Steve thinks he's comparable to Schmidt? Somebody needs to go to rehab cuz he's obviously been smoking an assload of crack.

Schmidt
Garvey

Seasons of OPS+ over 140.

Schmidt-13

Garvey--0

He didn't say he was comparable to Schmidt, he said that his stats should be looked at in the context of Schmidt and other players from that era. Which is a perfectly true and reasonable statement.

There are plenty enough good reasons to diss Garvey without making up dumb ones.

Yeah, yeah. But they played at the same time. And they were both good guys (or so we all thought when I was 10). I'd put Rice, Dawson, and Murphy in the HOF before Garvey. I'd put Mattingly in before Garvey.

And I'm not an advocate for any of those guys to be in the HOF, even. (Well, as a Braves fan from way back, of course I want Murph in.)

"He's not my Padre" Sure wish I had kept that shirt- Maybe he could be in the Fathering Hall of Fame?

Eric, I read "match me against the Schmidts" as "compare me to Mike Schmidt instead of Mark McGwire". Fair enough - compared to Garvey's contemporaries (of which he specifically mentions Schmidt), he's not HOF worthy.

Fair enough - compared to Garvey's contemporaries (of which he specifically mentions Schmidt), he's not HOF worthy.

Agreed.

"Garvey said it is more fair to compare him to contemporaries like Mike Schmidt, the Philadelphia Phillies Hall of Fame third baseman. Schmidt was a. 267 career hitter with 2,234 hits, 548 home runs and 1,595 RBI in 18 seasons. "A young writer might look and say ‘ Garvey’s numbers were pretty good but he didn’t hit 40 home runs, he didn’t have 130 RBIs, ’" Garvey said. "The philosophy of the offense now probably doesn’t help a guy like myself. Unless you really put yourself in my era, match me against the Schmidts and those kind of guys and what Mike Schmidt did and what I accomplished, you get affected by the numbers.''

--------

he IS comparing himself to schmidt. and he IS crazy.

he IS comparing himself to schmidt. and he IS crazy.

Agree with you on the latter, but I still don't see the former. If it's Bobby Grich who makes those comments, he'd be getting fellated already. Since it's Garvey, he's getting dogpiled on. Such is the way of BTF.

I initially thought the title of the article was 'Garvey patiently awaits Hell's call'.

Contemporaries of Garvey who deserve to be in the Hall before him include:

Jimmie Wynn
Dick Allen
Reggie Smith
Ron Cey
Graig Nettles

and that's just teammates. also, OTTOMH:

Darrell and Dwight Evans
Jim Rice
Don Mattingly
Dale Murphy
Andre Dawson
Al Oliver
Keith Hernandez
Jack Clark
Ron Santo
Joe Torre
Dave Parker
Bill Freehan
Bobby Bonds
Alan Trammell
Lou Whitaker


I'm sure there's more. Harold Baines would be a better choice.

I wouldn't be fallating anyone from the 70s who was claiming to be comparable to Schmidt. (Back in the day, of course, I hated Schmidt. He played for the Philles, and I was a Pirates and Braves fan.) IMO, Schmidt is the best player of that era. There were a handful of players who were comparable for a few years, but no one measures up career-wise.

Ah, kevin's favorite thing to say.

In this case it's not true, though-- I dislike Garvey myself. I just think his comments here were perfectly reasonable. Like I said, there are plenty of good reasons to pile on him without making stuff up.

If it's Bobby Grich who makes those comments, he'd be getting fellated already.

Maybe, but Grich has ten times the HOF case than Garvey ever will.

I do agree with Garvey that he needs to be compared with his contemporaries, though.

If you guys really wanted this thread to be something more than a big circle jerk, you'd be making fun of Garvey for his nonexistent throwing arm, or for getting his ass kicked that time by Don Sutton.

If they had a Hall of Fame for knocking up women out of wedlock, though, Garvey would be a first ballot shoo-in.

No, he's stuck in the Hall of Very Good.

Now that's the spirit!

Jack Clark? Come on, I'd love to see the case for that. Talented player, but didn't put the career together.

Come on, Rob Base, he's just saying that Jack Clark should be in before Steve Garvey. He's not saying Jack Clark should be in.

I think Garvey should adjust his expectations from the Baseball Hall of Fame to the Museum. Hey, Kelly Wunsch is in there.

I think there is a decent underlying point to this article, in that Garvey was often thought to be a sure HOFer during his career--the peak of which pre-dated Baseball Abstracts and the wider understanding of statistics like OBP (let alone OPS).

I would argue that no player from my lifetime (38 yrs) has had a bigger gap between during-career perception and post-career perception. Garvey was a 200 hit player six times, a reliable RBI guy, a lifetime .294 hitter, and someone who made errors extremely rarely--these were some of the stats that were most valued prior to the advent of sabermetrics.

