Back to Boards

Jimmy Kimmel- on Steve Garvey

Jimmy Kimmel- on Steve Garvey

“Before I begin the annual tirade that my friends are now very sick of hearing, I should admit that — like all sports fans — I’m biased. My favorite sport is baseball and my favorite athlete, hands-down, is Steve Garvey…

…Hindsight is cold. We have computers now that “re-value” baseball players of the past. They travel back in time with new and frequently nonsensical formulas designed to quantify greatness — or, more often, to make a case against it… These are the “facts” pointed to most often when Garvey’s Hall of Fame qualifications are discussed: Random, machine-generated equations. His on-base percentage wasn’t good enough. His OPS (whatever that is) doesn’t compare to some of the other guys…

…The reason Steve Garvey isn’t in the Hall of Fame has little to do with baseball. It’s because he couldn’t live up to the “perfect” status we assigned him. The paternity suits — which seem quaint by today’s standards — made him a national punch line. The same writers who created his All-American image now punish him for embracing it. Of course, if he had been using steroids and human growth hormones during his playing career, everyone would have looked the other way. You can be super-human; you just can’t be human.”

— Jimmy Kimmel (on’s Page 2) (May 1, 2004)


Re: Jimmy Kimmel- on Steve Garvey

Too bad Jimmy Kimmel is a clueless, liberal Hollywood tool. "OPS, whatever that is.." only one of the most common stats used over the last 20 years. Then again, he's a tool, so...

Bad enough we have to hear them pretend we care about their biased political views or lobbying for gun control while employing armed security, now we have to pretend they know d*ck about baseball?

Steve Garvey was a great defender. A winner. But didn't put up HoF 1B'men numbers. Period.

I don't care who didn't talk to press or how many women they bedded. I look at cold, hard numbers.

Re: Re: Jimmy Kimmel- on Steve Garvey

I don't care if Kimmel is liberal, conservative or communist, he's right about Garvey- he belongs in, period- a dominant performer of his era.

And please, with the cold hard numbers. They are one aspect of a player, an analytical tool and that' s it. Don't agree? Then please remind me how many World Series rings Billy Beane, Mr. Moneyball, has...

Re: Jimmy Kimmel- on Steve Garvey

There's a bunch of Bill Mazeroski's and such already in. Why stop now? The Hall of Pretty Good sure sounds like a place I'd love to visit.

Site real experts. Not a Hollywood clown's take. Thats worth less than a nickel in 10 cent candy store.

Re: Re: Jimmy Kimmel- on Steve Garvey

Uh oh. Jay's off his meds again.

Re: Jimmy Kimmel- on Steve Garvey

I like Nap. I like Steve Garvey. I loathe Jimmy Kimmel.

Re: Re: Jimmy Kimmel- on Steve Garvey

"Clueless liberal Hollywood tool." isn't that what trump was before he ran for president!!!!

Steve Garvey doesn't belong in the HOF. He would have the lowest OBP of a HOF 1st baseman

Garvey does have similar numbers as O. Cepada(1999elcted) and Tony Perez(elected 2000) and Garvey first yr was 1997, I believe but them two don't belong either, a lot of players that are in shouldn't be.

It is gonna be a worthless HOF soon. The new generation of voters that will be voting for HOF, I don't think will take it very seriously

Re: Jimmy Kimmel- on Steve Garvey

The only way I look at the HoF induction standards is simply this: if an entire panel of writers decide to induct a player, whether he was good enough or not, then it's their decision anyway. We can't exactly change it, no use getting out the torches and pitchforks, angry mob style. The only time I would question it is if a player really DOES deserve it, yet gets shunned. But since these players would have to be the best of the best in their eras, it likely wouldn't happen often, if ever.

And frankly, I just ignore pretty much everything Jimmy Kimmel says, and honestly I don't even acknowledge that he even opens his mouth anyway, just not worth the stress of trying to decipher what the heck he's trying to say under all the political bias, and also not worth the time either...

Re: Re: Jimmy Kimmel- on Steve Garvey

Exactly, skooler, the best of the best in their eras- and that's exactly what Garvey was- one of, if not the best player in baseball for a number of years.

