Ron Cey

[flash143817]

Thanks to discussion in another thread, I became curious on what the general opinion is of Ron Cey and whether people believe he was HOF-worthy.

The reason I bring it up is because there is a sizable group that believes Steve Garvey is HOF-worthy, and numbers indicate that Cey was a better player than Garvey.

Now if you look at his traditional stats, Cey would not appear to be HOF worthy. He only has a .261 career BA. But he does have 316 career HR's, a high total for his day. Also, he spent the best years of his career in Dodger Stadium, probably the worst hitter's park of his time (and arguably of all-time). This undoubtedly had a depressing effect on his stats. It is very possible he could have cleared 400 HR's in a better hitter's park.

Cey also had hidden value that wasn't as appreciated at the time because he walked a ton to go along with his good HR power. This led to a career OPS+ of 121. He also cleared 140 3 times and 130 6 times.

Fielding-wise I am not sure what the advanced defensive metrics say, but Cey was well above league average in both fielding percentage and range factor for a 3B.

Granted Cey was extremely slow and has no baserunning value, but he was a 3B so it can be accepted for him. And it led to a great nickname, the Penguin, because of his running form.

By my count, Cey has a higher OPS+ than 4 HOF 3Bmen. There are 5 3Bmen that have a higher OPS+ career than Cey and 2 Negro Leaguers without reliable stats to know whether they do or not. So basically, Cey was a better hitter than about half of the HOF 3Bmen.

Is being a very good hitting 3Bman that is better than half the guys already in at the position in this regard, along with being above average defensively, worthy of HOF enshrinement for Ron Cey?


For the record, Ron Santo is more deserving at the position than Cey and should be in, but I'd like to save that for a separate thread and see how many feel that Cey also should be in the HOF.

[538280]

Cey was certainly better than Garvey, and he is probably HOF worthy, but I would't really advocate him much, because there's a long list of deserving 3Bman who I"d put in first:

Ron Santo
Sal Bando
Heinie Groh
Darrell Evans
Ken Boyer
Graig Nettles
Stan Hack

That is in order of how deserving I think they are. Sal Bando was the same type of player as Cey but clearly better IMO.

[flash143817]

Cey was certainly better than Garvey, and he is probably HOF worthy, but I would't really advocate him much, because there's a long list of deserving 3Bman who I"d put in first:

Ron Santo
Sal Bando
Heinie Groh
Darrell Evans
Ken Boyer
Graig Nettles
Stan Hack

That is in order of how deserving I think they are. Sal Bando was the same type of player as Cey but clearly better IMO.

Santo I agree with was better than Cey and HOF worthy.

Cey was better than Bando in pretty much every offensive measure you wanna look at. I agree that they were very similar types of players but I see it that Cey was definitely better than Bando as a hitter. Unless Bando had a sizeable defensive advantage I'd say Cey is more deserving than Bando.

Groh was arguably better than Cey depending on the measures but I would take Cey due to much better league quality during his time.

Evans was arguably better than Cey. Their careers covered almost the exact same time period although Evans has slightly better longevity than Cey. Two things put Cey ahead of Evans for me. One, Evans' best years came playing in Atlanta and Detroit, two great hitters parks. He suffered massive decline during the middle of his career while he was in San Francisco, traditionally more of a pitcher's park. Cey did his damage playing in a horrible hitter's park in Dodger Stadium. The second reason that makes me wonder is that despite playing more years, Evans only made 2 All Star teams while Cey made 6 All Star teams despite his career overlapping with the greatest 3B ever in Mike Schmidt.

Boyer can be placed ahead of Cey although I think it's close. Cey was a better hitter IMO, but Boyer was possibly the best defensive 3Bman not named Brooks Robinson. This one could go either way IMO.

I'm definitely taking Cey over Nettles. Cey was clearly better as a hitter, whether peak or career. Nettles was better defensively but I don't think it's enough to make up Cey's hitting advantage.