During the portion of their careers that overlapped, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that thought that Bobby Grich, Darrell Evans, and others mentioned had a better case for the Hall than Garvey.

It shows up in his awards: 10-time All-Star, an MVP (with 2.46 award shares according to BB-Ref), 5 top-ten MVP finishes, 4 other top 25 finishes, 4 gold gloves, 2 ASG MVPs, 2 NLCS MVPs, 1 WS MVP, the Clemente Award, the Gehrig Award.

So even though it is ridiculous to compare Garvey favorably with Schmidt, it is not hard for me to understand Garvey's cognitive dissonance given the sort of press he received during his career.

An online search for "similar batters" reveals a list of 10 players ranging from Al Oliver to Mark Grace and featuring one Hall of Famer, Orlando Cepeda. Cepeda is a. 297 career hitter with 2,351 hits, 379 home runs and 1,365 RBI.

Even the journalist doesn't believe Garvey is worthy.

It shows up in his awards: 10-time All-Star, an MVP (with 2.46 award shares according to BB-Ref), 5 top-ten MVP finishes, 4 other top 25 finishes, 4 gold gloves, 2 ASG MVPs, 2 NLCS MVPs, 1 WS MVP, the Clemente Award, the Gehrig Award.

Why wasn't he voted in during his first eligibility then? How close did he come?

Your description makes it sound like he was extremely likely to get voted in and then to have people wonder why he was in there 20 years later.

I initially thought the title of the article was 'Garvey patiently awaits Hell's call'.

RDF. Reminds me of the article we had here about "Williams' son" (John Henry) doing something or other, and for some reason I automatically assumed that it meant the son of Gerald Williams. Not sure what the thought process was there.

So even though it is ridiculous to compare Garvey favorably with Schmidt, it is not hard for me to understand Garvey's cognitive dissonance given the sort of press he received during his career.

One of the biggest marks against Garvey for the HOF, I would guess, is that he was good for many seasons, but never extraordinarily so. Post 2 nails it on the head. Garvey never had a season with an OPS+ over 140. He never hit higher than .319. He never hit more than 33 HR's (and only hit more than 25 two other times.

Being consistently above average isn't good enough to make the HOF, in general. You also have to have some mind-blowingly good seasons to make you stand out. He almost epitomizes the middle ground of the peak vs. career argument. He's a guy with almost no peak at all, just steady performance in just about every metric.

Compare Garvey to a guy like Edgar Martinez (who most, I think, would agree is much closer to HOF worthiness than Garvey). Garvey doesn't have anything like Martinez's 1995, a holy s**t type of season that imprints his greatness in your mind.

I think the children out of wedlock thing has hurt him more than he thinks. The reason for this is he was presented as this model/Mr. Clean type person when he was playing. If another borderline candidate, such as Orlando Cepeda had kids out of wedlock (and maybe he did, I have no idea) it wouldn't have changed our idea of him as a player because he never had this Mr. Clean image. I think the children born out of wedlock thing makes people who at a glance may have voted for Garvey based on All-Star appearances or MVPs, to reexamine his playing career and realize it wasn't as great as advertised when he played. Just a thought.

match me against the Schmidts

Compared with Jason Schmidt and Boss Schmidt, Garvey is easily a Hall of Fame-type hitter.

Contemporaries of Garvey who deserve to be in the Hall before him include:

Jimmie Wynn
Dick Allen
Reggie Smith
Ron Cey
Graig Nettles

I hate that The Toy Cannon will probably never get in. If you look at the great CFers that are playing now (Edmonds, Andruw Jones, Beltran), Wynn was better than all of them. Yet, every time I'm watching a game with one of those guys playing the announcers always refer to them as future HOFers.

And as for Dick Allen, I did a little spreadsheet with Win Shares a little while ago comparing him to some of the best hitters of the 60s-70s. But when I try to paste it in here and then I preview it, it comes out looking like gibberish. How do I fix that???

My hate for Steve F. Garvey is this game, followed by his response to questions about his homerun that it was "my pleasure."

That was my first Cubs-fan's-kick-in-the-balls experience, and it hasn't been the last.

I think Garvey deserves some special consideration for being the first official whipping-boy of sabremeticians--paving the way for the likes of Joe Carter, Ichiro, inter alia

no--I mean that no-one really thought that Cabell or Omar the outmaker were stars--whereas, sabremetrics would gleefully point out , in a VERY LOUD VOICE that Garvey was overrated--it was the great shibboleth that separated those in the know from the great unwashed

My hatred of Steve Garvey is thermonuclear in its intensity, but I do think statheads tend to overstate the case against him. Despite his lack of walks, he was quite a good hitter, and never in his career did he play in a ballpark that favored hitters.

