STEVE GARVEY

(Note: Ken Haag wrote most of this article in 1993, Garvey's first year of eligibility for the Hall of Fame, just after the votes had been tallied.)

This guy is as true an enigma as ever donned a wristband.

First, he and wife Cyndy were a featured dream couple in "Inside Sports," where she publicly stated that he bored her to death.

As Steve's career kept a steady upward climb as an all-time Dodger, post-season stats were further illuminating his career. He played on five pennant winners, set an NLCS record with 8 homers and 24 RBIs, and was MVP of both the 1978 and 1984 NLCS. His fielding at first base was always outstanding. He led the league in fielding percentage five times and won four Gold Gloves. Not bad for a guy who came to the majors as a third baseman with a suspect arm.

The handsome Garvey (known sarcastically as "Mr. Perfect") was to many people too good to be true. He could play the game. He hit well. But he lacked a certain charisma that fueled excitement. He didn't stir the drink like Reggie did. He was boringly good.

When the stats were all in, Garvey had racked up Hall of Fame numbers. Still, if you ever chose him over any other all-time first baseman, people would look at you and say, "Garvey?"

After his playing days were over he starred in his own real life soap opera, "from here to paternity," which kind of damaged his Mr. Clean Cut image. His affairs made it into the press. It was reported he promised matrimony and admitted to fathering children out of wedlock. Yes, good 'ol Steve Garvey--apple pie and the flag. The guy who had a junior high named after him while he was still playing, for Pete's sake.

Some dust has settled on all that and someday Cooperstown will beckon.

How does he stack up with Reggie Jackson, who was elected in his first year of eligibility? Garvey batted .294 in 8,835 at bats, while Reggie hit .262 in 9,864 at bats and the later made 142 errors with a very below average .967 fielding average in the outfield. Garvey was without peer at first base, with a .996 fielding average. Garvey hit less than half the homers Reggie did, but he had 2,599 hits in 1,000 fewer at bats. Reggie had 2,584 hits.

Reggie is headed for Cooperstown and Garvey should be as well. Once again, the writers who are of tenure and can vote for HOF candidates didn't do their homework. This has become a power base for these writers who are not voting for a candidate. The Class of '93 is as good an example as you want. Steve Garvey, a first-year candidate, got 41% of the vote. Is this a joke or what? This guy was the anchor of the fabled Dodger infield that also included Cey, Russell and Lopes. In addition to the Gold Gloves, and LCS awards, he also won two All Star game MVPs.

To be snubbed on the ballot like Garvey was by the BBWAA makes no sense. That one World Series game from 1977 aside (Reggie's three homers), you can't make much of a case for Jackson getting 93% to Garvey's 41%.

It took Duke Snider 11 years on the ballot to get elected by many of the same writers. Just for the sake of comparison, Snider's lifetime slugging average is .540 to Reggie's .490. Of course, it is apparent that the voting writers let their biased memories hold forth rather than basing their voting on real stats.

In his big league career, Steve Garvey struck out 1,033 times. Jackson, on the other hand, whiffed more than any other major leaguer--including the post season, an astonishing 2,662 times. This isn't meant as a comparison of the two, rather a real look at just what the writers are voting for.

POST SCRIPT, by James Floto

That first year of eligibility, Garvey ("handsome," Ken? He looks like Alfred E. Neuman with a makeover) finished fifth, behind Reggie, Phil Niekro, Orlando Cepeda, and Tony Perez, all of whom have subsequently made it, although Cepeda and Perez had to be elected by the Veteran's Committee. The fact that they were both primarily first basemen hurts Garvey's chances, as they were roughly contemporary with him, as was Willie McCovey.

Each of the following years, Garvey received between 166 and 196 votes. His best year was 1995, when he got 196, but needed 345. That year, Mike Schmidt was the only one elected by the BBWAA, with 444 votes. Garvey finished behind Schmidt, Niekro, Don Sutton and Perez. By '99, he was finishing after Ron Santo, Jim Rice and Gary Carter, so his stock is obviously dropping. Should he ever make it, it will likely be by the "backdoor method," the Veteran's Committee.

I had to raise my voice concerning the last Stars In Their Time column. Ken Haag made the case for Steve Garvey's enshrinement in Cooperstown by looking at some of his numbers against Reggie Jackson's. It ended with the line "This isn't a comparison of the two, rather a real look at just what [Hall of Fame] voters are voting for." Well, it certainly looked like a comparison to me. When I read it, a quote from an NBA player in the 80's popped into my mind - "The only way I should be mentioned in the same sentence as Magic and Larry is 'He's no Magic or Larry.'"

