[the 'stache]

Oh, come on, Ron Fairly on par with Steve Garvey is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Yes, their career advanced metrics are strikingly similar. Only because from age 32 on, Garvey's offensive performance fell off a cliff. From 1981 to 1986, the last six plus years of his career, his OPS + was 101. If 100 is league average, Garvey was a league average hitter. But from 1974 to 1980, his OPS + was 130. The thing is, Fairly was consistently average throughout his entire career, with a few clunkers thrown into the mix. But he had absolutely nowhere near the peak that Garvey had. Fairly never received a single MVP vote. Not one. Garvey was a league MVP, and had four other top ten finishes. Did he get those because he had great hair? No. He was one of the catalysts on one of the best teams in baseball. Maybe the old metrics have been shown to be inferior for judging players. But for the longest time, a .300 hitter with 200 hits, 20 + home runs, and 100 + RBI was considered a superstar. And that was Steve Garvey from '74 to '80. He averaged 161 games played a season; 88 runs scored, 201 hits, 32 doubles, 23 home runs, and a .311 average.

As has been mentioned, Garvey's career OPS takes a beating because he didn't walk. First basemen have historically been the guys to hit for power, and drive in runs. The table setters atop the lineup are the ones that get on base.

Look at Fairly's average production from the same ages-25 to 31, and compare the numbers to Garvey. Fairly, from '64 to '70, averaged 134 games played, 19 doubles, 11 home runs, 59 RBI, and hit .260.

On what planet are those two players equally valuable? Fairly is as good a player as Garvey because he sucked less later in his career? Give me a break.

Sometimes you have to inject a little common sense into statistical analysis. I'll take a guy that was a star performer at his peak over a first baseman that walked more.