I think from a statistical standpoint, much of the anti-Garvey sentiment comes from the misguided idea that he was a great fielder. But even if Garvey was below average as a fielder, it wasn't that big of a deal.

I think I can say objectively that Garvey and the HOF is a very clear "NO", but he was still a very good player for a significant amount of time.

paving the way for the likes of Joe Carter, Ichiro, inter alia

Is Ichiro! really a whipping boy of saber-types? There are discussions about whether he is correctly Goldilocks'ed (over-, under-, just right- rated), but he's not even in the same class as Garvey and Carter for drawing saber-fire.

Garvey's defense was initially highly regarded by the masses -- witness the four Gold Gloves -- then trashed by sabermetricians, with Pete Palmer and Total Baseball leading the way. Palmer's methods relied almost solely on Garvey's low assists totals in rating his defense.

Now Bill James' Win Shares system has shown that Garvey had a huge number of unassisted putouts; in deference to his famously poor arm, Garvey handled almost every grounder by himself. James thinks Garvey was a good defensive first baseman.

So in that case, current scholarship would indicate that the great unwashed knew more about the subject than "those in the know."

My hatred of Steve Garvey is thermonuclear in its intensity, but I do think statheads tend to overstate the case against him. Despite his lack of walks, he was quite a good hitter, and never in his career did he play in a ballpark that favored hitters.

that stat-heads case was more against the concept that Garvey was a star, rather than against Garvey his own self

primitive sabremetrics (at least among some) seemed to be based on the belief that it was their task, nay, their sacred duty, to point out who was overrated (Garvey, Carter) and who was underrated (Gene Tenace).

Joe Carter fulfilled 2 valuable slots for sabremetrics, because the mainstream press considered him

1. a very good hitter (which he wasn't)

and

2. clutch (which doesn't exist)

(as we all know)

I guess Ichiro is not a good comp for Garvey/Cater for drawing the wrath of sabers

I could mention Jeter, but that's an entirely different argument


altogether

How does an article like this get written? Am I right in thinking that the reporter likes Garvey's case and tracks him down for his thoughts?

To me, this almost smacks of Ron Kittle.

Speaking of smacking Ron Kittle.

when I try to paste it in here and then I preview it, it comes out looking like gibberish. How do I fix that???

use the


</pre>
</pre>
tags.

I guess Ichiro is not a good comp for Garvey/Cater for drawing the wrath of sabers

Definitely. We ####### about Ichiro! winning the MVP in 2001, but he still placed 5th in BP's Internet awards that year and that's undoubtedly a much more stathead-y crowd than the general public. I put him 4th that year.

There's not anything that Joe Carter ever did that would cause me to even consider putting him on the ballot.

So Who should have been the 1974 MVP? I lean towards Bench. He does not show up in the top 5 of OPS or OPS+, but he is solidly 3rd in RC and with his positional value, I tend to lean that way.

But Schmidt, Morgan, or Stargell would have been good choices too.



OPS
Stargell-PIT.944
Schmidt-PHI.941
Morgan-CIN.921
Smith-STL.917
Garr-ATL.886

Adjusted OPS+
Stargell-PIT168
Morgan-CIN159
Schmidt-PHI158
Smith-STL157
Wynn-LAD151

Runs Created
Schmidt-PHI122
Garr-ATL116
Bench-CIN114
Stargell-PIT110
Morgan-CIN108

RBI
Bench-CIN129
Schmidt-PHI116
Garvey-LAD111
Wynn-LAD108
Simmons-STL103

Extra-Base Hits
Bench-CIN73
Schmidt-PHI71
Stargell-PIT66
Oliver-PIT61
Cedeno-HOU60

Times on Base
Rose-CIN296
Morgan-CIN273
Schmidt-PHI270
Evans-ATL269
Gross-HOU262

Power/Speed Number
Cedeno-HOU35.7
Morgan-CIN31.9
Schmidt-PHI28.1
Bonds-SFG27.8
Wynn-LAD23.0

By Win Shares, for what it's worth, Garvey falls short of at least the following 12 of his non-Hall contemporaries -- Grich, Dewey, Wynn, Singleton, Bando, Bonds, Darrell, Clark, Nettles, the other Reggie, and Buddy Bell. According to WS, Garvey's best season was worst than the best seasons of all 12; same for his 2nd best, 3rd best ... all the way to his 12th-best season.

