What happened to Garvey is partly schadenfreude: writers turned on him for a complicated personal life that smudged an image so golden that he once had a middle school named after him. But he’s also one of the great players from that period who have been hurt by the inflation of statistics fueled by increasing use of PEDs, which happened to coincide with the HOF eligibility for the earlier era. And, as Garvey points out, “That was also a period when the veteran writers who relied on what they saw gave way to younger writers who focused on statistics.”
The irony, of course, is that the writers are now punishing the players whose numbers they feel were artificially bolstered. Wouldn’t it be nice if they could channel their disillusionment into a more positive re-examination of those who have been relegated to the scrap heap?
Like Garvey, Dave Parker will have to wait until the Veterans Committee gets around to sifting through players of the modern era, looking for gold. Not to diminish Jim Rice, but as someone who covered Parker and Rice in their primes, I can testify that Parker was the superior player in almost every regard.
“I went to Cooperstown for Barry Larkin’s induction last year,” said Parker, who took Larkin under his wing in Cincinnati. “It would’ve been nice to have gone as a fellow Hall of Famer. I think I belong there. Let’s put it this way—on almost every team I played, I was ‘The Guy’ or one of them. The system needs to be changed.”
That won’t happen anytime soon. But minds can be changed: how else did Bert Blyleven go from 14.1 percent in his second year of eligibility to 79.7 percent in his 14th year? Voters need to take a closer look at players they may have bypassed because they didn’t see them. And just as they agonize over what the “Valuable” means in Most Valuable Player, they need to think about what the “Fame” in Hall of Fame really means. (Uh, 10 All-Star Games is a pretty good definition.)
“I know voters are worried about steroids this year,” Garvey said. “I would much rather they think about the shot of adrenalin that a few more players would give the Hall of Fame.”
Repoz
Posted: December 17, 2012 at 01:49 PM |
67 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
hof
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. What did Billy Ripken have against Elroy Face? Posted: December 17, 2012 at 02:03 PM (#4326839)If you produce enough little Garveys to fill up a middle school, they should name it after you.
Partly?
I think it's the very definition of schadenfreude...
Though, for me, I say it's the best proof I have in the existence of God.
By that loose standard, Rice is deserving. Same with Parker, Garvey, Amos Otis, Cesar Cedeno, Jimmy Wynn, Reggie Smith - and the list can go on and on. You change the system in that way and you'll have 500 players in the hall. Then the debate will shift to a lower level. Who's more deserving, Ray Durham or Gary Gaetti?
HE WAS PERFECT IN THE 215 TOTAL CHANCES HE HANDLED DURING THE STREAK, MR. PRESIDENT.
Player Rfield PA OPS+ SB PosJose Cruz 81 8931 120 317 *798/D3
Jimmy Sheckard 77 9118 121 465 *79/85643
Mark Grace 76 9290 119 70 *3/1D
Joe Judge 35 9178 114 213 *3/9
Jake Daubert 23 8744 117 251 *3
Steve Garvey 1 9466 117 83 *35/7649
Chili Davis -15 9997 121 142 D897/13
Brian Downing -16 9309 122 50 D72/954
Carlos Lee -18 8787 113 125 *73/D
Mickey Vernon -22 9838 116 137 *3/79
Andres Galarraga -23 8916 119 128 *3/D5
Al Oliver -40 9778 121 84 837D/9
Paul Konerko -50 8761 121 9 *3D/57
Don Baylor -58 9401 118 285 *D793/8
I demand to know why the writers are punishing all of these guys :-|
Ok, so I did examine him more closely. But I still see the same fault that keeps him out of the HOF
Outs Made
1975 NL 479 (6th)
1976 NL 473 (8th)
1977 NL 486 (5th)
1979 NL 485 (8th)
1980 NL 493 (4th)
1981 NL 326 (5th)
1984 NL 480 (4th)
1985 NL 502 (2nd)
Double Plays Grounded Into
1975 NL 19 (4th)
1976 NL 20 (4th)
1978 NL 17 (7th)
1979 NL 25 (1st)
1980 NL 17 (5th)
1983 NL 16 (8th)
1984 NL 25 (1st)
1985 NL 25 (2nd)
1986 NL 18 (6th)
I will say this though. Garvey's career is a little shortchanged by WAR perhaps because posting up every day is valuable. The teams he was on never had to worry about having to put a replacement player in the lineup.
Mark Amazin' Grace?
Jake Just A Little Daubert'll Do Ya?
That is some list!