Hack is an interesting one. He is a better hitter than Cey, but I wonder how much of that can be made up by league quality. He had his two best offensive seasons in the early '40s during a war-torn league. Hack is a better OBP man than Cey even though they both walked a ton. Cey clearly had better power. Career OPS+ puts them at 121 for Cey and 119 for Hack. I think with LQ adjustment I can confidently say that Cey was a more valuable hitter even though they are very different as hitters.

So to summarize, I would definitely take Cey over Bando. I would arguably take him over Evans, Nettles, Hack, Groh, and Boyer, although I could possibly be swayed for any of those guys.

And as stated earlier, I would clearly take Santo over Cey.

[baseballPAP]

Nice arguments.....
Of course, I don't agree with all of them, but thats just me. I would DEFINATELY take Cey before Garvey, but I don't really see myslef voting for either. Of the 3Bmen Chris mentioned, I'd vote for Santo, and I MIGHT vote for Bando, Evans, Boyer and Groh...and Nettles if the spirit moved me. They are all a less than 50/50 bet for me right now I would say, and I have Cey ranked below all of them, plus a few more (Buddy Bell, Al Rosen, Matt Williams).

To put it another way, although I think the 70s will end up under-represented, if Cey gets in I think he'd be one of the worst 25 or so inductees.

[jalbright]

He's a borderline type case, and one could argue that playing so much in Dodger Stadium makes him appear weaker than he should. OTOH, he hit about as well in his home splits over his career as his road splits, though you could counter with the idea most players hit better at home. He was a6 time all-star, which is a reasonable HOF marker, put poorly in HOF terms in MVP voting, so that's a negative. No black ink in his career is a small negative as well, and finishing 289th in career gray ink among batters isn't a positive, and I'm not sure I buy that the ballpark kept him from HOF territory in that measure. His HOF standards score is weak as well, with over 300 hitters ahead of him. In win shares, he's right on the edge of HOF territory on a career level, 17th among 3B and about 5 shy of where I usually would put the cutoff among all players. His best five consecutive seasons in win shares is a tad below where I'd like to see it at 19th among 3B listed in the latest Bill James Historical Abstract. His top three seasons in win shares is a negative in that he's 34th among 3B listed in the BJHA. In my book, he just misses by virtue of no big positives, several borderline qualifications, and several negative qualifications. That puts him a heck of a lot closer than Garvey in my book.

Jim Albright

[KCGHOST]

I like Cey better than Garvey, but don't think either has a strong case. Good players, but not special. Dodger Stadium does depress hitting, but it wasn't as bad as the Astrodome.

Cey wasn't near as good as Evans and is on par with Matlock and Harrah. Garvey trails so many contemporary non-HoF 1B's (Hrbek, Cooper, Watson, Alvin Davis, etc.) in productivity that no amount of "Dodger Stadium" legerdemain can advance his candidacy.

[Bench 5]

With the two recent posts asking about Cey and Garvey for HOF that highlights an interesting point. None of the Dodgers from the great teams of the 70s and early 80s made it to the HOF with the exception of Don Sutton. Here's a team that from the period 1974-1982 won 1 World Series, played in 3others, along with 4 second place finishes and a 3rd. The Big Red Machine has several HOF'ers and they were the main competition in the NL West back then. The other great teams of the time have some multiple HOF'ers as well such as the Phillies and Yankees. I am not arguing that Cey, Garvey, Lopes etc should be in the HOF but it strikes me as interesting.

[jalbright]

With the two recent posts asking about Cey and Garvey for HOF that highlights an interesting point. None of the Dodgers from the great teams of the 70s and early 80s made it to the HOF with the exception of Don Sutton. Here's a team that from the period 1974-1982 won 1 World Series, played in 3others, along with 4 second place finishes and a 3rd. The Big Red Machine has several HOF'ers and they were the main competition in the NL West back then. The other great teams of the time have some multiple HOF'ers as well such as the Phillies and Yankees. I am not arguing that Cey, Garvey, Lopes etc should be in the HOF but it strikes me as interesting.