BG: 32/31/30/29/28/28/24/21/20/20/20/19/16/11/07/02/02
DE: 39/31/29/25/24/23/21/21/17/17/17/16/15/15/13/10/09/09/07/02
JW: 36/32/32/31/30/28/27/21/18/16/14/09/07/04/02
KS: 36/33/32/28/28/27/24/23/19/17/16/12/11/05
SB: 36/31/29/24/24/24/23/21/21/19/17/09/02/02/02/01/01
BB: 32/32/31/31/24/24/24/23/23/21/16/15/05/04
DE: 31/28/28/28/27/26/23/22/21/20/20/18/17/13/12/11/09/09/05/02
JC:: 33/31/30/26/24/23/22/22/21/20/17/15/12/11/09/04/03
FL:: 34/33/27/22/22/21/21/19/16/16/16/15/05/04/04
GN: 28/27/26/25/22/22/21/19/18/17/16/16/15/12/10/10/09/05/03/01
RS: 29/29/27/25/25/25/24/24/23/20/19/17/16/14/09
BB: 28/26/25/23/22/21/21/20/17/17/16/16/15/14/13/10/08
SG: 27/26/25/22/22/21/19/17/15/15/14/13/11/10/08/06/02/00/00

Who should have been the 1974 MVP?

Win Shares sez:
39 Schmidt
37 Morgan
34 Bench
32 Wynn
30 Perry
29 Stargell
28 Niekro
28 Evans
27 Garvey
27 Rose
27 Cedeno
27 Garr

30 Perry

I can't find a Perry who even played in the NL in 1974. Do you mean Gaylord? He was with the Indians in 1974.

Is Mike Marshall really that low on the list?

Sorry about Perry; Mike Marshall got 21.

Maybe "Perry" means Tony Perez.

Or maybe it's supposed to be Jerry.

On a more apples-to-apples tip, here's the WS seasons of five first basement -- Dick Allen, Will Clark, Keith Hernandez, Donny Ballgame, and Garvey. As always, strike seasons are pro-rated to 162 games.

DA: 42/41/35/33/32/29/29/24/22/19/15/11/08/04
WC 44/37/34/28/27/25/25/20/20/19/15/14/13/11/08
KH: 33/32/29/29/28/27/24/24/23/21/19/13/13/03/03/01/01
DM: 34/32/29/27/26/24/22/20/20/14/09/07/07/00
SG: 27/26/25/22/22/21/19/17/15/15/14/13/11/10/08/06/02/00/00

I haven't run the numbers for Mark Grace, though just glancing at his '90s numbers would seem like he was equal to or a little better than Garvey in Win Shares.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (inhales) BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (inhales) BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Like I said, there are plenty of good reasons to pile on him without making stuff up.

But he's so hate-able how can you not make stuff up?

I've said it before & I'll say it again - the three worst things a person can be are: 1) Nazi war criminal, 2) child molester, 3) Steve Garvey. This man is - as far as I know - the only person who fits into all 3 categories.

An online search for "similar batters" reveals a list of 10 players ranging from Al Oliver to Mark Grace and featuring one Hall of Famer, Orlando Cepeda. Cepeda is a. 297 career hitter with 2,351 hits, 379 home runs and 1,365 RBI.

Isn't he really most similar to Eddie Haskell, though?

I would argue that no player from my lifetime (38 yrs) has had a bigger gap between during-career perception and post-career perception.

I agree. Ever seen a list of players who made the Top 10 in HoF voting multiple times but aren't in the Hall? Very very few - prior to the mid/late 1980s ballots the list is Gil Hodges and maybe Marty Marion. Garvey made the top ten a few times, but I can't see any scenario in which he actually gets in. Even if they re-Frisch the Vets Committee I don't see it. Would Don Sutton really want to Good Ol' Boy this piece of filth in?

My hatred of Steve Garvey is thermonuclear in its intensity,

Good man.

but I do think statheads tend to overstate the case against him.

(holds nose) Yeah, I agree. (vomits) He was a great fielding first baseman who was as durable as durable can be. He had his prime in a pitcher's park, and (starts gagging) he did have some postseason moments (stabs self in head with pen).

2. clutch (which doesn't exist)

(as we all know)

Sarcasm?

It shows up in his awards: 10-time All-Star, an MVP (with 2.46 award shares according to BB-Ref), 5 top-ten MVP finishes, 4 other top 25 finishes, 4 gold gloves, 2 ASG MVPs, 2 NLCS MVPs, 1 WS MVP, the Clemente Award, the Gehrig Award.
--------
Why wasn't he voted in during his first eligibility then? How close did he come?

Your description makes it sound like he was extremely likely to get voted in and then to have people wonder why he was in there 20 years later.

