Sunday, January 02, 2005 |
Pickoff Moves
Garvey, HOF, Not
Much as I love the Garv, I have to admit I find David Marasco's arguments against Garvey's inclusion in Cooperstown compelling. Bill James also used Garvey in his 1980 Baseball Abstract as an archetype of an overrated player. Yet, we still see lobbyists for his inclusion in the Hall of Fame. Inevitably, such discussions leave out his low OBP, as well as the fact that his counting stats essentially defined him. Even though the Jamesian Hall of Fame tracker says he belongs in Cooperstown, I still have my doubts. I'm not saying he wasn't a very good player -- certainly, he was one of my favorites when I was a kid -- but he's nowhere near the quality of some of the other greats at first base. The BTF Primer discussion even has Rich Lederer chiming in with this dig:Steve Garvey was perceived to be a much better player when he was playing (especially during the 1970s) than after he retired. He has been hurt by the advent of sabermetrics perhaps more than any other player in the game's history.But all that said, I'd still rather have him in the broadcast booth than any of the other dorks that McCourt has brought in since ejecting Ross Porter.Garvey was a good player (as evidenced by his OPS+ numbers of 120 or better every year from 1974-1980), but he wasn't a great player (career high of 137) despite his six 200-hit seasons, MVP, Gold Gloves, World Series and All-Star game success, etc. He was overrated during his playing days and is probably being more fairly evaluated today as a player who fell short of being a Hall of Famer.
Ratto On Giants' Financial Non-Planning
When planning the Giants' next home, the team apparently didn't consider that prices might rise:It's increasingly clear the Giants planned the new park back in the mid- '90s assuming static or only slowly rising costs, which seems downright crazy given that everything connected with living in the Bay Area has risen in price at an almost Himalayan rate. They seem perpetually surprised by the price of everything, as though they all drove in from Kansas in one U-Haul six weeks ago.This is the flaw of the Giants' ownership plan. The guy with all the say owns less than 20 percent, nobody owns as much as half the team, and there are a lot of 2- and 3-percenters who like their dividend checks on time and always for more than the last one.
This would seem to be fine for a club that sells out pretty much any time it opens the doors and charges full price and then some for everything down to the napkins. But somehow the Giants always plead that they're losing money, that the market is too rich for them, that times are always hard in Paris on the Cove.
And now, the new story is that the ballpark is audibly losing value. Walk by some day, put your ear up against the Willie Mays statue, and listen to it complain about the sciatica.
LAist Baseball Yearenders
A couple articles from LAist here, the first their End of the Year Sports Awards, praising the Angels for picking up Vlad, the Dodgers for finding Finley, Lima for his lungs, but panning Frank for penuriousness ($4M to bring Lima back?). Second, this article wondering why, if Arte wanted an LA team, he didn't just buy the Dodgers in the first place. That's a good question, but the answers are best known to News Corp.
My 23-month-old take on Garvey ... still applies, I think:
http://www.all-baseball.com/dodgerthoughts/archives/011057.html
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.