They didn't have the usual number of HOFers, but they had a good collection of guys one step below that. Also, my recollection is those Dodger teams didn't have any real holes either. The Phils, for instance, often had trouble behind the #2 starter, and won their series in 1980 because they got some help in that part of the rotation (along with stellar years from Carlton, Schmidt and McGraw).

Jim Albright

[CoasttoCoast]

Ron Cey was a great All-Star level third sacker for much of his career but he does not deserve the Hall of Fame.The Hall has yet to admit Ron Santo so Cey's hopes while he is alive are very slim.

As for people chatting about Steve Garvey I would want Will Clark in first.

[538280]

Santo I agree with was better than Cey and HOF worthy.

Cey was better than Bando in pretty much every offensive measure you wanna look at. I agree that they were very similar types of players but I see it that Cey was definitely better than Bando as a hitter. Unless Bando had a sizeable defensive advantage I'd say Cey is more deserving than Bando.

I made a very lengthy post on that subject a while ago:

thought it would be fun to take a look at and compare two very similar players who get very little press even here at BBF and are always underrated and overlooked.

Ron Cey and Sal Bando were close to contemporary third baseman. Bando was a few years older and thus got his start in the mid 1960s while Cey didn't reach the majors until 1971. They were extremely similar players. Neither were high average hitters at all, with BAs of .254 for BAndo and .261 for Cey, but they walked a lot and hit for good power and thus had secondary averages of .325 (Cey) and .305 (Bando). Both could hold their own at third, but weren't great fielders by any stretch. Most of their value came in the batter's box. They were both key members of great teams and probably didn't receive enough credit for what they did for those teams. Both played in pitcher's parks. Both were very good college players for Pac 10 schools. Really, the more I think about it it's unbelieveable how similar their characteristics were. Here are their career totals:

            playerID	nameLast 	nameFirst	StartYr	EndYr	G	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	CS	BB	SO	IBB	HBP	SH	SF	GIDP	AVG	OBP	SLG
ceyro01	Cey	Ron	1971	1987	2073	7162	977	1868	328	21	316	1139	24	29	1012	1235	117	62	26	82	185	.261	.354	.445

         playerID	nameLast	      nameFirst	StartYr	EndYr	G	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	CS	BB	SO	IBB	HBP	SH	SF	GIDP	AVG	OBP	SLG
bandosa01	Bando	Sal	1966	1981	2019	7060	982	1790	289	38	242	1039	75	46	1031	923	69	75	65	57	149	.254	.352	.408

Looking at those numbers, it would appear they are very similar and that Cey deserves to rate slightly ahead. But, I have Bando in my top 100 players (#79) and rated as the 8th best third baseman in history. I do rate Cey higher than most at #15 all time at third, but still far behind Sal.

How can such similar players be that far apart? There are many reasons:

1.Although they ended up with about the same career totals, Bando was better at his best. His top 3 Win Share seasons were 36, 31, and 29 while Cey's were 28, 27, and 27. Bando in 1969 had a monster season, batting .281 when the league average was .250 along with 111 walks which was good for third in the league, and with 31 home runs and 113 RBI his power wasn't hurting either. Plus, he was playing in a low run scoring environment, with the league OPS at 688, and in pitcher's park with a park factor of 96. He had 36 Win Shares that season. Cey had all those same skills and certainly did all those things in different seasons, but he never put it all together in one year for a season like that. Bando in 1973 when he led the league total bases, extra base hits, and doubles and led his team to a World Series title was also better than Cey ever was. Overall, Bando had a much better peak.

