I know this has been asked before, but do you think Steve Garvey is not in the Hall of Fame primarily because of his off-the-field exploits or because his career ended rather sudden in 1987 and he didn't hang on for stats.
First, I am not a Garvey fan. But from 1974 to 1984 he was the best first baseman in the game - the dominant player of his era. Six out of 7 seasons with 200 hits, one MVP and four other top ten finishes, 10 All-Star games including a write-in selection, player on good teams, four gold gloves, the National League all-time consecutive games played streak, 84 NLCS MVP, etc.
To me Garvey is a perfect example of my opinion that being dominant in an era should trump guys as opposed to good players who simply hang on with mediocre seasons to build career numbers. Obviously enough HOF voters disagree on some level, or they disagree that Garvey was dominant.
What do you think about Garvey and what do you think about dominance in an era vs. career longevity?
2007-08-07
11:33:45
·
13 answers
·
asked by
Matt G
5
in
Baseball