Steve Garvey won the 1974 MVP while sporting a 131 OPS+? How did that happen? It's not like the Reds were ever out of it that season (finished 4 games behind) and both Bench and Morgan were far better that year.

His numbers are very similar to Steve Garvey — Bags .297 batting average to .294 for the Garv, 2,314 hits to 2,599, 449 homers to 272, 1,529 RBIs to 1,308 .

1517 runs to 1143
1401 walks to 479
202 steals to 83

They're practically twins!

449 homers to 272

To the extent that hashtags are necessary, we really need a #LOLBBWAA hashtag.

1517 runs to 1143
1401 walks to 479
202 steals to 83

They're practically twins!

Also, it took Garvey 4 more seasons than Bagwell to compile those "similar" numbers. Maybe Bloom just really doesnt' like Jeff Bagwell?

If you take the ratios between Garvey and Bagwell's hits, homers, RBI, and runs scored, and apply them to Babe Ruth's career totals, you get:

3227 hits
432 HR
1893 RBI
1638 R

So apparently Babe Ruth was similar to Dave Winfield (3110, 465, 1833, 1669). Who knew?

"The Garv"?

Most of these articles should be subtitled: Why I Should Have My Ballot Taken Away from Me.

Or, if you apply some of the ratios in reverse to Bagwell himself (and leave out the hits and walks ratios, because those give you 2060 hits and 4098 walks, which would be an interesting combination), you get:

.300 average
741 HR
1787 RBI
2013 runs
492 steals

Which makes Bagwell pretty similar to Barry Bonds. And transitively, Garvey also.

Steve Garvey won the 1974 MVP while sporting a 131 OPS+? How did that happen? It's not like the Reds were ever out of it that season (finished 4 games behind) and both Bench and Morgan were far better that year.

It was ridiculous, all right. Hell, Garvey wasn't the MVP of the DODGERS -- Jim Wynn was. OPS+ 151, played center field, hit 32 homers to Garvey's 21, drove in 3 fewer runs. 108 walks to Garvey's 31, just a better year in every way except BA. But of course BA was a bigger deal then, Garvey was the emerging star (I believe he made the all-star team as a write-in, which was a huge deal in the media at the time), he had the requisite 100 RBI.... I don't know. I still can't explain it. It was a joke.

Bags: 297, 2314, 449, 1529
Garv: 294, 2599, 272, 1309
CDog: 284, 2490, 493, 1550

McGriff was the 94 AS MVP which clearly outweighs Bagwell's NL MVP.

Bagwell did almost none of this with the Astros.

He won an MVP. He won an RoY. He won a gold glove (Garvey has 4). He had a 993 FP. He missed a whopping 31 games over a 9-season stretch, leading the league 4 times. His teams made the playoffs 5 times, same number of times as Garvey's Dodgers. That seems like more than "almost none" to me.

McGriff never won an MVP nor was he RoY. He does have the 94 AS MVP. He never won a GG and has a 992 FP. He never had a season of a full 162 games (he did play all 144 in 1995). His teams made the playoffs 5 times, WS twice, winning one.

Now, talk about a Garvey clone!

Papi: 312, 2247, 309, 1283
Garv: 294, 2599, 272, 1309

It's like looking in a mirror. We'll let Edgar slide on the number of hits since he's got the higher BA.

Bloom doesn't like Bagwell, plain and simple.

EDIT: and of course Edgar no MVPs (of any sort), no GG, not exactly noted for his in-season durability, and his teams made the playoffs only 4 times, never making the WS.

This is perhaps the worst ballot I've seen.

How can you vote for McGriff, Palmeiro, McGwire and Edgar Martinez and not Bagwell?

It can't be steroids, obviously, and Bagwell's better than all of them.

Steve Garvey won the 1974 MVP while sporting a 131 OPS+? How did that happen? It's not like the Reds were ever out of it that season (finished 4 games behind) and both Bench and Morgan were far better that year.