2.Bando was one of the greatest intangible players of all time. He was the leader of the Oakland A's who won three straight championships 1972-1974 and helped to keep the team together during some of their famed brawls. Reggie Jackson in his autobiography talks at some length about how great Bando was for the team and how he kept everyone focused on their goals-winning the World Series. The line you'll find everywhere about him is "the glue who held the A's together". Cey, from what I've read, was a very good man who like all the other Dodgers was active in the community, but there's little evidence that he had value on the standings outside of his stats like Bando.

3.Bando did much better in MVP voting. He finished second in the vote in 1971 behind only his teammate Vida Blue, meaning that MVP voters regarded him as the best position player in the AL that year. He also finished 3rd in the vote in 1974 and 4th in 1973. He ended his career 155th all time in BBRef's "MVP shares". Cey only finished top 10 once in the vote (8th in 1977) and is 634th all time in MVP shares.

4.Cey was a very slow baserunner, and was nicknamed "The Penguin" because of his waddling running style. Bando was hardly a gazelle, but he was a smart baserunner who could steal bases when needed.

5.The numbers above are unfair to Bando somewhat because he came along later and played a few years in the pitching rich 1960s. Cey came along later and thus stuck around until the home run explosion of 1987 and the late 80s, and never played in the 1960s. Bando's raw BA, OBP, and SLG are worse than Cey's, but their relative stats are about the same. Bando's relative line was 100/110/109 while Cey's was 99/107/114.

Both are very, very underrated, of course. But, Bando I believe has a very good case for the Hall of Fame. Cey not as much, although he was a great player and the best of the famous Dodger infield of the late 70s and early 80s (better than Garvey). I have heard Bando referred to as "a poor man's Ron Cey". He certainly isn't that.

Groh was arguably better than Cey depending on the measures but I would take Cey due to much better league quality during his time.

I can definitely accept that argument, and see the case for Cey over Groh. However, I see Groh being a much better fielder than Cey, and also I think it is important to remember that Groh was playing when the expected 3B offense was much lower.

Evans was arguably better than Cey. Their careers covered almost the exact same time period although Evans has slightly better longevity than Cey. Two things put Cey ahead of Evans for me. One, Evans' best years came playing in Atlanta and Detroit, two great hitters parks. He suffered massive decline during the middle of his career while he was in San Francisco, traditionally more of a pitcher's park. Cey did his damage playing in a horrible hitter's park in Dodger Stadium. The second reason that makes me wonder is that despite playing more years, Evans only made 2 All Star teams while Cey made 6 All Star teams despite his career overlapping with the greatest 3B ever in Mike Schmidt.

Evans rates ahead of Cey for me solely on longevity and career value. Evans also had a few big seasons at the top like 1973, and he was a better defensive 3Bman. I wouldn't say Evans has "slightly" more longevity than Cey. He has about 600 more games played. That's a real significant chunk. He also has about 80 more career WS.

Boyer can be placed ahead of Cey although I think it's close. Cey was a better hitter IMO, but Boyer was possibly the best defensive 3Bman not named Brooks Robinson. This one could go either way IMO.

I do have Boyer ahead of Cey mostly because of defense, but you really think he was that good on defense? His reputation was more like B+ 3Bman, and the stats have confirmed about that. I had a long debate a while ago on Bando vs. Boyer, I see Bando as the better player.

I'm definitely taking Cey over Nettles. Cey was clearly better as a hitter, whether peak or career. Nettles was better defensively but I don't think it's enough to make up Cey's hitting advantage.

I would agree that per game and for peak Cey was better, but Cey also has a lot of longevity to make up. Nettles would be more on the Brooks Robinson fielding level too. Either way it's close.

Hack is an interesting one. He is a better hitter than Cey, but I wonder how much of that can be made up by league quality. He had his two best offensive seasons in the early '40s during a war-torn league. Hack is a better OBP man than Cey even though they both walked a ton. Cey clearly had better power. Career OPS+ puts them at 121 for Cey and 119 for Hack. I think with LQ adjustment I can confidently say that Cey was a more valuable hitter even though they are very different as hitters.

