Discussion about this post

User's avatar
EnzoHernandez11's avatar

During the years of paternity suits, a popular bumper sticker in San Diego read, "STEVE GARVEY IS NOT MY PADRE."

An Impartial Spectator's avatar

Garvey exemplifies a discomfort I have in using modern analytics to judge past careers, for hall of fame purposes.

Let's say you've got a 70-grade center fielder. Everyone tells him, "don't worry about the occasional double, just try to prevent as many singles as you can," so he plays shallow and is one of the absolute best at doing the job he's told to do.

When he retires, someone does an analysis and shows, in fact, the doubles he allowed had a much greater value than singles he prevented and, according to baseruns, this guy was a net negative defensively. His coaches told him which tradeoffs to make, and he excelled; but because his coaches were wrong about the tradeoff, we look back at him as a middling defender. If he'd been told to field the way he would be today, he would have excelled. But they told him to optimize the wrong thing and now he's being punished for optimizing the crap out of it.

Thus, I think is the best Garvey HoF case. Baseball had a set of values and he optimized based on those values enough to earn the 'future hall of famer' moniker. Then, we came up with a different set of values and found him wanting. It feels unfair to change the measure of worth after someone's career is over (at least when it's negative; I'm all for rewarding people who did great things we didn't realize were great at the time).

I think about this at an abstract level; I personally don't care about Garvey.

194 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?