Yes. It would also be nice if they channeled it into re-examination of deserving players like Dwight Evans, Jimmy Wynn, Luis Tiant, Ted Simmons, Lou Whitaker and Darrell Evans, and not guys like Steve Garvey.
Dave Parker, I'll allow for re-examination.
Why?
Any re-examination of Parker will only find him more wanting than you originally realized.
Below is a list from BBRef of everyone with 9,000-11,000 PAs and a 115-120 OPS+, with the LF/1B/DH guys pulled out except for Garvey:
Player Rfield PA OPS+Gary Carter 112 9019 115
Lou Whitaker 75 9967 117
Andre Dawson 70 10769 119
Darrell Evans 37 10737 119
Carlton Fisk 27 9853 117
Barry Larkin 18 9057 116
Steve Garvey 1 9466 117
Ted Simmons -33 9685 118
Roberto Alomar -36 10400 116
The Hall of Famers with hitting stats roughly similar to Garvey are two catchers, two middle infielders with 375+ steals, and Andre Dawson. A catcher, a 2B, and a 3B/1B with hitting stats similar to Garvey were all one and done. If there's someone here who's getting screwed it's very obviously Lou Whitaker.
All I know is that Jose Rijo for Dave Parker was stupid at the time and it's still stupid now. One of Alderson's poorer decisions, from back in the day. That trade stirred my nascent inner gm-snark capabilities.
It's interesting – Grace was basically Garvey plus 40 or 45 walks a year. As a result, WAR likes Grace quite a bit better (43 to 34 over the course of his career) – the walks plus the defensive value, of course. Offhand I would have said Garvey was the better offensive player, because he played in Dodger Stadium in the 70s and Grace played in Wrigley in the 90s – but their OPS+ lines could be woven together without anybody knowing the difference. Their OBP lines, however, couldn't.
I don't think that's exactly fair: Garvey had much more power than Grace, even before you correct for era. Grace's career high in homers was 17, which Garvey exceeded seven times. Their career OWARs are very similar.
Garvey's defense also tends to be underrated by stat-based evaluations, because most of them focus on a first baseman's assists. Garvey always had very low assist totals, because he hated to throw the ball, but as Bill James has shown, Garvey compensated for that by always having very high numbers of unassisted putouts at first.
At the time of the trade Parker was a 36 year old who drove in 97 runs but wasn't a good hitter anymore (92 OPS+), couldn't play the field much anymore, and was making pretty good money for the time. So yeah, you shouldn't trade for guys like that anyway.
Rijo was 22, though he had already played parts of 4 seasons, and coming off a 5.90 ERA. He had a great arm, but didn't throw strikes and gave up too many homers. Kind of a lottery ticket. Sure, he instantly turned into a great pitcher for the Reds but nobody could have predicted he'd do that so soon, or learn how to pitch period.
The trade was probably for the best. LaRussa and Duncan always worked better with vets. They probably would have buried Rijo in relief, and he may very well have needed the change in scenery to make his leap forward.
We've got retrosheet for Garvey's whole career. His Totalzone rating is based on groundballs fielded and turned into outs, and does not care whether the play was assisted or not. Only that he made it. He rates as exactly average at first, but he was good (not great) for the Dodgers (+27) and below average as an old Padre.
I thought Rijo was going to be great. He had GREAT stuff and Parker was fairly crap by then. If they had lost faith in Rijo they should have traded him for a better hitter than Parker. Annoyingly, Parker got a lot of credit for his veteran goodness when the A's began their run the next year. Obviously this is water long under the bridge.
This seems like the important part. He was good enough to put up an 80 ERA+ in 60 innings at age 19, and a 109 ERA+ in 63 innings and 9 starts at age 20. BB-ref play index suggests that that's a pool of pitchers that, overall, you'd like to have pitching for you for their careers.
Well, more HR power anyway. Grace was much better at hitting 2B, a component of power. Grace also has abour 40 more Rbat than Garvey in slightly fewer PA's. They were very similar offensive performers overall, but they did get to that level of production in dissimilar manners.
Garvey's Dodgers WAR rank
74 -- 3rd (he won the MVP)
75 -- 3rd
76 -- 2nd
77 -- 3rd
78 -- 3rd
79 -- 3rd
80 -- 4th
81 -- 4th
82 -- 7th
From 1974-1982, Garvey had 30.5 WAR for the Dodgers. Cey had 41.7. Again, if anybody deserves a second look here, it ain't Garvey. Heck, from 73 to 79 Lopes had 29 WAR.
All true, if "The Guy" means "someone who has coke on him we can snort later".