I don't really think Cey was a more valuable hitter. Hack played right at the time the defensive spectrum was shifting, and 3B was still a defensive position. I think you need to take that into account.

[flash143817]

I made a very lengthy post on that subject a while ago:

thought it would be fun to take a look at and compare two very similar players who get very little press even here at BBF and are always underrated and overlooked.

Ron Cey and Sal Bando were close to contemporary third baseman. Bando was a few years older and thus got his start in the mid 1960s while Cey didn't reach the majors until 1971. They were extremely similar players. Neither were high average hitters at all, with BAs of .254 for BAndo and .261 for Cey, but they walked a lot and hit for good power and thus had secondary averages of .325 (Cey) and .305 (Bando). Both could hold their own at third, but weren't great fielders by any stretch. Most of their value came in the batter's box. They were both key members of great teams and probably didn't receive enough credit for what they did for those teams. Both played in pitcher's parks. Both were very good college players for Pac 10 schools. Really, the more I think about it it's unbelieveable how similar their characteristics were. Here are their career totals:

            playerID	nameLast 	nameFirst	StartYr	EndYr	G	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	CS	BB	SO	IBB	HBP	SH	SF	GIDP	AVG	OBP	SLG
ceyro01	Cey	Ron	1971	1987	2073	7162	977	1868	328	21	316	1139	24	29	1012	1235	117	62	26	82	185	.261	.354	.445

         playerID	nameLast	      nameFirst	StartYr	EndYr	G	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	CS	BB	SO	IBB	HBP	SH	SF	GIDP	AVG	OBP	SLG
bandosa01	Bando	Sal	1966	1981	2019	7060	982	1790	289	38	242	1039	75	46	1031	923	69	75	65	57	149	.254	.352	.408

Looking at those numbers, it would appear they are very similar and that Cey deserves to rate slightly ahead. But, I have Bando in my top 100 players (#79) and rated as the 8th best third baseman in history. I do rate Cey higher than most at #15 all time at third, but still far behind Sal.

How can such similar players be that far apart? There are many reasons:

1.Although they ended up with about the same career totals, Bando was better at his best. His top 3 Win Share seasons were 36, 31, and 29 while Cey's were 28, 27, and 27. Bando in 1969 had a monster season, batting .281 when the league average was .250 along with 111 walks which was good for third in the league, and with 31 home runs and 113 RBI his power wasn't hurting either. Plus, he was playing in a low run scoring environment, with the league OPS at 688, and in pitcher's park with a park factor of 96. He had 36 Win Shares that season. Cey had all those same skills and certainly did all those things in different seasons, but he never put it all together in one year for a season like that. Bando in 1973 when he led the league total bases, extra base hits, and doubles and led his team to a World Series title was also better than Cey ever was. Overall, Bando had a much better peak.

I can buy that Bando had a better peak. I do believe though that Cey was much more consistent throughout his career than Bando however and deserves credit for that.

2.Bando was one of the greatest intangible players of all time. He was the leader of the Oakland A's who won three straight championships 1972-1974 and helped to keep the team together during some of their famed brawls. Reggie Jackson in his autobiography talks at some length about how great Bando was for the team and how he kept everyone focused on their goals-winning the World Series. The line you'll find everywhere about him is "the glue who held the A's together". Cey, from what I've read, was a very good man who like all the other Dodgers was active in the community, but there's little evidence that he had value on the standings outside of his stats like Bando.

I know how you generally feel about contemporary accounts so I'm surprised you would put so much importance into what some people said at the time. I think we can both agree that they were upstanding people that had no negative impact on their respective clubhouses. I also would tend to think that Cey was hurt by the love affair for Garvey here. Everyone assumed Garvey was the All American guy and the super teammate and this deflected any credit from Cey as a teammate.