1: OPS+ was not yet invented

2: OBP was invented but perhaps less than 1% of fans/media members looked at it
Garvey hit .312-21-111, his team finshed first

Bench hit .280-33-129, but his team didn't win and he;d already won twice
Wynn hit .271-32-108, Garvey topped him in 2 of 3 triple crown categories
Schmidt hit .282-36-116, but his team didn't win- they were in contention through mid-august, but ended up 80-82- Schmidt had poor September and the curious inability of the Phils media and fanbase to realize how good he was was
already in evidence

Many award voters then (as now) looked first to the division winners- at .312-21-111, Garvey was considered an acceptable MVP- the Pirates had Stargell .301-25-96, Zisk .317-17-100 and Oliver .321-11-85 all finishing in the top 10- and Garvey beat each of them on 2 out of 3 triple crown categories- plus Garvey got bonus points for 200 hits

So after settling on Garvey as being the best player on a division winner- the voters would then ask NOT whether someone else was better- but whether or not someone on a non-winner did something really stunning- AND a bunch of writers said yes, someone did- Lou Brock broke Wills' single season SB record- woohoo!!! That's how Lou Brock snuck in 2nd- and hell if the Cardinals had finished first he may have won.

Voting for Garvey was wrong, but hardly inexplicable considering how voting went back then

I figured it out, it's the well-known Rule of 220.

I think a guy named Bill James discovered this one. Compare a player to Steve Garvey. If the RBI difference (i.e. player A minus Garvey) is greater than 220, the HR difference is greater than 220 and the hit difference is less than or equal to 220 then, steroids aside, you should be in the HoF. Here's the list:

Ruth, Williams, Bonds, Gehrig, Foxx, Thomas, Aaron, Mays, Ott, Manny, Robinson, AROD, Sheffield, Jackson, Griffey, McGriff, Palmeiro, Murray, Sosa, Banks

So... Steve Garvey should be in and if you're enough like Steve Garvey (e.g. Edgar) obviously you deserve to go in too. Otherwise you need to pass the rule of 220 ... or be a SS or a pitcher ... or snort coke ... or be Irish.

If you're under 40, or especially under 30, it must be hard to believe how little talk there was about walks in that era - basically none.

If one player hit .310 with 25 walks and another player hit .300 with 100 walks, they were considered about even with maybe the first guy slightly better.

Plus Garvey had big forearms, so there's that.

Plus Garvey had big forearms, so there's that.

Not bigger than Bagwell's!!!!!

Following on #14 ... you heard more about guys who were tough to strike out (i.e. hacked at everything) than guys who walked. Pete Rose got praised for his walks but that was always pitched in that he was a "tough out" who would keep fouling pitches off until he drew his walk (which I doubt was particularly true).

It was complete ignorance exactly. Announcers would always chuckle about Manny Sanguillen's free-swinging ways. They would of course recognize that power hitters got pitched around but this was good strategy given it took the bat out of their hands. But generally, walks were seen as completely the fault of the pitcher, virtually nothing to do with the batter's approach and therefore nothing to credit the batter for.

Beyond the stupidity of comparing Bagwell to Garvey to justify not voting for Bagwell, here is the missing punch line:

And Garvey didn’t get a sniff from the writers for the HOF.

That’s why I didn’t vote for Bagwell.

Turn out on further review that Bloom actually did vote for Garvey for the HoF.

If Bagwell is like Garvey, Lee Smith is like Jeff Reardon, John Franco, Rick Aguilera, Roberto Hernandez, Jose Mesa and Doug Jones (all within 177 saves of Smith, just like Bagwell has an extra 177 homers on Garvey). In fairness I didn't count anyone with less than 1000 innings, otherwise we'd pick up 4-5 others.

Turn out on further review that Bloom actually did vote for Garvey for the HoF.

I think we all knew that. Seemed to me he was clearly in "revenge" mode -- this guy's no better than Garvey who I voted for but you guys didn't let in so I'm not voting for Bagwell who PALES in comparison.

Also I'm not sure of the technical definition of "sniff" (or "sniff+") but Garvey bumped along in the Bagwellian 42% for years before the 3 million children came to light eventually dropping to the low 20s.

So, by HoF vote % standards, "worse than Hitler" roughly as evil as "steroid user"

I know this is all in good fun, but seriously Edgar was a much better hitter than Garvey (and Bagwell, of course, is the best baseball player on this year's ballot)

Bob #LOLBBWAA Lobs BBWAA Bombs!

One of the weirdest things to me about this ballot (regarding his Bagwell explanation is that it's actually pretty good.
I mean, he's voting for 6 guys that I think deserve it (Larkin, Martinez, McGwire, Trammell, Palmeiro, and Raines) and 3 guys that I don't think deserve it (McGriff, Morris, Smith).
I mean... I wouldn't call it "good" but that ain't bad, really. I presume he's doesn't REALLY believe that Bagwell wasn't any better than Garvey and is just being a pain in the ass.

