Ron Cey or Steve Garvey?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

This Steve Garvey talk got me thinking. If you HAD to pick either Steve Garvey or Ron Cey for the Hall of Fame who would pick? And please no "Neither!" responses. I'm asking IF you had to choose one or the other.

[Joltin' Joe]

Not even close; Penguin by a mile! Penguin was a better hitter and a much better fielder. He played a harder position and played it very well. Garvey played a much easier position and he played it very poorly.

You can actually make a reasonable argument for Cey for the HOF. None can be made for Garvey.

[chicagowhitesox1173]

I have to go with what Joltin Joe says.

[JR Hart]

It's Garvey by light years, bujt I expect Cey to get more support on baseball fever.

[toomanyhatz]

Surprised to see Cey with more lifetime WAR and a higher OPS+, not that those are the only important stats.

Cey is much higher on the list of greatest 3B than Garvey is on the list of greatest 1B, though, so while I think it's close and think Garvey's consistency is worth something, I rate Cey a touch above him.

[Ben Grimm]

From what I heard back in the day, Garvey used to squeeze and sometimes bust open tennis balls to keep his forearms strong. He was Chuck Norris before Chuck Norris was Chuck Norris. #badazz

[chicagowhitesox1173]

Steve Garvey did start out as a thirdbaseman and if his defense wasn't so bad over there he probably would have gotten 3000 hits. I feel Cey takes it due to the much more demanding position.

[Joltin' Joe]

It's Garvey by light years, bujt I expect Cey to get more support on baseball fever.

Curious as to why you think Garvey is better and by light years to boot. Their OPS & OPS+ are similar but advantage to Cey. Cey also hit more dongs and GIDP at at much lower rate. Cey was a very good defensive fielder playing a much harder position, while Garvey was below average defensively at the easiest position. How did you come up with your conclusion?

[Jackaroo Dave]

With the Dodgers they were almost dead even as batters, edge to Garvey for RBI and singles, to Cey for homers and walks. Cey played a more demanding position a little better. After they left, Cey was a dead average player for the Cubs, Garvey a replacement level one for the Padres.

Edit: With the Dodgers Garvey was an above average first baseman. His work with the Padres pulled his career value down.

[filihok]

Yeah, don't see how anyone can possibly pick Garvey over Cey

Career wRC+
Cey 122
Garvey 116

Plus Cey played the more difficult position.

The only thing Garvey did better was play enough to get an extra 1000 PA's.

But, Cey even beats Garvey in peak performance.

Between 1975 and 1981 Ron Cey:
1003 games, 4166 PA, 170 HR, .369 OBP, .475 SLG, 135 wRC+, 179 batting runs, -5 base running runs, 54 defensive runs, 39 fWAR
Between 1974 and 1980 Steve Garvey:
1127 games, 4871 PA, 160 HR, .348 OBP, .480 SLG, 130 wRC+, 187 batting runs, -3 base running runs, -56 defensive runs, 31 fWAR

The decision seems quite obvious. Curious to hear what JR Hart has to support his position.

[J W]

I speculate that it is because Garvey was a bigger star.

Ron Cey could be considered one of the best third basemen left outside Cooperstown: his competition would be the likes of Stan Hack, Ken Boyer, Heinie Groh, Darrel Evans and Graig Nettles and he matches up fairly well with them.

Steve Garvey... well aside from the fact that there are more 1B than 3B in the Hall, I can't see how he is one of the best first basemen outside Cooperstown. I don't even think he's the best Dodger first baseman outside the Hall (Gil Hodges) and Hodges to me is still below par.

[toomanyhatz]

One thing I do see in Garvey's favor is run production- he has higher R and RBI totals with fairly equivalent batting stats. Part of that can be due to hitting higher in the lineup, but not all. I do think sabermetricians tend to underrate that stuff sometimes- there is such a thing as situational hitting, and there are players that are clearly better at it than others. Not saying it's clear-cut that it's so in this particular case, just saying it's an avenue worth considering.

I still prefer Cey, but it's pretty close, and Garvey definitely has a case.

[filihok]

One thing I do see in Garvey's favor is run production- he has higher R and RBI totals with fairly equivalent batting stats. Part of that can be due to hitting higher in the lineup, but not all. I do think sabermetricians tend to underrate that stuff sometimes- there is such a thing as situational hitting, and there are players that are clearly better at it than others. Not saying it's clear-cut that it's so in this particular case, just saying it's an avenue worth considering.

Really?
Cey .117 runs/PA .137 RBI/PA
Garvey .121 runs/PA .138 RBI/PA

Given the same number of PA's Cey would have 35 less runs and 16 less RBI. Basically, exactly the same. Easily explainable as the difference between where they typically hit in the order.

[Jackaroo Dave]

Really?
Cey .117 runs/PA .137 RBI/PA
Garvey .121 runs/PA .138 RBI/PA

Given the same number of PA's Cey would have 35 less runs and 16 less RBI. Basically, exactly the same. Easily explainable as the difference between where they typically hit in the order.

Or as simple random variation. That sort of difference over, what, 15K PA doesn't even need explanation.

[Francoeurstein]

Steve Garvey did start out as a thirdbaseman and if his defense wasn't so bad over there he probably would have gotten 3000 hits. I feel Cey takes it due to the much more demanding position.

Just curious, how would moving to third extend his hit total? If anything playing first all those years was the reason he was able to stick around so long. Third is more physically demanding... Also, he may not have put up the same offensive numbers with the wear and tear of the infield.