From a character standpoint Parker made Pete Rose look like Cal Ripken, Jr. The only way he should be in the Hall is with a visitors' ticket.
Also I don't have any love for Steve Garvey regardless if he was playing for LA or the Padres. He was always an ass. I remember that book that Dick Williams wrote where he basically called the error-less streak by Garvey a fraud since Garvey never went after any hard hit balls that might end up as an error.
Garvey's career ISO was .152; Grace's was .139. And that's before you get to the difference between LA/SD in the 1970s/80s and Wrigley Field in the 1990s. For his career, Garvey has a slugging percentage 62 points higher than league; Grace's was 24 points higher.
Garvey had a lot more power.
I'm just going to leave this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_places_named_after_Joseph_Stalin
This thread made me go back and look up Rijo's career. I don't think I ever realized just how good he was. Thanks everyone.
(It's also good that his far-less-than-stellar play will not be rewarded with induction.)
Meh. Point being they were very similar offensive performers overall even if they did get to that level of production in dissimilar manners.
If you were around then, you remember him as a staple guest on game shows and other panel TV. He was clean cut, well-spoken, and attractive, and had the benefit of playing for a successful team in LA where these shows were being filmed. He did Merv Griffin, Carson, Dinah Shore, Fantasy Island. Gong Show, Hollywood Squares.
It's hard to think of a baseball player since that time who had the same kind of mainstream national appeal during his career (to differentiate from a guy like Bob Uecker, who found success after his career ended).
Garvey hit .300 at a time when a lot of sportswriters still found that important. Players like Johnny Bench and Mike Schmidt were held in some level of disrespect because they didn't hit .300. Garvey was obsessed with his stats, which is one reason they were so constant from year to year. He had very specific statistical goals.
The 1B/OF stud slugger type was in short supply in the 1970s. This is after decades of DiMaggio, Musial, Aaron, etc. In the 1970s the best players were starting pitchers or at other positions. So Garvey got a lot of play when he was the new Gil Hodges as a player.
And fathered children with four of them!
And of course the pretty blond wife (Cindy) and they were the perfect couple.
The "personal" section of his wiki page is kinda entertaining (then just sad and depressing) but seems to leave out approximately 270 children.
Player Rfield PA OPS+ SB Pos
Jose Cruz 81 8931 120 317 *798/D3
Jimmy Sheckard 77 9118 121 465 *79/85643
Mark Grace 76 9290 119 70 *3/1D
Joe Judge 35 9178 114 213 *3/9
Jake Daubert 23 8744 117 251 *3
Steve Garvey 1 9466 117 83 *35/7649
Chili Davis -15 9997 121 142 D897/13
Brian Downing -16 9309 122 50 D72/954
Carlos Lee -18 8787 113 125 *73/D
Mickey Vernon -22 9838 116 137 *3/79
Andres Galarraga -23 8916 119 128 *3/D5
Al Oliver -40 9778 121 84 837D/9
Paul Konerko -50 8761 121 9 *3D/57
Don Baylor -58 9401 118 285 *D793/8
Not quite as good as Chili Davis is a hell of a HoF case.
Cyndy Garvey. Steve would not have married a mere "Cindy."
seriously
Is that what they are calling it these days?
Seriously, doesn't the writer owe his readers some specifics? Not everyone keeps track of the foibles of professional athletes.
Lots of RBI's and 6 200 hit season in 7 years also helped.
He was also highly regarded as a fielder; everyone knew he couldn't throw but were impressed by his hands. He was thought of as a great scooper.
Is that what they are calling it these days?
Shooty, this is a baseball website in winter. Water long under the bridge is the primary mode of transportation.
Bernie Madoff had a complicated financial life.
I'm pretty sure that Garvey's contemporaries thought he was a plastic douche - at least, various bios I've read from people who played with him weren't exactly fawning - so hopefully, that enmity will win the day.
Er, no. His HoF case is hurt (and rightly so) because he was a poor fielder, was not good at drawing walks, and had little power especially for a 1B. The comp lists above say a lot here.
But minds can be changed: how else did Bert Blyleven go from 14.1 percent in his second year of eligibility to 79.7 percent in his 14th year?
Sabermetric thinking taketh and giveth away. Them's the breaks.
Voters need to take a closer look at players they may have bypassed because they didn’t see them.
The old "you really don't know if a player is HoF worthy unless you saw him play" argument. Not buying since good stats in good context tell us pretty much all we need to know on this.
And just as they agonize over what the “Valuable” means in Most Valuable Player, they need to think about what the “Fame” in Hall of Fame really means. (Uh, 10 All-Star Games is a pretty good definition.)