I think we all knew that. Seemed to me he was clearly in "revenge" mode -- this guy's no better than Garvey who I voted for but you guys didn't let in so I'm not voting for Bagwell who PALES in comparison.

Yes, exactly. Remember, Bloom was a columnist in San Diego in the mid-80s (and just starting out), and probably worshipped Garvey (especially if Garvey gave him good access/quotes).

Pass.

If you're under 40, or especially under 30, it must be hard to believe how little talk there was about walks in that era - basically none.

Heck, it went much further than that. I remember reading articles as a kid in the 70's that criticized hitters for taking walks-a slugger was supposed to be up there swinging away at anything close to the plate and anything less was considered selfish,a charge that went back at least as far as the Ted Williams days. I knew at least one person who thought Joe D was a better player because he didn't walk a lot-Joe being the team guy that he was was willing to risk a strikeout to drive in runs.
And this wasn't simply a media thing, but was actually a line of thinking within baseball circles. It's only been in recent years that walks haven't been viewed that way.
Back then, it was nice if the lead-off guy walked, and it was understood that sluggers were going to be pitched around, but damnitall, he's paid the big bucks to hit away with men on base, get those RBI's, not stand there with his bat on his shoulder.

If you're under 40, or especially under 30, it must be hard to believe how little talk there was about walks in that era - basically none.

This understates the case. Unless you really tried, you couldn't even find the stat. It's not just that it wasn't talked about; it wasn't even published in most places. (Certainly not in-season; there were a few offseason sources publishing relatively complete stat lines.) But there was essentially no way for casual fans -- people who got their info from their local daily newspaper's sports section -- to even know about most players.

#26 I know that 1984 was the first time I saw batter walk totals in a newspaper -- USA today.

The Baseball Register still didn't have the walks, though the Guide did.

The odd thing is that, except for Bagwell out and Morris in, this isn't that lousy a ballot. I don't agree with all of it, but it's pretty defensible except for those two. And there's no PED nonsense that I can see; McGwire is on. - Brock Hanke

Is the meaningful discussion over so I can Godwin this sucker? There's far too much discussion of Garvey without mention of his nazism, puppy strangling, Bill Conlining, or poor body odor. Call it a personal tic, but this many mentions of Garvey confined solely to his overratedness as a player gives me hives. Its as if people he's the worst person in the history of people.

Bloom adds on his FB back and forth...

But there are intangibles at work here. Garvey played in an era when performance-enhancing drug use was not the norm and didn't inflate power numbers. Plus he was always at his best under pressure as his 5-for-5 game-winning homer night in Game 4 of the 1984 NLCS win for the Padres over the Cubs proves. Bagwell has 13 more years on the ballot and I'll probably re-evluate him later on as I did with Dawson, Blyleven, Sutter and Gossage, just to name a few.

Bump for Eddie.

It was ridiculous, all right. Hell, Garvey wasn't the MVP of the DODGERS -- Jim Wynn was. OPS+ 151, played center field, hit 32 homers to Garvey's 21, drove in 3 fewer runs. 108 walks to Garvey's 31, just a better year in every way except BA. But of course BA was a bigger deal then, Garvey was the emerging star (I believe he made the all-star team as a write-in, which was a huge deal in the media at the time), he had the requisite 100 RBI.... I don't know. I still can't explain it. It was a joke.

Garvey was a kiss-ass, white bread, "glamour" boy set smack dab in the middle of an age of "anti-heroes." That's why he won it.

Baseball Digest ran an editorial-like lead story in October 1974, entitled "Unanimous MVP is Unlikely in Either American or National League This Year." It favored Mike Marshall and Gaylord Perry as winners, and did not even mention Steve Garvey:

"Our candidates would also include Lou Brock and Ted Sizemore of the Cardinals, Jim Wynn of the Dodgers, Pete Rose of the Reds, Dave Cash and Mike Schmidt of the Phillies, Cesar Cedeno of the Astros, and maybe Ken Brett of the Pirates in the National League."

Joe being the team guy that he was was willing to risk a strikeout to drive in runs.

You realize DiMaggio struck out less often than I get laid.

I'm a TTO kind of "slugger" by the way.