He had a strong first year on the ballot, with 42% of the vote (comparable to first-year totals of Gary Carter, and better than the first-years of Sutter, Rice, and Gossage, all of whom have recently been picking up momentum in the balloting and who seem likely to be inducted). I do think it's fair to say that if he hadn't been so real-world-padreriffic, his early vote totals would have been even stronger. The trajectory is bad, and continues to get worse.

Below is quick best-efforts research
1993 42% (everyone above him now in)
1994 36% (everyone above him now in)
1995 43% (everyone above him now in)
1996 37% (everyone above him now in)
1997 35% (behind Santo and Rice)
1998 41% (behind Santo and Rice)
1999 30% (everyone above him now in)
2000 32% (behind Rice, Sutter, Gossage)
2001 34% (behind Rice, Sutter, Gossage)
2002 28% (behind Rice, Sutter, Dawson, Gossage)
2003 28% (behind Sutter, Rice, Dawson, L. Smith, Gossage, Blyleven)
2004 24% (behind Sutter, Rice, Dawson, Gossage, L. Smith, Blyleven, Morris)
2005 21% (behind Sutter, Rice, Gossage, Dawson, Blyleven, L. Smith, Morris, John)

This trajectory is very uncommon. The player with the most similar trajectory is Mattingly (28/20/14/13/11). It is very unusual for a player to lose half of his initial support, or to even lose more than a few percentage points.

I was looking to see how Schmidt, Morgan and Bench dominated their positions. Just for quick reference, I used OPS. Morgan dominated his position more than any of these 3 in terms of OPS.
And of course him being on base all the time had alot to do with Bench's value. Third base was actually pretty deep that year, with alot of teams getting decent to very good production out the position.


Third Baseman

Schmidt 941
Madlock 816
Hebner 812
Evans 800
Radar 749
Driessen747
Cey 746
Ontiverios 725

Second Baseman
Morgan 921
Lopes 733
Cash 729
Stennet 696
Helms 675
Perez 654
Thomas 646
Sizemore 635
Millan 628

Catchers
Bench 870
Simmons 771
May 751
Foote 729
Dave Radar 713
Grote 661
Kendall 641
Boone 617

I think the children out of wedlock thing has hurt him more than he thinks. The reason for this is he was presented as this model/Mr. Clean type person when he was playing.

And it's almost always the "Mr. Clean" guys who have the really dysfunctional private lives, isn't it? Garvey, Chipper Jones, Kirby Puckett, and even Dr. J. as it turns out.

And it's almost always the "Mr. Clean" guys who have the really dysfunctional private lives, isn't it? Garvey, Chipper Jones, Kirby Puckett, and even Dr. J. as it turns out.

I dunno. Darryl Strawberry & John Daly have both been busted for wife beating, and they've never been considered Mr. Clean.

Who should have been the 1974 MVP?

By VORP:


Morgan 85.9
Messersmith 81.9
Niekro 79.6
Schmidt 76.4
Rooker 68.0
Bench 65.9
Matlack 61.6
Stargell 59.6
Barr 59.3
Garr 58.7
</PRE>

Thanks for the VORP.

Can I change my vote from Bench to Morgan?

Actually, the 1974 NL might have had the worst top three MVP finishers of all time: Garvey, Brock and Marshall, none of whom finished higher than 19th in the league in VORP. (That probably understates Marshall's value, among other things, but it's still not impressive.)

I've said it before & I'll say it again - the three worst things a person can be are: 1) Nazi war criminal, 2) child molester, 3) Steve Garvey. This man is - as far as I know - the only person who fits into all 3 categories.

You owe me a new keyboard, Chris J.

I'm inclined to give it to catchers if A) they're anywhere close, and B) they play good defense.

It's much harder to play 150 games at catcher than at any other position; backups tend to really be teh suck, and I believe that our inability to judge C defense probably leads to an underestimation of value, though that's only a belief.

My impression of Garvey was that he had no trouble fielding the area around 1st but that he did not handle throws well in the dirt or that pulled him off the bag. This could be reinforced by the fact that I was at the game where Jerry Ruess no-hit the Giants and the only base runner got on via an error by Russell, but my impression that day was that it was not that hard a play by Garvey and he just botched it.

Now Bill James' Win Shares system has shown that Garvey had a huge number of unassisted putouts.

Because he was afraid to throw the ball to the pitcher covering.

Although Garvey deserves credit and, indeed, the appreciation of all decent people for his destruction of the Cubs, he's still a dick and a fraud who poops his pants and was overrated in his day. He is no HOFer.

Who says I can't be even-handed?

It's much harder to play 150 games at catcher than at any other position; backups tend to really be teh suck

Gee, I hope Bill Plummer isn't reading this. You could hurt his feelers.

Garvey's throwing problems didn't extend to lobbing the ball to the pitcher at first. But making throws to second to try for 3-6-3 DPs was a rarity.

