Categories? He was the most valuable player(lets be clear....he led all other players in the league in '74.)Evidently it isn't very important to you to be the best player in the league for that year.That is leading.I think it is bogus to accuse him of not leading.He has trophies for leading all other players in the league in '74,in 2 league championship series,and 2 Allstar games.It's easy to say he didn't lead offensive categories.He sprayed line drives everywhere.That would result in a lot of different kinds of hits.That's why he kept getting around 200 or more hits a year.You wanna be picky about the type? He was a consistent line drive hitter that came to play every possible game he could.Had a lot more impact on game outcomes than f'n Carew n' Boggs.Carew did what to lead his team? What ? Bat .220 in 4 league championship series? F that.Damn useless punchin' judy.Garvey had more impact than that moody bitch ever had.Garvey has a league MVP.Does Boggs? No,he was never as valuable as Garvey was to his team.That's another punchin' judy.Non-Pitchers should be the most valuable player in the league atleast once.Pitchers should win a CY YOUNG or atleast have a 20 win season.Beckett,Peavy=in.After that(after the true competitors are rewarded) you can start rewarding your f'n on base %....most doubles by a 2nd baseman from a Texas town..or whatever long -term stat you seem to love.Carew is testament that you don't have to be a winner to get in the Hall.

They need a stat called HTFM(HITS THAT F'N MATTER.)

They need a stat called HTFM(HITS THAT F'N MATTER in winning a ball game.)Leyritz would probably have more than that f'n Carew.

So Beckett and Peavy should be automatic to the Hall of Fame? Come on this is too easy. They have 77 and 76 career wins? Hell last year Peavy was 11-14 with an era of 4.09 in the best pitchers park in the majors.

Using YOUR standards there is no comparison between Boggs/Carew and Garvey.

Boggs made 12 consecutive all star games at 3rd base
Carew made 18 " " " " " " at 2nd base AND 1st base

Boggs HOF monitor number is 267
Carew's HOF monitor number is 242

Carew won both the Rookie of the Year AND MVP (you know the one where he is the best player for that year????)

If we got into the raw numbers it is even more embarrasing


Are you not taking your medication or something?

Rod Carew
Lifetime batting average of .328
3053 Hits
445 2bs
92 HR's
112 3bs
1424 runs
1015 RBI's
353 SB's
.393 OBP
.429 SLG
Made 18 consecutive All Star teams
Won the MVP in a year he hit .388 and scored 128 runs
Won the Rookie of the Year
Hit .300 for 15 seasons in a row
Was an 8 time All Star at 2nd base
Was a 10 time All Star at 1st base
Led the AL in BA 7 times, 4 in a row
Led AL in OBP 4 times
Led AL in Hits 3 times
Led AL in 3b's 2 times
Led AL in Runs Created 3 times

But he isn't a hall of Famer...


you do the math and please dont forget the prozac at the proper intervals

LOL..What?
Garvey's Grey Ink rating is 2 points less than the average hall of famer,and that means he'd be in the lower half of all Hall of Famers.Right?..Why do you consider this to be "not rating out as a Hall of Famer on this scale? Ripken has a 116 gray ink #(much less than Garvey's 142)..Do you also say he doesn't rate out on the Gray scale as a hall of famer?I think if you're 2 points less than the average HALL OF FAMER on a scale,then we can use that scale(since you brought it here.)He does indeed rate out as a Hall of Famer on both the HOF MONITOR,AND GRAY INK.

Garvey:
Gray Ink: Batting - 142 (Average HOFer ≈ 144)

HOF Monitor: Batting - 130.5 (Likely HOFer > 100....130=VIRTUAL LOCK)

The reason they use the word "likely" versus "deserving" is because "deserving" is a subjective word,and likely is not.

You asked me who Garvey looked like(as far as other HOF members go.)HE LED THE LEAGUE IN THE SAME CATEGORIES(HITS,GAMES PLAYED,SAC FLIES) as:
RIPKEN Gray Ink: Batting - 116 (Average HOFer ≈ 144)

Sounds like winning back to back G1 BC Turf Sprints.