All-star games in which during this period the fans voted in the starters. Not buying the popularity contest argument, either.
I would attend his induction and hurl rotten tomatoes at him.
Arrest or otherwise, I am absolutely serious about that... and he is the ONLY player that would draw such a response from me. Some fool future VC could induct Neifi Perez and I'd limit my distaste to whining on BBTF, but not Garvey... he'd be wearing rotten vegetables on his special day, this, I guarantee.
Sir, I like the cut of your jib.
I had a friend in the day whose two big heroes were Garvey and Prince Charles. He wasn't much of a judge of people -- me excluded, of course. :)
Plastic douche is about how I viewed Garvey.
Just ask Don Sutton.
I did not mean to reduce PC to SG's level, although PC had a complicated personal life too, although several degrees of magnitude lower that SG's. :)
No- he was hurt fro having his false image bubble popped
and he was also killed by the SABR revolution...
and he petered out early and had a raft of mediocre (even to stat traditionalist) years at the end
It's really hard for those under 35/40 to grasp, especially if you are under 40 and are baffled by the BBWAA's infatuation with triple crown stats, but Darren and UCCF are if anything, understating it, he was absolutely an A list SUPERSTAR as far as baseball's MSM was concerned, he was considered to be a great player on the field and off (which of course also required the LaLa Land media to actively mis-report stuff- anyone close to the team KNEW that Garvey was despised by his teammates- when stuff did leak out it was always the other guy who was tagged as the bad guy)
Last year on one of the HOM threads someone asked about the 1974 MVP election- as in WTF went on there, their had to be some kind of story- nope- at the time the vote was almost wholly uncontroversial- except some Lou Brock supporters- we look at Garvey in his Prime- as a decent fielding 1B putting up a 130 OPS+ - nice player but nothing to write home about- back then no one saw an OPS+ numbers, they saw a guy who played every damn day, who batted .300, who got 200 hits and drove in 100 runs- who also PLAYED THE GAME THE RIGHT WAY- as a player they looked at him the way we'd look at a guy putting up a 150-160 OPS+ in 150-160 games every year.
Part of Garvey's image was obviously driven by a reliance upon and misinterpretation of traditional stats- if you had no numbers to go by, and if you watched Garvey play 150-200 games in his prime and Keith Hernandez play 150-200 games in his prime, there is no way on earth you'd walk away thinking that Garvey was better than Keith*- but most people watching in the 70s/80s did think Garvey was better- why? 200 hits, 100 ribbies... like clockwork
*The ONLY thing Garvey was better at than Hernandez (on the field) was hitting Home Runs- and while significant his edge was not huge, Hernandez did EVERYTHING else visibly better.
If you have no implicit/explicit trust arrangement, i.e., made no vows, and you aren't hurting someone else directly or indirectly, knock yourself out.
And wear a condom!
I agree - it's his Nazified child molesting I find abhorrent... and sacrificing puppies on his alter to satan... and the way he trips little old ladies or pushes them into traffic...
Charles was one of the first important establishment figures to pay full attention to the environmental movement. For example, he's been encouraging organic farming since the early 1980s. He has also been outspoken on modern architecture and urban planning, and not afraid to blast modern buildings that he sees as lacking in human feeling. And he started the Prince's Trust charity in 1976.
Yep. I'm in my mid 40s now and will gladly admit that I was completely wrong about Garvey. But if you had asked the 10 year old version of me to name the top 10 players in the mid to late 70s when I was first becomming a fan, Steve Garvey would have been well up on that list. There really isn't a contemporary player that fits the mold -- perhaps Derek Jeter raised to the power of Tom Brady with a smattering of Notre Dame blended in.
The closest I came to seeing any game with historical significance is missing by one the game when Garvey's NL record consecutive games streak ended. He was injured in the first game of a double-header in San Diego between the Padres and Braves. I had tickets to the next day's game at Jack Murphy that featured a home run derby with retired stars Nate Colbert and Harmon Killibrew feebly swinging and popping out several times each while Bob Horner, Dale Murphy, and Terry Kennedy went yard.
My true hatred for Garvey didn't metastasize until he was a Pad - and while yeah, I'd agree that this was the perception of Garvey -- I always knew he was the only second best corner IF even on those great Dodger teams.
But for the young'uns ... Garvey's image could have been the inspiration for American Dad.
Have we ever had the "tomato -- fruit or vegetable" debate? Should be worth 315 posts at least.
Bernie's problem is his sustained peak was literally wiped out by his sudden decline phase. Also, it turned out his "peak" was artificially enhanced.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main