Also if a runner on first got picked off and broke for second, you could just give the guy second.

Morgan 85.9
Messersmith 81.9

That implies that Messersmith was more valuable. 86 runs added over 149 games is less valuable than 82 runs saved over 39 games.

My hate for Steve F. Garvey is this game,

That game eventually was enough for the Padres to retire his number. Which sickens me every time I think about it.

2. clutch (which doesn't exist)

(as we all know)

Sarcasm?

umm...yes

86 runs added over 149 games is less valuable than 82 runs saved over 39 games.

I went ahead and ran the numbers for Messersmith. What I did was compute a Pythagenport W-L for Messersmith and for a replacement level pitcher, and take the difference. I set replacement-level at the same level as Prospectus did for VORP, ensuring that the difference in runs is 82.

PythWAA is Pyth Wins Above Average

Note how the 43 runs above average translate to 5.4 wins, while the 39 runs below average translate to only 4.0 wins. This is because Messersmith lowered the run environment of his games, effectively making every run that much more valuable.

That implies that Messersmith was more valuable. 86 runs added over 149 games is less valuable than 82 runs saved over 39 games.

VORP is a counting stat, so is there any adjustment for ballpark? Just wondering. Andy did throw alot of innings that year, only 10 behind Niekro and 1 ahead of Carlton.

I set replacement-level at the same level as Prospectus did for VORP, ensuring that the difference in runs is 82.

Only 70.3 runs of Messersmith's VORP came from his pitching. He had an offensive VORP of 11.6.

Messersmith batted .240 in 1974 with 1 home run. And he drew 11 walks, which is pretty good for a pitcher.

He had an OBP of .312, which was better than a lot of guys on the Dodgers bench in 1974 like Tom Paciorek and Von Joshua and Lee Lacy and Ken McMullen.

I'm ignorant... why is Garvey the Anti Christ?

Jeesh, those Dodger teams sure liked to turn decently promising 26-year-old outfielders into pinch-hitters. I guess when the system keeps spitting out surplus talent, that's what you get ... but I wonder what what a CBA of the 1965-95 Dodger pinch-hitting cult would look like.

That game eventually was enough for the Padres to retire his number. Which sickens me every time I think about it.

Hey, the Padres don't have that much to celebrate. Someone causes the Greatest Moment in Team History, you're damn right he gets his number retired. Besides, it just puts him with Randy Jones, Dave Winfield, Tony Gwynn, and Ken Caminiti.

Incidentally:

My impression of Garvey was that he had no trouble fielding the area around 1st but that he did not handle throws well in the dirt or that pulled him off the bag.

Fielding Percentage might be a bogus stat, but it's still pretty impressive that he finished 1984 with a perfect 1.000. That's 159 games; 1,319 chances; 1,232 putouts; 87 assists; 117 double plays, and zero errors. He might have flaws, but he certainly wasn't a bad fielder.

I'm ignorant... why is Garvey the Anti Christ?

See Chris J's post #53. I believe he spelled it out clearly and concisely.

Although Garvey deserves credit and, indeed, the appreciation of all decent people for his destruction of the Cubs,

Actually, my hatred of Garvey has very little to do with 1984. It has to do with growing up in Southern California in the 1970s.

Hey, the Padres don't have that much to celebrate. Someone causes the Greatest Moment in Team History, you're damn right he gets his number retired.

Greg Vaughn dragged them to the World Series a couple years ago. I think he should be up there too.

Seriously, I do.

Seriously -- explain to us East Coasters why you all hate Garvey so much. I know he wasn't actually a Nazi War Criminal and I'm pretty sure he isn't actually a child molester. And I had a child out of wedlock as did many of my friends and no one stop being my friend for it, so that can't be the whole story.

I remember him as arrogant, but so are a lot of superstars. Chris J, you go first...

Steve Garvey v. Mark Grace
for the title of reigning neo-Nazi war criminal.
Actually I hate Pete Rose but I prefer him to these creeps, Pete may be a scumbag but he doesn't pretend to be anything else.

Isn't he really most similar to Eddie Haskell

Tho..this does explain why Alice Cooper isn't on the list...

Pete may be a scumbag but he doesn't pretend to be anything else.

ahhh--you've put your finger on it

Garvey was the All-american boy goodie-two-shoes

Cracks started to appear first with his dust-up with Sutton, and then following a fairly nasty but apparently accurate article by Pat Jordan in (I believe) Inside Sports which essentially depicted Garvey as an amazingly shallow plastic dimwit (and his wife at the time did nothing to contradict that finding to Jordan).

And then there was the 2 kids back-to-back, as it were

Garvey had expected to be able to run for political office based on his rep & his good looks.

