Can we explain something one more time for Unlce Dino? Does this mean that Steve Garvey is done and can no longer be nominated? Also, if you get 5% or more in your first year does that guarantee 14 more chances or do you have to keep getting 5% or more?
Damn, when I was growing up Garvey was one of my favorite players. But, he really shouldn't get into the HOF. He had quite a number of very good years (you have to look at them in terms of when they happened, not by today's ridiculous numbers). But his lifetime stats aren't that great. Yes, he had 2500+ hits, but nothing else stands out. IF he had hung it up a little earlier, he probably would have had a BA over .300...but he hung on and ended in the 290s.
And Rice's numbers were good. For a while, they were excellent. He also had a number of not so hot years.
Again, lifetime numbers aren't outstanding. The numbers that make him look outstanding are the averages for his career. Near .300 hitter, 30 HR, 113 RBI. Again, in those times, pretty damn good. He certainly was very feared in the 70s.
I am not sure what the Hall stands for anymore. Until recently, most of the guys in there played before my time. Now that I am seeing the guys I grew up with get elected, I'd like to see only the best of the best get in...Was Rice one of the best of the best? Probably not...but that doesn't seem to be what gets all these guys in...
However, you could argue that Ripken's streak was the best. Also, that Gwynn was one of the best pure hitters to ever play. Great choices.
I too am a bit surprised that Garvey never got serious consideration. I agree with the general assessment that he is not a HOFer, but he does have a bunch of things that a lot of the writers tend to focus on - namely a whole bunch of All star appearances, an MVP, gold gloves, a crap load of seasons faring well in the MVP voting, and pretty decent numbers in the postseason.
On the flip side he never really had monster seasons - seasons that you look at and go - good lord. Like Rice in 78. He also had a fairly low OBP (only one season with more than 40 walks) - and with focus these days on that.... and pretty much after the move to SD, he was done. Even adjusting for having played in Dodger stadium, as corner IF he really was not dominant to be a HOF. I mean how much better was he than say, Kevin Millar. I'd say better, but not heads and shoulders above.
As for Rice, I would have to disagree about whether he was one of the best. He was. It was just for too short of a time (to be an overwhelming selection). Some of those numbers were downright scary. From 75 to 82. Frightening. But he tailed off too quickly. Its funny, Kirby Puckett was pretty darn similar to Rice - a better defender making up for being a less powerful hitter. But Kirby was a good guy. And had the WS rings. And he soars in.
And Albert Belle was pretty dominant albeit for a short time. He gets nary a mention.
Disappointing about Rice. Next year. Next year.
ReplyDeleteCan we explain something one more time for Unlce Dino? Does this mean that Steve Garvey is done and can no longer be nominated? Also, if you get 5% or more in your first year does that guarantee 14 more chances or do you have to keep getting 5% or more?
ReplyDeleteYes, Garvey's done (until the veteran's committee considers him); and you need 5% of the votes to be on the ballot the following year.
ReplyDeleteDamn, when I was growing up Garvey was one of my favorite players. But, he really shouldn't get into the HOF. He had quite a number of very good years (you have to look at them in terms of when they happened, not by today's ridiculous numbers). But his lifetime stats aren't that great. Yes, he had 2500+ hits, but nothing else stands out. IF he had hung it up a little earlier, he probably would have had a BA over .300...but he hung on and ended in the 290s.
ReplyDeleteAnd Rice's numbers were good. For a while, they were excellent. He also had a number of not so hot years.
ReplyDeleteAgain, lifetime numbers aren't outstanding. The numbers that make him look outstanding are the averages for his career. Near .300 hitter, 30 HR, 113 RBI. Again, in those times, pretty damn good. He certainly was very feared in the 70s.
I am not sure what the Hall stands for anymore. Until recently, most of the guys in there played before my time. Now that I am seeing the guys I grew up with get elected, I'd like to see only the best of the best get in...Was Rice one of the best of the best? Probably not...but that doesn't seem to be what gets all these guys in...
However, you could argue that Ripken's streak was the best. Also, that Gwynn was one of the best pure hitters to ever play. Great choices.
I too am a bit surprised that Garvey never got serious consideration. I agree with the general assessment that he is not a HOFer, but he does have a bunch of things that a lot of the writers tend to focus on - namely a whole bunch of All star appearances, an MVP, gold gloves, a crap load of seasons faring well in the MVP voting, and pretty decent numbers in the postseason.
ReplyDeleteOn the flip side he never really had monster seasons - seasons that you look at and go - good lord. Like Rice in 78. He also had a fairly low OBP (only one season with more than 40 walks) - and with focus these days on that.... and pretty much after the move to SD, he was done. Even adjusting for having played in Dodger stadium, as corner IF he really was not dominant to be a HOF. I mean how much better was he than say, Kevin Millar. I'd say better, but not heads and shoulders above.
As for Rice, I would have to disagree about whether he was one of the best. He was. It was just for too short of a time (to be an overwhelming selection). Some of those numbers were downright scary. From 75 to 82. Frightening. But he tailed off too quickly. Its funny, Kirby Puckett was pretty darn similar to Rice - a better defender making up for being a less powerful hitter. But Kirby was a good guy. And had the WS rings. And he soars in.
And Albert Belle was pretty dominant albeit for a short time. He gets nary a mention.
It just goes to show you can never tell.