MLB Modified: HOF vote

Jeff1787 · 05-10-2012, 01:47 PM

Ned Garvin had 53 points in the HOF monitor that I use for selection. 50 points is the minimum amount needed. Since no real life HOF starting pitcher has made the HOF with a W-L PCT of under .500; I am putting this up for a vote. Here are Garvin's stats from MLB Modified.

235-239 W-L, 4355 IP, 2.69 ERA, 1812 K's, 1335 BB, 344 CG, 31 SHO

Accomplishments

Cy Young award - 1
Gold Glove - 2
All-star - 3
20 game winner - 1
15+ game winner - 7
200+ IP - 14
Member of 1903 WS winners (STL)

Career leaderboard position

2.69 ERA - 68th
235 wins - 17th
515 GS - 12th
344 CG - 10th
31 SHO - 19th
4355 IP - 12th
1812 K's - 18th

Denny Lemaster · 05-10-2012, 02:14 PM

"Ned Garvin was the tough-luck pitcher of the decade, if not the hard-luck pitcher of all time . . . He was pretty much the tough-luck pitcher of the year every year." - The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract

And the tough-luck continues . . . no from me.

yougo1000 · 05-10-2012, 04:25 PM

I voted yes because even though he had a losing record he still had a pretty good ERA and is in the top 20 for most career wins.

SandMan · 05-10-2012, 05:05 PM

I voted no. It is hard to put a player in who is under .500. Now if he played above his teams w/l record then I might consider him. How was his teams record for the time he pitched?

muted79 · 05-10-2012, 05:49 PM

having designed and tested the spreadsheet I've seen how hard it is for players to get the magical 50 points. I find it hard to vote no for anyone that does get 50 points, so i voted yes.

Jeff1787 · 05-10-2012, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SandMan

I voted no. It is hard to put a player in who is under .500. Now if he played above his teams w/l record then I might consider him. How was his teams record for the time he pitched?

He played 17 seasons and had 8 seasons where he played above his team's W-L %. However, he had three seasons with a W-L % above .500 but his team % was higher. So, he had 11 out of 17 seasons where he either had above .500 or beat his team W-L %.

SandMan · 05-10-2012, 06:49 PM

It is tough to say yes for this guy. I have had only 1 player that was a HOF pitcher that had a losing record and the record was 256-259 so it was close. Garvin was short of the 250 win mark but was a good pitcher for a lot of seasons.

What the hell, let him into your HOF. His positives outweigh the negatives. This was a real tough one. Change my vote to YES.

Jeff1787 · 05-11-2012, 12:53 PM

With a change in one vote the actual count is:

5 yes
8 no

joefromchicago · 05-11-2012, 01:43 PM

It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of the Really Good. Garvin's numbers just aren't that impressive. In fact, for the era in which he was pitching, he was only average or below average for ERA. He may rank high in number of wins right now, but his 235 wins are bound to be surpassed many times over as the years go on. He only won 20 games once at a time when guys in that era were winning 30 games in a season. His one Cy Young Award puts him up there with luminaries such as John Denny and Doug Drabek. He started a bunch of games, but then so did Tommy John and Frank Tanana, and they're not in the Hall. Based on the information presented, this isn't even a close decision for me. I voted "no."

Jeff1787 · 05-11-2012, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of the Really Good. Garvin's numbers just aren't that impressive. In fact, for the era in which he was pitching, he was only average or below average for ERA. He may rank high in number of wins right now, but his 235 wins are bound to be surpassed many times over as the years go on. He only won 20 games once at a time when guys in that era were winning 30 games in a season. His one Cy Young Award puts him up there with luminaries such as John Denny and Doug Drabek. He started a bunch of games, but then so did Tommy John and Frank Tanana, and they're not in the Hall. Based on the information presented, this isn't even a close decision for me. I voted "no."

You make some very good points. Things aren't looking too good for Ned!!