"Steve Garvey's Grey Ink rating of 142 is slightly less than the average hall of famer's 144.....He does not rate out on any of these scales as a Hall of Famer. "


This is the most bizarre stuff you've written.He is 2 points less than the average HOF member.That would mean he'd just about be the average HOF member.How does this rate him out as not belonging? Just curious how your brain is betraying you.

Hhis best stats are still below par. The only reason he has a score anywhere near a hall of famer is he was good at things that you dont really have to be good to do well like Games played and Sacrifices. He was a good hitter, not great, he had below average power, especially for a 1st baseman, he was a good fielder, not great, he was good at driving in runs, not great. He just didn't do anything that special to be considered a Hall of Famer.
Ripken was a SS for most of his career. If Garvey had played SS as well as Ripken did, he would be a Hall of Famer. But when you compare him to other 1st baseman he is not in the same league.

2 year old turf sprints

Yea,for a punchin' Judy lover like you.You complain that Garvey didn't hit enough home runs for a 1st baseman,but this 1st baseman hit less than 100 HR.This player had very little impact on winning games.Much less(incredibly less) than Garvey did.Yea,if nobody was on base with 2 outs,then Carew would punch the ball through the infield.Big fkn deal.He played in SOCAL.I saw him plenty.He was useless.You're right about one thing.It's all about math to you.Punchin' Judy guys look good with math,but in reality=useless.The Marlin's Cabrera is about 20 times as likely to have an impact on a game than Carew,Boggs,Gwynn.What do they have together? 1 ring?

"He just didn't do anything that special to be considered a Hall of Famer. "


If we could find out how many clutch hits he had versus total # of hits he had,then you'd see it.He was clutch.He may not be a likeable guy,but he was clutch.Cubs fans still got the blood on them.Ask them if he was impactful.You like numbers,but you don't care about what the situation is when guys get hits.Carew useless at this.Garvey highly impactful.Kent for the Dodgers(not an impact player.)

This is incorrect(the part about he was good at things you don't have to be good to do.) Guy was clutch.That's the hardest thing to do.That isn't on your fact sheet.Well,yes it is(4 times he was voted MVP OF A LEAGUE CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES OR AN ALLSTAR GAME.)Not only was he clutch,but the very stats you talk about are team player stats(games per season,hits per season,and sacrifices.)He was a clutch team player.

You are right...that Ty Cobb was a piece of **** too.


Garvey didn't hit many HR's for a 1st baseman that played 18years.

I guess Ted Williams was no good either because he won no rings. Come on this is worse than PG1985.

You are getting desperate resorting to the Cub fans...

He was a middle of the road player and you seem to have an uncomfortable mancrush on him.

Where's a good picture of his 1987 Topps Card when you need it......

Score!

http://www.checkoutmycards.com/cards...0/Steve_Garvey

That is great!

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi...i?n1=carewro01

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi...i?n1=boggswa01

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi...i?n1=garvest01

If you go to the middle of the page you can get the players situational hitting numbers. You will find both Carew and Boggs have much higher batting averages than Garvey in clutch situations. As a matter of fact Garvey hit about the same regardless of situation with his lowest average being late innings with the score tied.

