If you made me choose, I'd choose Mattingly. He was a better hitter, point blank. What made Garvey so good was the team around him, he fit so well with his teammates that he made them better, which is probably his biggest plus. I'm not anti-Garvey, and he was a very good ball player, he just wasn't elite.
I grew up idolizing Mattingly but for all my heart wants him to be a HOFer, he was cut short by back problems. I think he was better than Garvey but Garvey got the service time and a ring. I'd have to put him in before DBB.
What does getting a ring have to do with being in the hall? There are any number of jerk wad players that have rings. Service time likewise is no indicator of 'hall-worthiness'.
The ring argument never made much sense to me when it comes to baseball. One person cannot carry a baseball team. This isn't the NBA. If you want to measure greatness based on postseason accomplishments, look at their postseason stats. Someone can have awesome stats but not have a ring in baseball.
Do baseball hof voters even consider rings? I think their big thing now is whether or not that guy played in the steroid era.
Donnie .307 lifetime avg, 1985 MVP, helluva buncha all stars, hall of famer. Hey if bill mazeroski and Joe Morgan are hall of famers surely Mattingly and Garvey are too. Not to mention if you had a pulse and played in the negro leagues you're in!
First of all, racist. Second, Joe Morgan played second base and weighed 160 pounds. Steve Garvey played first base and weighed 190. Garvey hit 4 more career homers than Morgan. Also, Morgan won back to back MVP's. All of you should come to the logical conclusion that Garvey just wasn't THAT good. He was good, but not Hall good. Like I've said, Garvey couldn't carry Gil Hodges jock strap...and Hodges isn't in...even after managing the Miracle Mets.