HOF First Time Nominees...cough, cough

[SCUDSBROTHER]

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

[SCUDSBROTHER]

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

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 testiment that you don't have to be a winner to get in the Hall.

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?

[Cannon Shell]

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

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Black-Ink Test
All-Time and Active Leaders

Named so because league leading numbers are traditionally represented with Boldface type. The definition for the test that I'm using here was written up in Bill James's The Politics of Glory, p. 65-67. The essential point is to measure how often a player led the league in a variety of "important" stats. This method penalizes more recent players as they have 14-16 teams per league, while the older players had just 8. To get a point you must lead the league in that category.

Batting Statistics
Four Points for home runs, runs batted in or batting average
Three Points for runs scored, hits or slugging percentage
Two Points for doubles, walks or stolen bases
One Point for games, at bats or triples
Pitching Statistics
Four Points for wins, earned run average or strikeouts
Three Points for innings pitched, win-loss percentage or saves
Two Points for complete games, lowest walks per 9 innings or lowest hits per 9 innings
One Point for appearances, starts or shutouts
Note that Hall of Famers have a wide variety of values for the Black Ink Test, and the method is unforgiving of positional differences, but it is a neat little metric.

Gray-Ink Test
All-Time and Active Leaders

Essentially the same as the Black-Ink above, but it counts appearances in the top ten of the league. For each appearance the values are below. As with the Black Ink, this method penalizes more recent players as they have 14-16 teams per league, while the older players had just 8. To get a point you must be in the top 10 in the league in that category.

Batting Statistics
Four Points for home runs, runs batted in or batting average
Three Points for runs scored, hits or slugging percentage
Two Points for doubles, walks or stolen bases
One Point for games, at bats or triples
Pitching Statistics
Four Points for wins, earned run average or strikeouts
Three Points for innings pitched, win-loss percentage or saves
Two Points for complete games, lowest walks per 9 innings or lowest hits per 9 innings
One Point for appearances, starts or shutouts



Since you wanted to use this group of stats I figured I would show the WHOLE story.

Steve Garvey's Hall Of Fame standards rating is 31, far below the average hall of famers score of 50

Steve Garvey's Grey Ink rating of 142 is slightly less than the average hall of famer's 144

Steve Garveys' Black Ink rating of 12 is far, far below the average hall of famers score of 27

He does not rate out on any of these scales as a Hall of Famer. What other ratings or stats do you want to use?

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)

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The only catagories that Steve Garvey ever led the NL in were hits 2 times, games played 6 times, sac flies 1 time and Grounded into Double Plays 2 times. Sound like a Hall of Famer to you?

Sounds like winning back to back G1 BC Turf Sprints.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

"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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

"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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Sounds like winning back to back G1 BC Turf Sprints.

2 year old turf sprints

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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

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?

[SCUDSBROTHER]

"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.)

[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

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?

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

"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.)

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

[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.