Jeff1787 · 05-13-2012, 02:12 PM

I'm just bumping this up to try and get a few more votes!

View Poll Results: Should Ned Garvin be elected to the Hall of Fame?
Yes	5	29.41%
No	12	70.59%
Voters: 17. You may not vote on this poll

05-10-2012, 01:47 PM	#1
Jeff1787 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: The Doghouse Posts: 3,535	MLB Modified: HOF vote Ned Garvin had 53 points in the HOF monitor that I use for selection. 50 points is the minimum amount needed. Since no real life HOF starting pitcher has made the HOF with a W-L PCT of under .500; I am putting this up for a vote. Here are Garvin's stats from MLB Modified. 235-239 W-L, 4355 IP, 2.69 ERA, 1812 K's, 1335 BB, 344 CG, 31 SHO Accomplishments Cy Young award - 1 Gold Glove - 2 All-star - 3 20 game winner - 1 15+ game winner - 7 200+ IP - 14 Member of 1903 WS winners (STL) Career leaderboard position 2.69 ERA - 68th 235 wins - 17th 515 GS - 12th 344 CG - 10th 31 SHO - 19th 4355 IP - 12th 1812 K's - 18th __________________ 1903: The hatchet is finally buried

05-10-2012, 04:25 PM	#3
yougo1000 All Star Reserve Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 652	I voted yes because even though he had a losing record he still had a pretty good ERA and is in the top 20 for most career wins. __________________ Teams I like: Cubs Bears Bulls Hawks and Kansas JayHawks

05-11-2012, 12:53 PM	#8
Jeff1787 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: The Doghouse Posts: 3,535	With a change in one vote the actual count is: 5 yes 8 no __________________ 1903: The hatchet is finally buried

05-11-2012, 01:43 PM	#9
joefromchicago Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 3,702	It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of the Really Good. Garvin's numbers just aren't that impressive. In fact, for the era in which he was pitching, he was only average or below average for ERA. He may rank high in number of wins right now, but his 235 wins are bound to be surpassed many times over as the years go on. He only won 20 games once at a time when guys in that era were winning 30 games in a season. His one Cy Young Award puts him up there with luminaries such as John Denny and Doug Drabek. He started a bunch of games, but then so did Tommy John and Frank Tanana, and they're not in the Hall. Based on the information presented, this isn't even a close decision for me. I voted "no." __________________ American-Ethnic (and Canadian) Namesets Historical Minor League Schedules 1870s City/Team Nickname Randomizers "It's Usually Sunny in Philadelphia" weather mod Negro League Schedules

05-10-2012, 02:14 PM	#2
Denny Lemaster Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 4,837	"Ned Garvin was the tough-luck pitcher of the decade, if not the hard-luck pitcher of all time . . . He was pretty much the tough-luck pitcher of the year every year." - The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract And the tough-luck continues . . . no from me.

05-10-2012, 05:05 PM	#4
SandMan Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 2,946	I voted no. It is hard to put a player in who is under .500. Now if he played above his teams w/l record then I might consider him. How was his teams record for the time he pitched?

05-10-2012, 05:49 PM	#5
muted79 All Star Reserve Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 890	having designed and tested the spreadsheet I've seen how hard it is for players to get the magical 50 points. I find it hard to vote no for anyone that does get 50 points, so i voted yes.

05-10-2012, 06:49 PM	#7
SandMan Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 2,946	It is tough to say yes for this guy. I have had only 1 player that was a HOF pitcher that had a losing record and the record was 256-259 so it was close. Garvin was short of the 250 win mark but was a good pitcher for a lot of seasons. What the hell, let him into your HOF. His positives outweigh the negatives. This was a real tough one. Change my vote to YES.

05-13-2012, 02:12 PM	#11
Jeff1787 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: The Doghouse Posts: 3,535	I'm just bumping this up to try and get a few more votes! __________________ 1903: The hatchet is finally buried