But then California voters would never...

Bill James had a wonderful essay on Garvey in the 1983 Abstract. It was to the effect that the 1970s/early 1980s Steve Garvey rubbed most of us the wrong way because it seemed he never engaged in self-reflection, as if he followed every adage from childhood without ever bothering to examine them.

I don't like Garvey at all. I was a Dodger's fan during his peak, and didn't like him at all.

He was a great (not Mike S. GREAT) player for a great and exciting team for a long time. There are many 1st basemen in the HOF I consider far, far less deserving.

So, having said that, I'd consider Garvey the 1B equal of George Kell, a player who deserves to be remembered for what he was (at least on the field). But Kell really should never have ended up as a HOFer, and Garvey is a good place to draw the new line, with him on the outside of it.

Oh, and Ichiro will go to the HOF, if he finishes ten full seasons in MLB, and I will enjoy, as I do now, the silliness of the dishonesty of those who waste VERY MANY words bad-mouthing him, since they're the ones missing enjoying him while he's here.

Garvey rubbed most of us the wrong way because it seemed he never engaged in self-reflection, as if he followed every adage from childhood without ever bothering to examine them.

well, hell that's worked for W so far

(except insert "Karl Rove" for "every adage")

Garvey was the Jeter of that team; if you hated the Dodgers (as I did growing up), you hated the hell out of Garv. And unlike Jeter on the '96-01 Yanks, he was *not* the best player on his team (let alone the squeaky clean citizen he claimed to be), and his teammates generally hated his guts. He was the only guy who, for example, would have a Junior High School named after him in Clovis, California.

But all that said, I don't really understand the Hate. He was a great player; always seemed to perform better in high-pressure situations, and was the only guy who would consistently fake throwing the ball back to the pitcher after a pickoff throw.

Only 70.3 runs of Messersmith's VORP came from his pitching. He had an offensive VORP of 11.6.

Ah, that makes sense. I thought the difference between average and replacement seemed too large. That said, my point basically stands; it's the area between Messersmith and average where the runs are more valuable. Here's the corrected table:

So that's 8.27 pitching wins, plus another win or so batting, compared to Morgan's roughly 9 batting wins, plus whatever fielding contribution Morgan made. It's pretty close.

Also, this comparison to replacement underrates Messersmith, because it's pretty hard to find a replacement-level pitcher who can throw 292 innings. Realistically, it'd take a few guys to do it.

Garvey thinks a vote by the living Hall of Fame members might help. But it doesn’t matter who votes or when he gets in, Garvey said, as long
as he does. "I will send flowers to all the voters, no matter when," Garvey said.

I can see all those FTD florists just holding their breath in anticipation. ;-) ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm ignorant... why is Garvey the Anti Christ?

The [patented] Steve Garvey "squeaky clean, saccharine sweet" image was something you would have had to live through. It's simply impossible to describe to someone at this late date. Suffice it to say the guy would have had to been a God (or the second coming of Jesus Christ) with all the publicity he received as an "active player." US mere mortals just got sick of it, then FINALLY he became a deity with feet of clay! And there was much rejoicing in the holy land... ;-) ...

-----------
trevise :-) ...

That Cheap Seats episode with Steve Garvey's celebrity fishing was pretty funny.

The [patented] Steve Garvey "squeaky clean, saccharine sweet" image was something you would have had to live through.

Kind of like Kathie Lee Gifford's persona during most of the 1990s.

Kind of like Kathie Lee Gifford's persona during most of the 1990s.

Yes but much more disgusting...

-----------
trevise :-) ...

I always disliked Ron Cey from those teams much worse than Garvey. But then I, and a large gropup of friends, were heckling him at a Giants game from behind third and he hit a late inning HR to put the Dodgers up and he saluted us as he went into the dugout.

I always disliked Ron Cey from those teams much worse than Garvey. But then I, and a large gropup of friends, were heckling him at a Giants game from behind third and he hit a late inning HR to put the Dodgers up and he saluted us as he went into the dugout.

Ron Cey was "always cool." How can you not like a guy nicknamed 'Penguin'...!??? ;-) ...

-----------
trevise :-) ...

Garvey was before my time, but the way you guys are talking about his personality it makes me think about ARod. Any comparison there?

Of course, ARod is three times the player.

Garvey was before my time, but the way you guys are talking about his personality it makes me think about ARod. Any comparison there?

ARod is too deliberately bland to really be a good comparison.

Garvey was more like the nicest used car salesman you ever met -- you couldn't quite figure out why you knew he was completely full of crap and he could actually have you feeling somewhat bad for thinking he was a complete weasel, but then you actually found out your first instincts were right, which just made you loathe him all the more. Kathie Lee or W are much closer comparisons, right down to the veneer of smug, self-servingly delusional piety.