3.Bando did much better in MVP voting. He finished second in the vote in 1971 behind only his teammate Vida Blue, meaning that MVP voters regarded him as the best position player in the AL that year. He also finished 3rd in the vote in 1974 and 4th in 1973. He ended his career 155th all time in BBRef's "MVP shares". Cey only finished top 10 once in the vote (8th in 1977) and is 634th all time in MVP shares.

Once again I am going to play the Garvey card here. Everyone's misinterpretation of stats made them think Garvey was the best Dodger IFer and that led to him winning the MVP and stealing MVP shares from Cey. Also Cey made 6 All Star teams compared to only 4 for Bando. And this was done competing with Mike Schmidt as the NL 3Bman.

4.Cey was a very slow baserunner, and was nicknamed "The Penguin" because of his waddling running style. Bando was hardly a gazelle, but he was a smart baserunner who could steal bases when needed.

I really don't think either player deserves any baserunning credit. Bando was faster than the Penguin but to me that's like saying that Mike Scoscia was faster than Spanky LaValliere. Bando deserves a slight advantage but it wouldn't be enough to me to break any ties in other areas.

5.The numbers above are unfair to Bando somewhat because he came along later and played a few years in the pitching rich 1960s. Cey came along later and thus stuck around until the home run explosion of 1987 and the late 80s, and never played in the 1960s. Bando's raw BA, OBP, and SLG are worse than Cey's, but their relative stats are about the same. Bando's relative line was 100/110/109 while Cey's was 99/107/114.

Overall those relative numbers look pretty similar. Eerily similar actually with Bando slightly better in relative OBP and Cey slightly better in relative slugging.

Cey's last year was 1987 and he only had about 100 AB's that year. He really didn't gain any benefit from sticking around until that year. For all intents and purposes he was done by 1985 despite sticking around until '87.

Both are very, very underrated, of course. But, Bando I believe has a very good case for the Hall of Fame. Cey not as much, although he was a great player and the best of the famous Dodger infield of the late 70s and early 80s (better than Garvey). I have heard Bando referred to as "a poor man's Ron Cey". He certainly isn't that.

I see them as very similar and possibly the only way to break the near tie is through subjective intangibles that really can't be quantified by statistics. I'm really not ready to do that.

I can definitely accept that argument, and see the case for Cey over Groh. However, I see Groh being a much better fielder than Cey, and also I think it is important to remember that Groh was playing when the expected 3B offense was much lower.

I counted 3 Win Shares GG's for Groh compared to 0 for Cey so I could see him placed higher than Cey based on defense. I'll give it to Groh based on the defensive spectrum argument, although I still question league quality.

Evans rates ahead of Cey for me solely on longevity and career value. Evans also had a few big seasons at the top like 1973, and he was a better defensive 3Bman. I wouldn't say Evans has "slightly" more longevity than Cey. He has about 600 more games played. That's a real significant chunk. He also has about 80 more career WS.

Evans definitely has longevity on Cey since he played until he was about 90. I didn't mean to understate it by saying slightly.

But it still appears to me that Evans' best offensive seasons came in major hitters parks that Cey didn't have the luxury of utilizing in the hitting coffin of Dodger Stadium. I tend to believe that Cey could have had peaks like that if he spent his best years in Atlanta. I've still got to stick with Cey due to park factors even though Evans was definitely better defensively.

I do have Boyer ahead of Cey mostly because of defense, but you really think he was that good on defense? His reputation was more like B+ 3Bman, and the stats have confirmed about that. I had a long debate a while ago on Bando vs. Boyer, I see Bando as the better player.

Boyer won 7 Win Shares GG's. I could have been confusing him with Clete defensively but he appears to be statistically an outstanding 3Bman. I could possibly put Boyer ahead of Cey based on defense although I still see Cey as the better hitter. Since 3B had become a more offensive position by their times, I'll give it to Cey's offense over Boyer's defense.

I would agree that per game and for peak Cey was better, but Cey also has a lot of longevity to make up. Nettles would be more on the Brooks Robinson fielding level too. Either way it's close.