But respect for jayslater's views- both on baseball and politics :-)

Re: Jimmy Kimmel- on Steve Garvey

Always amusing when people spout off on analytics.

"All these [bleeping] numbers are sucking the life outta the game! Why, I remember when you could just LOOK at a guy and know he's good!"

Sure you could...until that guy crashed and burned (like Billy Beane himself, during his baseball career) and then the excuses come out: "Stuff happens! He didn't fulfill his potential! My scouting report was accurate, I promise you that, buddy! The dog ate my homework!"

I bet the majority of people who bash "those dang numbers" have never read "Moneyball" or any lengthy book/article/treatise on analytics. If they had, they wouldn't be so quick to condemn the "math geeks."

As for saying Beane has never won a World Series - what about the Red Sox, Giants, Astros, Cubs? They won, and not by "trusting their gut." And you may have heard of Theo Epstein, who did some worthwhile stuff, and who's analytically minded. And these are just the ultimate winners - look at the Rays and their data-driven experiments and how they're still able to compete.

"Billy Beane never won, so a moneyball approach is garbage" is a facile, tired non-argument. Analytics is here to stay; eventually people complaining about it will sound like someone who still grouses over the implementation of the designated hitter rule.

Re: Re: Jimmy Kimmel- on Steve Garvey

My only grouse with the Designated hitter rule is that it isn't standardized in both Leagues, so stupid, it's akin to one League using a different ball than the other.

Re: Jimmy Kimmel- on Steve Garvey

As I've stated before:

Garvey's career wins above replacement (WAR) of 37.7 is way below typical Hall of Fame standards -- it is almost 30 wins less than the average Hall of Fame first baseman. He NEVER, once, slugged .500. He won 4 gold gloves, but had a bad throwning arm. Again, I loved the Garv - he was a clutch hitter and had a great postseason batting record - he deserved to be placed in the LA Dodgers HOF, but not the MLB HOF.

- The Sheik

Re: Re: Jimmy Kimmel- on Steve Garvey

from the article, which is lengthy but well worth a read:

"In a Sporting News poll of 12 National League managers in 1986, Garvey’s name came up 5th in the answer to a question about which players would deserve a Hall of Fame plaque if their careers came to an end right away. He was behind only Pete Rose, Steve Carlton, Mike Schmidt and Nolan Ryan."

Re: Jimmy Kimmel- on Steve Garvey

But lets look at the quantity of HoF or would-be/should-be HoFer's since 1986....

I mean, c'mon just in that time period ('86-present), he's dropped so many rungs down the ladder.

Re: Jimmy Kimmel- on Steve Garvey

My take on the DH rule is either (A) adopt it in both leagues or (B) drop the damn thing altogether. The rule of one league with it and one without is utterly stupid to me. I agree with Sincity on his analogy on using different balls in both leagues being a nearly identical scenario as the DH being used only in one league and not both

Frankly I don't care either way on which rule would be adopted. Just stop the difference between the league, it kinda shows that the leagues have differing ideas on how baseball should be played, which is the opposite of what they really need: a show of unity to counteract the alienation of their fans by poor decision-making

Re: Re: Jimmy Kimmel- on Steve Garvey

I can just see it now- 2027 Hall of Fame Balloting- "oh, no, MIke Trout doesn't belong in the Hall because his FLUMP was only 10.3 index points above the league average, and his Total Base Cumulator reveals that he cost his team a net 2.74 Global Chalk Advancements per season..."

Re: Jimmy Kimmel- on Steve Garvey

It sickens me the way all these talk show host become become experts as soon as someone puts a mic in there hand.
Right away we are suppose to take their opinions as researched fact, and yea, everything on the internet you read is true. Yea Right!
It is just to bad that the players themselves do not have the opportunity to vote and select our HOF players. At least they have a clue.
Some of these writers that are voting on who get in and who doesn't , don't really know the players they are ask to vote on. When these legends were playing, they were still going to Disneyland and playing little league.
All of you guys have touched on all of it. It is just damn discouraging to see the direction it's going.