Steve Garvey and the Hall of Fame?

Question

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?

Answer 1

Garvey is one of those guys on the borderline - his overall numbers are quite good, but there's no single thing about him that really stands out. He had his MVP year, but he was never one of those guys who led the league in a major category (he led in total hits twice, and that's about it). If he had maintained his "nice guy" image after retirement I think he would have gotten more votes, but still have fallen short. I think he falls into the same area as Al Oliver, Dave Parker, and a few other players from that era: they were excellent players but fell short of being the legendary sorts the Hall of Fame should demand.

Answer 2

I do not think Steve's off-field problems influence the vote.

Steve was a very good player during his prime, but I wouldn't call him a superstar. Most of his skills were in the traditional Triple Crown stats -- average, HR, RBI. Even so, Garvey only had 272 homers in 19 seasons, and only got above 30 homers once. He didn't have more than 21 homers or hit .300 after the age of 31. He wasn't fast. I'm not sure I'd call him the dominant player of his era. Would you trade him for Joe Morgan? Reggie Jackson?

According to baseball-reference.com, the most comparable players to Garvey offensively were Al Oliver and John Olerud. That strikes me as a pretty good comparison. They were both really good hitters, but not immortals.

As someone once said, it's not the Hall of Pretty Good.

Answer 3

I was a huge fan of the Garv when I was a kid growing up in SoCal as a Dodger fan. I think it's because his stats are not outstanding, which is not right because as you say he was the best first baseman in the game for 10 seasons and holds the NL record for consecutive games and was plugging along toward Lou Gehrig's record until that freak accident where he broke his thumb at home plate.

I'm up in the air about his bedroom activities being the reason why he's not in the Hall. When I read your, "off-the-field exploits" I immediately thought of Jim Rome's radio show in which listeners are constantly e-mailing about "Steve Garvey pumping chicks." Maybe something similar is on the mind of BBWAA voters-- not Jim Rome but Garvey not being the All-American baseball player we thought him to be when he was playing.

Answer 4

First of all, most people would say that Bancroft is a terrible selection. So let's not add to that by putting in anyone who was better than Dave Bancroft. Garvey played an okay first base, but it is first base--we expect those guys to produce offensively. He led the league in hits twice, sac flies once, ground into double plays twice...and that's it. Never led in HR, runs, RBI, BA, OBP, SLG...heck there are at least 18 first basemen with more RBI. Just at that one position. Garvey is not in the top 50 in his career in anything (except GIDP). Short answer: he is not in because he is not better than other guys who deserve to be in more; he is not in because he is not good enough to be in.

Answer 5

Garvey should be there. He was also twice all-star MVP. He had bad timing because his wife was a TV star in LA and really dragged him through the mud just about the time when he was up for the Hall Of Fame. Up until then, he was regarded as baseball's Mr. Clean.

Answer 6

An interesting statistical comparison:

Baseball reference.com identifies the following players as most comparable to Garvey:

Al Oliver
John Olerud
Ruben Sierra
Bill Buckner
Mickey Vernon
Cecil Cooper
Orlando Cepeda
Chili Davis
Will Clark
Mark Grace

Of that group only Cepeda is a HOFer

Answer 7

I grew up in LA and was a huge Garvey fan. My intermural softball team at UCLA was named "Sons of Garvey", as we all felt we were his bastard sons.

When I moved to San Diego in 2002, I was amazed to find that he is just as worshipped in SD than he was in LA.

I don't think his off-field exploits impacted the voting for his hall of fame status. If you look purely at the stats, he doesn't go. However, you compare him to others of his era, it's clear he's in.

Are the baseball writers association really such big statheads, that they only judge by the numbers? Sandy Koufax was dominant for 5-6 years, but he got in. In my mind Garvery is in, because he should be measured against his peers.

Answer 8

I think Garvey isn't in because of his stats. I believe he could have done more whether he played in the American League as a dh or if he stayed in the National League as a first baseman.

Answer 9

Garvey is not deserving of the Hall. He simply wasn't good enough, nor was he great. The list of first basemen/outfielders better than him over the last thirty years is tremendous.

Also, he was never dominant. He was never in the top ten in OBP for a single season, and only twice in slugging percentage.

Answer 10

If anyone was tailor-made to be a DH, it was Garv. He had no throwing arm whatsoever, and not much speed on the bases. His hitting numbers were above average, but not great. There are more deserving candidates waiting to get in the Hall, including Ron Santo.
I don't think Garv's off the field encounters are being held against him, or at least not much. If you removed all the people in the Hall who did bad things, the walls there would be virtually empty.