2 outs,runners in scoring position ab hits extra base hits rbi

Garvey 1080 315 99 409


CAREW 913 283 58 325

and no,I am not gunna give you more at bats in that situation.You F'N had 9315 ab total versus Garvey's 8835.Carew played in 2469 games versus Garvey's 2332.This is the situation clutch players with power are going to be put in more often than weak hitting punchin' judy types like Carew.If they had equal at bats with 2 outs n' runners in scoring position,we both know what would've happened.Carew would end up with a few more hits,but be far behind in extra base hits,and still far short of Garvey's 409 RBI in this situation.Any way you cut it,Garvey was more productive in getting extra base hits,and rbis.In this situation,Garvey hit .292(a couple points lower than usual,)but his on base and slugging percentages went up in this situation.You have misrepresented the facts as far as when he hit his lowest batting percentage.He hit .288 in tied games.Tied games could be zero-zero in the 2nd inning.He hit .296 in late n' close situations.You said Carew had much higher batting averages in clutch situations.Carew hit .310 with in 2 out runners in scoring position situations.Garvey hit .292(but slaughtered him in RBI and extra base hit counts in this situation)In close n' late game situations Carew hit ,305 VERSUS Garvey's .296 That's not a huge difference in batting average(that's a lie.) This is what I hate about stats.This lil stick figure moody bitch is crowned as a Prince,but given the clutch situations,gets a tiny few more hits per ab,and lags way behind Garvey in RBI,SLUGGING %,AND EXTRA BASE HITS.THE lATE N' CLOSE SITUATIONAL HITTING MIRRORS THE earlier clutch category of 2 outs runners in scoring position.So,in the 2 clutch situations,Carew is slightly ahead of Garvey in hits and batting average,but Garvey would be way ahead in extra base hits,RBI,AND SLUGGING %.How about Garvey's 78 Home Runs during these 2 clutch situations? The PUNCHIN JUDY had 19 home runs while hitting in these situations.You really want to give up all those home runs by taking Carew in clutch situations over Garvey? For a tiny amount more hits and batting average?Now,lets get to the real Clutch Situations.........POST SEASON HITTING.YOU SHOULDN'T OF OPENED THIS CLUTCH THING UP. I said that Garvey was clutch player.You said he didn't hit better in clutch situations than in other situations.Does it mean he hit poorly in clutch situations,No,that's crap.He hit well during the season(regardless of the situation.)What we sure as hell know is that he was a clutch hitter in the post season(gee is that a clutch situation MR.CHUCK NO IT ALL.)SINCE YOU F'N ARE IN LOVE WITH BATTING AVERAGE(a stat that favors a punchin Judy,) Garvey hit .356 in 5 LG CHAMP. SERIES,AND .319 IN 5 WORLD SERIES.THAT'S A CLUTCH PLAYER. That's a career .294 hitter hitting 25 and 60 points better in the post.He hit .338 in the post.That's over 55 games.He was a clutch player.Matter of fact ,you should be ashamed to admit ya didn't know it.A lot of people are ignorant about it.Against higher level post season pitching he excelled.He stepped it up.On the other hand,Carew hit .220 in the post season,and struck out 9 out of 50 at bats.Big difference,Chuck.Garvey won 2 nlcs MVP awards.Those are awards for clutch situations,CHUCK.AGAINST THE BEST PITCHERS IN THE WORLD(ALLSTAR PITCHING) Garvey hit .393(SINCE THAT'S A STAT FAVORITE OF YOURS.)Your boy hit .244 AGAINST ALLSTAR PITCHING.Seems to me,we have a player here who does look like a Hall of Famer against the best pitching,and we sure got another guy tanking in that clutch situation.So,we have 2 more clutch awards to give out.The 74 and 78 Allstar MVP Awards go to the CLUTCH HITTER STEVE GARVEY.IN '78,GARVEY was 2nd in NL MVP VOTING.IN 74 HE WAS THE LEAGUE MVP.IN 78, HE WAS THE 2ND BEST PLAYER IN THE LEAGUE. YOUR WRONG...FACTS SHOW HE WAS CLUTCH.

How the hell is Ryne Sandberg in the Hall of Fame?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi...i?n1=sandbry01

Aside from being the worst clutch hitter in the HoF, I never, not once, saw him dive for a ball. No wonder his wife left him for Dave Martinez.

Well, Margot Adams or whatever her name was claimed Garvey was much, much better at certain things than Wade Boggs was (alledgedly). Does that improve his HOF status?? Garvey HOF??? I guess I could claim George Hendrick is a hall of famer as well.

No,it hurt his HOF status.The more I look at it,the more obscene it is that Tony Perez got in.

I agree with that. I don't think Perez is hall of fame material, him and Garvey are similar so I guess viewing it that way Garvey deserves it...but to me Perez doesn't belong there so Garvey doesn't either. I think Jim Rice was far better than either of them. They were similar in that both players declined pretty substantially after their 30th birthday or very shortly thereafter.

This may be the first lucid thing you have said in this thread. I totally agree with you.

