there based on performance
So if you can allow a person to get in based non baseball accomplishments, why wouldn't you let them in if their performance demanded it.
Not trying to start a debate but based on numbers these guys should easily be in:
1) Manny Ramirez
2) Alex Rod
3) Roger C.
4) Pete R.
5) Gary S
6) Sammy Sosa
7) Barry Bonds
8) Mark Mcgwire
9) Possibly Jose Canseco ( probably just as good as Kaat or Morris or more).
Then you have Dale Murphy,
.
Well, Carew played 568 games at 1B in the 1970s, so if we use that as our floor and count anyone who played at least that many games at 1B in the 1970s as a first baseman, then I've got Carew in first and Garvey in 6th. I won't list all of them in order to avoid useless debates, but Yaz and Perez tower over Garvey as 1970s first basemen.
Good general rule: when you find yourself limiting a comparison to a specific n-year period, and declaring that so-and-so was the best or second-best or whatever, for that specific period, you are making a "very good" argument, not a HOF argument. Steve Garvey was a very good baseball player; there is no reasonable argument that he was any better than that, and any argument that he was a HOF-level player isn't even on the "reasonable" spectrum. That's not to say that he won't get in the HOF someday - I think he probably will - just that it isn't reasonable to put him there.
no one would have traded garvey for Perez in the 1970's. Garvey was a household name in the 1970's. But you are right about Yaz. I would put Yaz first, then Carew and then Garvey.
Perez no mvp's, 7 all-star games. His lifetime stats are a little better than Steve's.
Based on my other posts about players, a lot of people have concluded that media likes/personality of players could be the most telling characteristic. If that is the case Garvey is way ahead of Perez. And he was an Iron Man like Ripken.
I'd add Joe Jackson to your list.
Seems to be a good argument for Garvey if you need to bring in an outfielder and a second baseman who played out their careers at first base in order to knock Steve down.
I would take Garvey ahead of Hernandez, but not by much, he never missed a game, except for one year, so even though Keith was a tremendous defensive player, the team was worse off when he was out of the lineup.
Either way, they could both go in or neither, I like Clark too, but if we ignore the few "mistakes" that have been made lately, they are all borderline.
Perez appears to be a better hitter, clearly superior to Garvey, but I wouldn't say he "towers" over him.
2599 career hits
If that were 3000+ he may be in
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
Considering the "strong run in the decade of the '70s" argument, note that Garvey was third among infielders who only played for the Dodgers in WAR. YMMV, and yes, WAR isn't everything, but being behind Cey and Lopes isn't a ringing endorsement.
Garvey, Murphy, and Lynn were once all viewed as legit future Hall of Famers. Their card prices reflected that back then. That '72 hi number Garvey was on fire at one time. The Lynn RC too. Murphy RC too. All three of those RC's were absolute keys at one time(Garvey RC '71 of course).
George Foster cards never had that same allure, but on field performance he was as good or better than Garvey in their primes, and he had the monster year that always stood out.
Lynn stands out above all them though.
Since they all faded to one degree or another as time went on, they never had a legit shot at the HOF, but while they were in their prime, those that were watching them always held them in that "future HOF" viewpoint, and that view has stuck with many.
If it were similar to the Football HOF, all four may be in already.
I'm still convinced that Murphy will be going into the HOF via the committee. His star shined super bright and he is still recognized as a model citizen and class guy. I think his contemporaries will put him in.
I've always been a proponent of giving Garvey his props for playing every game and not saving his percentages by sitting against tough matchup(and being there for his team)s, but when his primary argument FOR his induction to the HOF are his traditional stats, keep in mind the following:
Garvey 2,599 Hits
Rusty Staub 2,716 hits
Garvey 272 HR
Staub 292 HR
Garvey 1,308 RBI
Staub 1,466 RBI
Garvey 3,941 Total Bases
Staub 4,185 Total Bases
Staub sweeps him in all the traditional totals. That is what makes it difficult to put Garvey in with the traditional arguments when things like this occur.
Dave Parker beats him even more in all those same measurements.
In just a few modern measurements:
Garvey 38 WAR
Staub 45 WAR
Garvey Run Expectancy(including men on base hitting) 275 runs above average
Staub Run Expectancy(including men on base hitting) 421 runs above average
This is the most surprising victory as it includes all their men on base hitting and impact on run producing. Staub soundly beats him.
Garvey 121 OPS+
Staub 124 OPS+
Staub beats Garvey in the traditional totals and the modern metrics, yet never a single peep about him.
Another unsung hitter from the 70's that has Garvey beat in the traditional stats totals:
Al Oliver
2,743 hits
219 HR (doesn't beat him here)
1,326 RBI(but still has more RBI despite less HR)
4,083 Total Bases
Oliver even sports a lifetime .303 batting average...which should excite anyone who swears by traditional stats.
Two guys, Staub and Oliver, both of whom never ever get even a peep about HOF, both best Garvey in the traditional totals. That makes it hard to put Garvey into the HOF.
Garvey just really sits in a pretty crowded group of players from his time that had excellent careers. Yes, I call Garvey having an excellent career. Semantics I know, but compared to the rest of the people that ever tried playing baseball past little league, it is excellent.
That means there are adjectives superior to excellent, and those guys reside in the HOF already.
I love Parker and would like to see him in the Hall. Dude was a beast for a while and did everything. Put him in!
Oliver is for sure waaay underrated. Just a solid player who just never got the juice about his stats. He also played for some terrible teams and that probably hurts him.
"Towers" isn't exactly a term of art, so let's get more specific.
In WAR, Win Shares, WPA, Batter Runs, and Runs Created Perez beats Garvey by, on average, 42%.
Using Win Shares, which include defense, if you list Perez's seasons from best to worst and Garvey's seasons from best to worst and them compare them, Perez wins best season, second-best season, third-best season, and so on all the way through 17th best season.
The non-HOF first basemen that Bill James ranks below Perez and above Garvey are Will Clark, Dick Allen, Keith Hernandez, Norm Cash, Mickey Vernon, Boog Powell, and Cecil Cooper.
I said he "towers" over Garvey and I think I was kind. If you don't like that word you can use another, but be sure that it leaves room for Rusty Staub and about 100 others to fit between them.
Clearly superior is good enough for me.
Morris has 3 rings, not 4, and pitched terribly in the '92 postseason when he was 0-3 with an ERA of 7.43.
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.
The iron man of the National League. Great fielder and post season hitter. He would get my vote. Hard to believe a 10-time All star is left out.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Le Grand Orange !!!!! A great action shot of one of my all-time favorite cards
>
Ahh, Fab Freddy! First AS game grand slam in history while with the Angels. I met the unfortunate SF Giants pitcher way back when...