Skip to content

Freddy Galvis’ 50-game suspension ends, but he’s still hurt

Aug 17, 2012, 11:19 AM EDT

freddy galvis getty Getty Images

Freddy Galvis‘ 50-game suspension for a positive performance enhancing drug test came to an end yesterday, but even after sitting out two months the Phillies infielder remains sidelined by a fractured back.

Galvis went from suspended to being transferred to the 15-day disabled list and Todd Zolecki of MLB.com reports that “it’s doubtful Galvis plays before the end of the season.”

Galvis is expected to play winter ball in Venezuela, which will help make up for being limited to 58 games for the Phillies as a 22-year-old rookie. He hit just .226 with three homers and a .617 OPS, but did look good defensively playing primarily second base in place of an injured Chase Utley.

  1. heyblueyoustink - Aug 17, 2012 at 11:57 AM

    He should have gotten with Melky’s dealer, better stuff apparently, blue sky quality.

  2. Francisco (FC) - Aug 17, 2012 at 12:07 PM

    I am amused at how Melky’s PED suspension and his performance is hailed as positive proof at how dramatic PEDs change the game and when you get guys like Galvis suspended for PEDs with his AWFUL production somehow this just flys under the radar (guess he got bad stuff).

    • phillyphreak - Aug 17, 2012 at 12:08 PM

      Even better is that Melky isn’t even hitting for power- the thing that PEDs are always cited as helping the most.

  3. drunkenhooliganism - Aug 17, 2012 at 12:16 PM

    His OPS is not good, but it’s about double Michael Martinez.

    Martinez’s sole purpose on the roster is to make Jimmy Rollins a fan favorite.

  4. phillyphan83 - Aug 17, 2012 at 1:54 PM

    they took different stuff you geniuses. plus, if you or I take some steroids or testosterone, its not gonna make us an MLB all-star. you have to have an already good all-around skill set to reach that level. I’m sorry but no amount or type of PEDs is gonna make Freddy Galvis an all-star. I swear, NBC needs to start making people pass an IQ test in order to make a profile.

    • Francisco (FC) - Aug 17, 2012 at 3:43 PM

      The point you seem to be missing is that steroids are not popeye’s spinach. We have little concrete data on exactly how much these drugs can improve a player’s game, in what areas, and in what quantity. Yet we already have stupid suggestions that call for docking the Giants a number of wins based on Melky’s WAR rating when we have no reliable way to quantify the effect of steroids on his stats. After Freddy was suspended I didn’t hear anybody saying the Phillies should be charged an extra number of fielding errors because of Galvis’s positive test.

      • delawarephilliesfan - Aug 17, 2012 at 3:54 PM

        Well, you haven’t followed this case closely then, or Galvis’ career closely. And in fairness, there wouldn’t be much reason to.

        To the notion that PED’s didn’t help Galvis, we shall see, but the general consensus is that yes, they did help him. The line on Galvis was that he had no power – think Juan Pierre with no ability to bunt, and no speed. Even with Utley out, the feelign was that Galvis would still start the season in the minros. All of a sudden he comes to spring traning and is hitting frozen ropes. Trust me, Galvis was different this year.

        I have not advocated any WAR adjustments for Melky, so I am not going into that. But IMO, Melky and Galvis both benefited from PED’s

      • Francisco (FC) - Aug 17, 2012 at 4:18 PM

        I’m not saying it didn’t help him and in fact there’s a bunch of other buzz behind that story. It just didn’t generate the kind of advantage most people make a fuss about when discussing the effects of PEDs (Homeruns, Average, etc).

        I just find it interesting how everyone is in an uproar over Melky but not a peep on Galvis. Because let’s face it, if you apply some kind of extra punishment on one player it has to apply for everybody. So whatever you come up with has to make sense for everybody not just for Melky.

      • Francisco (FC) - Aug 17, 2012 at 4:24 PM

        But IMO, Melky and Galvis both benefited from PED’s

        I’m pretty sure they did, I’m only pointing out that we have no reliable way to determine how much specifically they have benefitted and the numbers on which stats improved (i.e. how many pts on average, on how many extra hits, extra HR, extra SBs, less # of erros, etc), all we have is a general vague: yeah they benefitted, look at the average, or look at the line drive %. etc. So we have a sense of an effect but no way to take a tape measure to it. Yet we already had some people making up this bad idea of using a stat like WAR (Which has its own problems) to attempt to quantify the punishment.

        You can’t quantify the punishment when you have no reliable way of quantifying the effect with precision.

      • delawarephilliesfan - Aug 17, 2012 at 4:30 PM

        The reason you don’t hear a peep about Freddy Galvis is because…..he is Freddy Galvis!

        I am sure if you pinned down the “WAR/Melky” people, they would agree that the Phillies should get the same punishment. But if you are accusing those people of inconsistency – consider this: Galvis WAR is 0.3. Using the same punishment people advocate for Melky, the Phillies would forfeit……zero wins.

        Again, I do not agree with the “Take 4 wins from the Giants”, but you are not looking at this logically. No one is talking about Galvis because no one knows who he is!

    • smoothaswilkes - Aug 17, 2012 at 3:51 PM

      The thing about those IQ tests is there is always a pretentious, know-it-all, thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room, sanctimonious d-bag that always wants with a new test. Then again, I wouldn’t have to see your drivel anymore.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Patience finally paying off for Royals fans
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. R. Castillo (2853)
  2. D. Ortiz (2149)
  3. J. Hamilton (2095)
  4. N. Arenado (2091)
  5. C. Kershaw (2066)
  1. G. Stanton (2034)
  2. A. Rizzo (1950)
  3. A. Pujols (1852)
  4. A. Pagan (1785)
  5. H. Ramirez (1716)