Steve Garvey was a good player. He played for many years, but just wasn't at the same level as a Hall of Fame first baseman like Gehrig or Greenberg. He's the exact type of player that SITT was meant to honor - a star, but not an immortal. Reggie Jackson was one of the best players of his era. The author posed the question "How do Garvey and Reggie Jackson stackup?" Let's look at his arguments.

"Garvey batted .294 lifetime in 8,835 at bats, while Reggie hit .262 in 9,864 at bats..." Batting average is a good statistic for evaluating talent, but it doesn't tell the whole story. You have to look at on base percentage (OBP) and slugging average (SLG) to know if a player can get draw a walk or hit for power. I'm not knocking batting average, I'm just saying that there are better measures. The powers that be could simply post number of hits on the scoreboard when a player comes to bat. It would be information, but it would be limited. You would assume a person who has more hits is better, but batting average tells you so much more. It is the same way with batting average and OBP and SLG. Batting average gives you a bit, but the other stats give you more.

So how do the players stack up? Reggie had an OBP of .358 and Garvey came in at .333. Only in 1 year of a 19 year career did Garvey's season OBP exceed Reggie's career OBP. That was the year that Garvey had 50 walks, his career high. Reggie drew walks like crazy. While he only lead the league once in that category, for most of his career he could be counted on for 80 to 100 walks. What do walks tell you about a hitter? People who get many walks either have good batting eyes or are respected for their power. While a walk might not always be as good as a hit, it is always better than an out. While the Garv may have had a better batting average, he was more likely to make an out when he came to the plate.

This takes us to slugging, where you would obviously suspect Reggie to be better. Reggie lead the league in this category three times and ended up with a career SLG of .490. Garvey finished up at .446, and only beat out Reggie's career SLG three times. But Reggie slugged above .500 ten times, a feat that Garvey could never boast.

OBP and SLG are often added together to give a rough idea of how valuable a player is. Some people like to subtract out batting average twice. The so-called "hidden average" tells you how much batting average underrates a player (ie, a player who never walked and had nothing but singles would have a hidden average of 0). Garvey ended up with a hidden average of .485, Reggie with a hidden average of .586. Sure, Garvey ended up with a higher batting average, but since Reggie drew more walks and hit for more power, this is badly misleading.

"...[Reggie] made 142 error with a very below fielding average in the outfield. Garvey fielded .994 over all, but strictly as a first baseman he was without peer(.996)" True enough, Reggie wasn't known for his glove. That's why they made him a DH. But Garvey's fielding prowess is once again a case of misleading statistics. Suppose I hit ten baseballs to first. If Garvey gets to seven of them and makes no errors, then he has a fielding percentage of 1.000. But if another first baseman gets to all ten but boots one, then his fielding percentage would be .900. Who is the better defensive first baseman? The one that got nine outs rather than seven. A player with good hands but no range could have a very high fielding percentage but be a very poor defensive player. Total Baseball has a statistic known as fielding runs, which tries to measure defense in terms of range. They look at how many balls the player got to, and then tries to convert this into runs. This system isn't fine tuned, I'd say that any given year it is probably only good to plus or minus five runs, but it can give an idea of how good a player is with the glove. Outside of a couple of very bad years, Reggie tended to give his team positive runs with his glove. He ended his career with 8 fielding runs. Turn the page to Garvey. Early in his career (when he played third) he got his team some fielding runs. But when he moved over to first he fell through the basement floor. Many years of double-digit negative fielding runs. Garvey ended his career with NEGATIVE 78 fielding runs. Could it be that Garvey was below average and Reggie was decent?

"Garvey hit less than half the homers Reggie did, but he had 2,599 hits in 100 fewer at bats. Reggie had 2,584 hits." Name the baseball players who have hit more homers than Reggie: Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Frank Robinson, Harmon Killebrew. That's it [editor's note - That was it when the article was written, you can now add McGwire and Bonds]. Only five men have hit more homers than Reggie, simply brushing that fact aside just doesn't seem right. How many top-ten lists is Steve Garvey on? Yes, Garvey had more hits in fewer at bats, but who had more total bases? We've already gone over how just looking at generic hits isn't fair because it ignores walks and power.

Judging these two player with poor tools, batting average and fielding average, makes this two players look like they are on the same playing field. When you take a closer look they aren't even close. To close, Total Baseball has another pseudo-stat called "Total Player Rating" which estimates how many wins the player gave his team. Once again, I don't view it as being exact, but it can give you an idea of a player's value. Garvey had a couple of years where he was worth a win or two, but dipped into the negative several times and was generally around plus or minus one win. He finished his career with a net of negative five wins. Reggie was almost always worth three to five wins and had few negative seasons. Reggie one year had 6.6 wins whereas Garvey's high was 1.6 wins. Reggie finished his career with forty three wins. Reggie belongs in the Hall, Garvey belongs in SITT.