No,Garvey and Tony Perez aren't similar.Garvey has a League MVP award.Perez has none.Garvey started in the Allstar Game 9 times.Perez started just once.Garvey hit .338 in the post season(55 games.)Perez hit .238 in the post season(47 games.)Garvey hit .393 in Allstar games.Perez hit 0.125 in AllSTAR GAMES.Garvey has 2 Allstar Game MVP Awards.Perez has 1 of them(his only Allstar hit was a HR IN THE 15TH INNING that won the game.his 1 other at bat in the game was a strike out.)The game ended 2-1..They had to give it to somebody.Garvey's career batting average is .294,and Perez' is .279.Garvey has 2 NLCS MVP awards.Perez has zero.One of them is in the Hall, and the other isn't.No,they are not similar.Look at his yearly accomplishments:The only thing Perez ever led the league in is Double plays that he grounded intp.Garvey twice led the league in hits.6 years Garvey led the league in games played.He was 2nd in games played in 2 other years.Perez didn't accomplish anything other than that Allstar game MVP(WHICH HE GOT WITH 1 HIT.) I haven't a clue why he is in the HOF.IT'S PATHETIC.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/perezto01.shtml

You're being selective with your stats. Perez had much more power (over 100 more HRs than Garvey and a better OBP (15 points higher which far outweighs Garvey's 15 point higher BA...higher slugging PCT as well.)) I could care less about All Star game accomplishments. Garvey did a couple things better than Perez...and Perez did a few things better than Garvey. I stand by my statement that they were similar players whose overall accomplishments were similar. I don't think either one is a hall of famer. Both played on the two best teams in the NL in the 70s...Reds and Dodgers. Both played in 5 World Series' with two teams. Perez won 2, Garvey won 1. I mean you can fix their stats however you want to. You mention postseason batting average....but I can just as easily say Perez drove in 11 runs in World Series play nearly doubling Garvey's total of 6. Both were very good players who I think are not hall of fame players.

Good Points.

Got a Grade 1 yet?

This is borderline retarded .Garvey hit .318
in the World Series. Perez hit .242 in the World Series.That's an 76 point difference.Anybody knows Cincy was a powerful offensive team,and the Dodgers were a mainly pitching team.In that situation what would you expect would happen to RBI.I mean ,hell Garvey has 36 World Series Hits versus Perez' 23.They both played in 5 world Series.Dodgers choked in WORLD SERIES in 74,77,78..So not many people to knock in.Garvey hit .356 in the NLCS VERSUS PEREZ' .234.GARVEY HAD 21 RBI VERSUS PEREZ 14.GARVEY HAD 8 NLCS HOME RUNS VERSUS 3 FOR PEREZ.Anybody who played for Cincy in the 70's is gunna get a huge RBI bias in stats.Garvey had 32 nlcs hits versus 18 for Perez.Garvey hit 76 points better than him in the World series,and Garvey hit 122 points better THAN HIM in batting average in the NLCS.THEY AREN'T CLOSE. PEREZ DOESN'T EVEN QUALIFY (MINIMUM 100)IN THE HOF monitor.He has a 81 VERSUS GARVEY'S 130.5.YEAH THAT'S REAL CLOSE YOU HALF ******.That's not name calling.Anybody can observe it's half retarded to write what you did.

Scuds (off topic) as a yankee fan my first memories are the 78 world series when Nettles stole game 3 from the dodgers then jackson beat you with his a** not his bat in game 4 , i think jim beattie won game 5 and catfish wrapped it up a chavez revine

Perez and Garvey had similar careers. I will repeat myself. Perez had much more power. He had an OBP 15 points higher in his career than Garvey. I consider OBP a more imoprtant stat than batting average. Perez had a higher career slugging percentage. HOF voters are more interested in regular season stats than postseason otherwise Don Larsen and Brian Doyle would be in the HOF. All I said was I don't think tony Perez belongs in the HOF. I don't think Garvey belongs in the HOF either.

Please do not use the word retarded to describe my posts on this subject. I am sure many if not most baseball fans would agree with me that Steve Garvey is not HOF material and many would agree that Tony Perez is aobut on a par with Steve Garvey as a player. In fact, many would consider him better and some (mostly LA fans) would go with Garvey which is fine. If I were picking a team I would choose the first baseman that got on base more, hit more home runs and slugged for a higher percentage over the higher average, less power 1st baseman. Personally, I would say Tony Perez is a better player than Steve Garvey. And I have stated from the beginning that I do not think Perez is deserving of the HOF either.

Take your medication yet?

