He had the longest National League playing streak, hit .294 lifetime, 290 Home Runs and a excellent fielding first baseman.
2007-01-29 14:06:00 · 16 answers · asked by therazorsx 3 in Sports ➔ Baseball
I do think that he is better than some who are in now....
2007-01-29 14:19:25 · update #1
He was not a hall of fame caliber player. He had decent stats but not great stats. Some might even say he was "very good". Personally I would not. However I consider him to be a "good" player...period.
2007-01-29 23:55:52 · answer #1 · answered by The Mick "7" 7 · 8⤊ 3⤋
There is no doubting that Steve Garvey was a very good first baseman. The Hall of Fame however, is not just for the very good, its for the great. Even though Garvey had a very respectable lifetime average, and high fielding percentage, a first baseman must have outstanding power numbers. Garvey was only average in this regard. It is also noteworthy that in his time with San Diego, his numbers dropped of significantly, which didn't help his chances in getting into the Hall. Sorry, but very good just don't cut it!
2007-01-31 01:09:22 · answer #2 · answered by P.I. Stingray 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Even though I grew up as a big fan of his, I believe the influx of detailed statistical analysis, and weak years in San Diego at the end of his carrer doomed his Hall of Fame chances.
From 1974 until 1980 Garvey was a great player. However from 1981 onward he failed to hit .300, averaged only 14 home runs a year, and did not get many walks.
In the early 1980's baseball analsyt Bill James came up with an effective way to evaluate players through statistics. Under James analysis Garvey was not as effective as he looked. James has these two methods called runs created and runs created per 27.
The runs created per 27 is a way to translate offensive efficency in a per game way. So under it Garvey from 1974 to 1980 was generally above the 6.00 level. That translates to if the the entire team were 9 Garveys, then the team would score 6 runs a game. After 1981 it dropped to the 4.5 runs a game level. Since 4.5 a game would be average, Garvey was not an elite player, especially for a guy who hit 3rd.
2007-01-30 04:42:42 · answer #3 · answered by mf52dolphin 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Above average stats at best. Garvey was Captain America while he played. He had the looks and the clean cut image. There was even talk he would run for politics. Then people began to look into his life. Several kids with several different women and some tax problems. The problem was that he didn't pay them. The Chicago Tribune had an article last season that he is still enjoying the high life skiing and partying it up but not paying bills. He is basically a dead beat. This is why he isn't in Cooperstown.
2007-01-29 14:38:43 · answer #4 · answered by berta44 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Steve Garvey replaced into an exceptional ball participant who had some stable (no longer large) years interior the 1970's. regrettably he replaced right into a customary baseman---a place with most of the suited sluggers of all time. he's competing with them in his batting archives. If Garvey replaced right into a 2d baseman or a shortstop his offensive numbers could have earned his election years in the past. yet his numbers do no longer compete with the different gamers that have been in the past elected or by using fact that his retirement. in the direction of the top of his profession, Garvey replaced into noticeably plenty a statue interior the sector, catching the throws made to him before everything base yet very hardly fielding a floor ball hit in his direction. in case you have an interest in campaigning for a Dodger first baseman, I propose you do it for Gil Hodges. He replaced right into a miles better all around participant, extra effective interior the sector and on the bat. this question has been asked diverse cases over the final various months. take a glance on the previous solutions besides.
2016-12-16 16:41:16 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The same can be said for others...personally, The Hall of Fame is null and void until Pete Rose is in...He got in trouble as a Mgr. not a player...he is a hall of fame player not a hall of fame manager. Also, Davey Concepcion deserves consideration, he revolutionized the game for the Shortstops of today
2007-01-30 02:29:06 · answer #6 · answered by goredz14 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
He's not in the Hall because he's another of the marginal players like Don Mattingly that had a good career but it just didn't stand out like a Tony Gwynn. His only chance might be the veterans committee.
2007-01-30 01:26:33 · answer #7 · answered by Oz 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
290 is not really a large number of homers for a first baseman. The whole scandal with his wife probably doesn't help him with the voters either
2007-01-29 14:11:03 · answer #8 · answered by Edward K 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think Garvey is hurt tremendously by his off-field antics. He is a prime example of a great defensive player whose offensive numbers aren't fantastic. Because there are few, if any, reliable defensive stats, a player like Garvey gets robbed. If you are great offensively but terrible defensively, you can be a first ballot HoF-er.
2007-01-29 22:58:12 · answer #9 · answered by dentroll 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because he was a good, but not great, player. Lots of guys with comparable numbers to his are not in the hall. Had he played in Kansas City or Cleveland, he wouldn't even have gotten on the ballot.
2007-01-29 17:25:18 · answer #10 · answered by yooper4278 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He had some great years. Great all-around player. I compare him to Bernie Williams. They have similar career numbers, good average, close to 300 homers, numerous all-star appearances, but their numbers are very good, not great. They each had great years, but over the long haul there are other guys whose numbers were better.
2007-01-29 14:22:21 · answer #11 · answered by Jeffrey S 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