HOF First Time Nominees...cough, cough

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

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.

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

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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......

[SniperSB23]

Score!

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

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Score!

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

That is great!

[Cannon Shell]

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.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

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.