Agreed that Nettles was outstanding defensively and deserves longevity credit. I tend to be more of a peak guy though so I would prefer Cey's better peak over Nettles' longevity and career. Depends on your peak/career preference as to which one you take IMO.

I don't really think Cey was a more valuable hitter. Hack played right at the time the defensive spectrum was shifting, and 3B was still a defensive position. I think you need to take that into account.

Hack deserves bonus credit for the defensive spectrum but I think he deserves major penalties for LQ adjustment because he played through the war years. He is a better hitter based on raw numbers but OPS+ has Cey as the slightly better hitter, 121 to 119 career. Does Hack's defensive spectrum balance out Cey's LQ adjustment?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Cey was certainly better than Garvey, and he is probably HOF worthy, but I would't really advocate him much, because there's a long list of deserving 3Bman who I"d put in first:

Ron Santo
Sal Bando
Heinie Groh
Darrell Evans
Ken Boyer
Graig Nettles
Stan Hack

That is in order of how deserving I think they are. Sal Bando was the same type of player as Cey but clearly better IMO.

With the exception of Groh, I'd agree with this. (I might even agree with Groh; I'm not sure how I feel about the defensive spectrum issue in his case.)

If Cey had been a Gold Glove fielder, I'd argue his case. If Cey was a pretty good fielder, I'd be more enthusiastic.

What's going on now, however, is some reassessment of his fielding abilities, which may or may not be valid. One thing is certain, though: The observers of his time viewed Cey as a below-average defensive third baseman. This was a universal and perpetual observation. Some of this is refuted by Cey staying at 3B, but don't forget that the Dodgers had a converted outfielder at short for many years (Bill Russell), a huge ballpark, and a flyball pitching staff.

[JimAbbott]

We need to get real on this one. Ron the duck Cey is about as far from being a HOFer as anyone. You can go right ahead and put Garvey in there though. It's a travesty that Garvey is not in there already. Maybe it has something to do with the nasty divorce and the garbage is wife spewed about him. The media ate that crap up and despise Garvey because of it. Garvey was greatness and is a HOFer in every sense of the word. Get him in the hall now

[brett]

Garvey's numbers on paper do look good, as do his stretch of 200+ and 190+ hit games. I don't believe on using "Saber"stats exclusively, but Garvey is one player who's career is clearly enlightened by the use of sabermetric stats. He is not close to HOF based on them. He ends up being an above average offensive player, but not enough to put him in the hall even if he played a tougher position. This may be suprising considering he played in a pitcher's park. Throw in that he was a first baseman and he is not close. His "paper" stats look remotely close, but not automatic, and his saber stats and position say he was an average major league player. Combine those and he shouldn't be in the discussion except as an example of how a guy can look better on paper than he is, and also how first basemen are almost all overrated (in my view).

A 116 OPS+ for a first baseman, especially one who really didn't play a LONG career (less than 2400 games) is not in the HOF vicinity.

We need to get real on this one. Ron the duck Cey is about as far from being a HOFer as anyone. You can go right ahead and put Garvey in there though. It's a travesty that Garvey is not in there already. Maybe it has something to do with the nasty divorce and the garbage is wife spewed about him. The media ate that crap up and despise Garvey because of it. Garvey was greatness and is a HOFer in every sense of the word. Get him in the hall now

[brett]

The striking similarity for me about Cey, Bando, Hack and Boyer is that they only made it about 2000 games. Their careers all look like they would eventually get to the hall of fame level, and then they just didn't quite last long enough. Even Santo leaves the feeling that someone cut 2 good years out of his career and pasted together the seasons on either side.

I'm not arguing against any of these guys, I'm just making an observation that quite often for career third baseman the end comes in a hurry. Maybe that's the nature of the position. 3B requires some unique skills like charging balls and having a good arm, and when these fade, the bat is often just not good enough to warrant a move to 1b.