Was it because he portrayed a phony sqeaky clean image that had nothing to do with his play on the field?
2007-01-09 19:02:34 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Baseball
Garvey is qualified for the Hall of Fame.
I can't believe all the people that want to put Mattingly in, and then claim that Garvey doesn't belong!
Garvey was a 10 time all star who won 4 gold gloves as well. He was the most durable player of his time. His 1,207 consecutive game playing streak is the longest in NL history, and the 4th highest of all time.
While his career batting average was .294, his post season average was .338, and he played a major role in several league and world championship teams.
His regular season slugging pct was .446, but this number rose to .550 in the post-season.
He had six 200 hit seasons, an excellent total, and had 2,599 hits in his career, and drove in 100 runs 5 times.
He's one of the few MVPs who also had a long career, but failed to make the HOF.
His problem was probably that, although he put up some fine career numbers and was a key ingredient to several championship teams, he didn't lead the league in very many offensive categories (hits twice)... he does very well in terms of being AMONG the league leaders in many categories, but he didn't LEAD the league in very much (other than games played, because he played 162 games/year for 7 or 8 years.
Garvey has more to sell in terms of the Hall of Fame than Mattingly (whose career was much shorter), but I think that writers felt that his career numbers just fell a little bit short of what they thought a Hall of Fame first baseman should do.
If Garvey were to be selected, he would certainly not be the worst first baseman in the HOF.
2007-01-10 13:14:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't know if that's the reason, and I would consider Garvey's credentials to be borderline.
Of the position players who have come short in recent years, the one that seems to be the biggest snub is Andre Dawson, a great all-around (5-tool) player who seems to be ignored for some reason.
On my fictitious ballot, I would put "The Hawk" in before I would enter the names of Garvey and Jim Rice.
2007-01-09 20:39:22 · answer #2 · answered by Da Whispering Genius 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Steve Garvey, albeit very good, was not Hall of Fame calibre. That and the fact he was a Wife Beater could be the reason.
2007-01-10 05:38:48 · answer #3 · answered by Oz 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I always liked Garvey and I recall near the end of his career there was talk that he was going to run for Senator of California. Once they found he had children all over the place that really changed his image. Chicago Tribune had a nice article on him a while back that he is near bankruptcy and living the good life not paying his bills skiing all over the place. Basically it painted him into being a deadbeat.
2007-01-10 04:55:08 · answer #4 · answered by berta44 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because it's the Ballball HOF, only the elite get in. It's not the football HOF where they pick a manditory 5-7 guys each year (worst rule imaginable, yeah it does help get deserving guys in who play thankless positions, but some of the 'skill position' players they put in is a joke) that had a 3 good year stretch in their career because they ran out of elite guys to put in.
I liked Garvey, but he wasn't elite by any means. Let's put it this way.... is saying "Well he wouldn't be the WORST" really an arguement to get a guy in?
2007-01-10 15:11:24 · answer #5 · answered by nymetsking 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If there was a sub division to the hall of fame, I would put Steve Garvey in it. As for the hall itself, he falls short.
2007-01-10 05:08:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Simple. He was a solid player, not a great one. You don't, or at least shouldn't get in the HOF for being solid. It's a Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Pretty Good. I don't think off-the-field stuff has a whole lot of bearing on getting in the HOF.
2007-01-10 04:45:40 · answer #7 · answered by Sharky 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Steve Garvey was a really good player for a short time. Later he was adequate, and basically a statue at first base.
His lifeyme batting average was .292; his slugging percentage was .446. Playing first base, he was not comparable to the other Hall of Famers.
2007-01-09 22:28:31 · answer #8 · answered by jpbofohio 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
He was great, and I wanna take nothing away from that,but I think the voters are right to not elect him. He just wasn't dominant enough to be seated with the players in the Hall of Fame. He is a second tier guy in baseball history.
2007-01-10 17:19:31 · answer #9 · answered by Eho 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
1.- Being a first baseman, his numbers are no match for those of other already elected first basemen. The last one elected was Eddie Murray, who hit 500+ homers and 3000+ hits.
2.- He had a clean cut image which was tarnished by his actual sex life, and that disappointed too many people.
2007-01-09 22:46:36 · answer #10 · answered by ljjahn 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