If I were to compare Garvey's situation to some more recent athlete, I would use Mark Chmura. Not that Chmura was as famous as Garvey, but on a personality level I would call it similar.

Sounds like Kevin Costner's nemesis in Tin Cup.

This pretty much sums up the case against Steve Garvey.

Nestled among this list of his accomplishments as a professional back slap recipient are these two gems:

"Steve Garvey's playing field has changed from the baseball diamond to corporate boardrooms and lecture halls, but the integrity, intensity and the devotion for which this future Hall of Famer is famous for is the same."

Not so fast, Steve.

"To only focus on Steve Garvey's baseball accomplishments would leave out a lifetime of achievements as a businessman, philanthropist, volunteer and most importantly a devoted family man. As a father of seven children Garvey understands that in the ever-changing world we live in there is a great necessity of being a man of honor, integrity and quality."

The mention of Garvey's family life in the same sentence with "honor" and "integrity."

Wow.

How can you not like a guy nicknamed 'Penguin'...!??? ;-) ...

He was a Dodger, and he always seemed to get big hits against the Giants- and he did not seem to like it when we asked him 50 times what does a penguin sound like! I think the response was something like fxxk You- And I thought only Opus could talk.

As a father of seven children

Does that count the yard chillun?

He was also chosen as one of Disney's 30th Anniversary "American Hero's".

Which nicely summarizes the state of Disney and the state of American grammar in one concise sentence.

[Seriously -- explain to us East Coasters why you all hate Garvey so much. I know he wasn't actually a Nazi War Criminal and I'm pretty sure he isn't actually a child molester. And I had a child out of wedlock as did many of my friends and no one stop being my friend for it, so that can't be the whole story.

I remember him as arrogant, but so are a lot of superstars. Chris J, you go first...

Steve Garvey ruined my childhood.

. . . OK, maybe that's a little melodramatic, but I was 9 years old, the Cubs won the first 2 in a best of 5, had the better regular season record etc. They lost game 3 and I wasn't too bothered. Then came the Day of Infamy. The dramatic walk-off nature & suddenly I realized that the Cubs might not do it -- and they didn't, and the entire starting rotation got injured at the same time in '85 and they folded - the moment was over. Future Cubs flops never hurt as much as that first one. Steve Garvey instantly became my all-time least favorite player.

Then you see enough of the milk & cookies image he projected and you wanted to flay him with a red-hot poker.

Then it comes out that he sleeps around and is a massive phony. Now I feel justified in not only hating him as a baseball player but also as a human being. I was really glad to hear he was a phony - bad feelings suddenly became so much simpler then. I once read that his ex-wife accused him of beating her. I don't know if that's true or not, but he's Steve Garvey so I haven't forgotten it.

Then, on Classic Primer there was a thread -- who's your least favorite player. After 100+ posts someone realized that almost everyone's LFP fell into one of three categories: 1) overrated by mainstream, 2) Did something horrible to your favorite team, 3) A horrible human being. Someone asked if any person fit into all 3 categories, and I replied, that Steve Garvey did if you're a Cubs fan. No one else offered any other triple threats.

Lesson learned from that thread: Cubs fans have the right duty to hate Steve Garvey with as much greater unholy fury and irresponsible venom as any other fan has for any other player in the 130+ year history of major league baseball.

For me, it was a pretty cool lesson because it largely mirrored how I already felt. Which is why I say the three worst things a person can be in this lifetime are: 1) a Nazi war criminal, 2) a child molester, and 3) Steve Garvey. And that former first baseman is the only person that I know of who fits into all three of the above categories.

why is Garvey the Anti Christ?

That doesn't go far enough. Being the anti-Christ only makes him the embodiment of all that is evil for one religion. He's to be denigrated by good people of all faiths.

Kind of like Kathie Lee Gifford's persona during most of the 1990s.

Now that's a good comparison. But only if Gifford kept your favorite team from going to their first world series since WWII.

I know he wasn't actually a Nazi War Criminal

But I notice you're not arguing against the child molester claim.

And that former first baseman is the only person that I know of who fits into all three of the above categories.

Are you referring to the first three categories in your post or the second three?

Clearly, he belongs in the first three. I will await further research before drawing conclusions about the second three.

He was a Dodger, and he always seemed to get big hits against the Giants- and he did not seem to like it when we asked him 50 times what does a penguin sound like! I think the response was something like fxxk You- And I thought only Opus could talk.

And you hold yourself faultless for this...? He probably thought you and your friends were parrots...
Obviously, the proper answer would have been "Polly want a cracker." ;-) ...

-----------
trevise :-) ...