Well,you're just one of many that don't like Garvey,but to compare him to that piece of crap Perez is low. I'M never gunna let your forget it,either.Garvey has a league MVP,and you don't.You never got beyond 3rd in the voting.Garvey came 2nd in the voting in'78 also.You're not matching up with Garvey.You don't have the numbers.Garvey getting in to the HOF is probably not gunna happen,but he was a whole lot better than Tony Perez was.Well,**** man why don't you answer me why Garvey was starting 1st base in ALLSTAR GAMES in front of Perez? Perez was playing atleast 130 games per year '74 through '79.If he was better,or of equal ability, why didn't he start in the ALLSTAR GAME IN FRONT OF GARVEY? YOUR 1ST BASEMAN NEVER F'N EVER DID(AND NEVER WILL)START AS AN ALLSTAR 1ST BASEMAN.Garvey was a starting allstar 1st baseman 9 times.Even if you go to the "he didn't deserve it" card,and say he only deserved to start in half of those years,where is Perez to match that?Played same position,Garvey got voted in 9 times to start at 1st base.****** like you gunna tell me Perez was his match? Damn idiot.

The guy who needs meds is the guy who said a 1st baseman (who never started at 1st base in an ALLSTAR game) is somehow better than a 1st baseman who started at 1st base in Allstar games.....9 times.That is simply an idiot.

Tony Perez' best years were 1967 through 1973. Garvey didn't even start full time until 1973. Of course Perez never started an all star game ahead of Garvey. Perez was well past his prime when Garvey was in his. Perez had years that Garvey never came close to matching before Garvey was even playing. 1969 and 1970 were Perez' best years...Garvey could only dream of having years that big. I said I think they were similar players with similar careers. I actually think Perez was a better player overall. I honestly don't think Perez was his match. I think Perez was an overall better offensive player during his career. I don't care who their teammates were. Perez was better at OBP, slugging, OPS. I'll take that player any day. Stop being so clownish about this. Perez was 32 in 1974...Garvey was 25. So Garvey was better from 25 to 30 than Perez was from 33-38...cool analysis there scuds. That has tons of meaning. But that in essence is why Garvey was starting all star games ahead of Perez...he was basically 7 years younger than Perez.

I appreciate your love of the Dodgers and your support of Garvey. He was still not a better player than Perez at all. He made more contact and hit for a higher average. Those were the only two aspect of offense where Garvey surpassed Perez. Perez was better at everything else. Defense at first base?? Not a big deal in my opinion. Perez did start an all star game at 3rd base...something Garvey never did!!

So I guess I agree with you. If you eliminate 1965 through 1973 from Tony Perez' career, yes, Steve Garvey was indeed a better player. And if you eliminate 1919 through 1930, Garvey was better than Babe Ruth as well. And if you eliminate 1946-1958 he was better than Ted Williams. And if you eliminate 1960-1969 he was better than Hank Aaron. I like this game. At some point I think we can simply call Steve Garvey the best that ever played the game.

I'm just stopping in long enough to let you know you're writing for everybody else,cuz I am not writing back n' forth about Garvey versus Perez.You're an idiot to think Perez is equal or better.If Perez had atleast 6 chances to beat him out for Allstar 1st baseman(and couldn't,) then shut the f up.

Settle down. Those were the days when players were past their prime not long after 30. Garvey never hit .300 again after age 31. His game declined sharply after that point as Perez did after that age. For you to tell me why wasn't a man 7 years older than Garvey in his prime beating him out to start all star games borders on craziness. All star game starts is something I don't even consider when judging players. And Perez was a much better player from 32 to 38 than Garvey was. I prefer Perez at any age over Garvey. And I honestly can't tell you why a 1st baseman who slugged .373, had an OBP of
.307 and hit under 10 home runs was starting an all star game I simply cannot tell you. So 1984 alone should tell you what all star starts mean.

So if you want to tell me a 1st baseman with a .670 OPS, 8 home runs and a
.284 average and 24 walks in 617 at bats is an all star starter which means he is a better player than Tony Perez continue on with full force is all I can say. Of course he also got an all star start in 1985 when his OPS was all the way up to .779 and he OBP was way up to .318 and 35 walks in 654 at bats.

So I'm sorry I'm not impressed with all those all star starts by Garvey. You keep on keeping on though.