dave concepcion.

[tibber]

besides ozzie, was there a better shortstop in the national league during his era? i don't know. if you go by the baseball-reference.com similarity scores, he compares favorably to three guys already in (wallace, reese, and aparicio) and to three guys that probably won't go in any time soon, but perhaps should (tony fernandez, vizquel and trammell.) all the guys i've mentioned were probably better, but for shortstops from his era, i think he's probably the most deserving.

[Cougar]

I've made a vigorous case for Concepcion before; I'll make it again. Concepcion was a very good hitter for a shortstop of his era, and an exceptional fielder. He wasn't Ozzie, but no one is; he was one step below, which is still historically great. He invented the one-bounce throw on turf. The Big Red Machine wouldn't have won all they did without his defense at SS. Davey Concepcion belongs in the HOF!

[2Chance]

Yeah, Cougar, what you said!

My only disagreement is that Davey was NOT a step slower...he wasn't. I've seen them both, and I thought Concepcion was better. But before this degenerates into something it shouldn't, I'm willing to concede to those who would say that this is just one man's opinion and that man must be crazy.:crazy

[leecemark]

--Conception was the best shortstop of the 70s. I think that much is pretty clear. Whether that makes him Hall worthy is not quite as clear. On my personal list of SS he is near the back of the top 25. Thats a fairly weak maybe.
--He was a valuable member of the Big Red Machine, but they've already got three guys in the Hall and it would be 4 if Rose wasn't a criminal. Bench, Morgan and Rose were the big stars on the team. You could make a case for Conception over Perez, but then you could make a case for Foster over both of them. It was a great team and I can't give Davey too much extra credit for their success.
--I'm sure one of our stat minded friends will point out that he was 12% worse than league as a hitter for his career. That is very misleading though. He played a long time (46th all time in games played) and dragged that average down with some very weak performances in the 80s. During his prime he was better than league 6 of 9 times. He was the BEST hitting shortstop in baseball most years in his prime. Really a shortstop who is league average with the bat is a very good hitter. Most of the shortstops in the Hall ended their careers below league average as hitters. Comparing Davey to outfielders and firstbasemen doesn't give a fair picture of his worth.
---Conception was a 9 time All Star and 5 time Gold Glove winner. He probably should have won more. Three times his range factor was more than an out per game better than league (Smith did it 9 times, but he was in a league of his own) and one of them he didn't get the GG. The one he lost in 78 was a crime. Bowa was sure handed, but had no part of Davey's range. Conception got the GG back in 79, but Ozzie started his reign in 1980 and he DID deserve it. As good as Conception was, Smith was better.
--However, Smith was not that much better. If he gets in his first year with over 90% of the vote, Conception should do better than peaking at 16% - and sinking. I think he comres up a little short, but he is worth talking about in a Hall of Fame context.
---If we're starting an 8 team league with the following Hall of Fame shortstops; Aparicio, Bancroft, Jackson, Maranville, Rizzuto, Tinker and Wallace plus Conception I wouldn't feel too bad about having to pick last. None of these guys was miles better than Conception and some of them weren't as good.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Gray Ink: Batting - 25 (856) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 29.1 (305) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 106.5 (135) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

The HOF monitor ranking is surprisingly high. In Concepcion's case, it is driven, in part, by his many All-Star and World Series appearances.

Concepcion is hurt by his hit total; he needed 2,500 hits to be a stronger candidate. He would have got there, but for three factors:


1. Concepcion took three years to establish himself as a full-time regular
2. In that fourth year when he became a regular he went down with a leg injury in mid-season, and was out for the year
3. Concepcion missed 1/3 of the season due to the strike of 1981

If Concepcion played for the Montreal Expos all those years he wouldn't have the World Series appearances, and that would knock down his points in the HOF monitor.

I would not be upset if Concepcion got in the HOF; he's better than a number of HOF shortstops. However, he's nowhere near the player Alan Trammell was, and Trammell leads the list. I rank Concepcion behind Trammell, but ahead of Campeneris.

[baseballPAP]

Being a Reds fan growing up (I may never get there....), I loved watching Concepcion. Character...he had it, despite his broken english, he was a crowd favorite. The one bounce "skip" throw was a thing of beauty. However, (maybe its because by the time I started watching in 79 or 80, his bat was almost gone) I have Davey in at only #30 among SS. The best SS of the 70s is somewhat of a dubious title....his competition was guys like Bill Russell and Bert Campaneris and Larry Bowa and <gulp> Ivan DeJesus... Robin Yount was around too, but Davey was better...up until about 1981 anyway.

I can't see Davey in the HOF...but he does have a rightful plaque in the Reds HOF. Now there is a beautiful place....

[SABR Matt]

I rate him as an extremely talented fielder, but because his career was a little abbreviated and because he didn't maintain his fielding brilliance for a particularly long period of time, I don't rate him as a historically great fielder.

He also rates as a pretty weak hitter, even among SSs and despite his being the best SS of the early 70s, he is not a HOF calibar SS. I have him 41st among SSs...and I don't consider that unreasonable.

[KCGHOST]

I don't see much of a case for him. After the Tony Perez fiasco we don't need any more Reds of the '70's being elected.

[baseball79]

Concepcion deserves a spot in the Hall of Fame because of his spectacular defense and pretty good hitting. He was a very good shortstop at a time when few of them shined brightly. He also helped his team, the Reds, to a lot of wins. He definitely was an all star and compares favorably to another shortstop who deserves to make the Hall, Omar Vizquel. Perhaps Dave will go in by the way of the Veterans Committee.

[538280]

Concepcion was a pretty weak hitter by HOF standards, even for an SS, and while he was a great fielder for a short time he lost that ability towards the end of his career. Very good player, key member of a great team, not a HOFer.

Concepcion to me has always reminded me of Tony Fernandez, except Fernandez is better hitter by a solid margin (Concepcion 88 OPS+ Fernandez 101). Fernandez was also a very good fielding SS, a fast runner, tall and skinny like Concepcion, and a Latin American. They seem to be almost carbon copies to me, the only difference being that Fernandez had a higher BA. Fernandez holds a notable record as well, the single season hits record from SS.

I remember Tony well towards the end of his career with the Blue Jays. He came back with Toronto and had really improved his game as a hitter, particularly his patience. In the past his style was always to be agressive, swing at bad pitches if he thought he could get a hit from them. Finally later in his career he learned to take pitches. it helped his team much more than previously, and he became a better hitter than he had been before, as his awesome .427 OBP in 1999 shows. Previously an impatient high BA hitter, he greatly improved his patience and finished top 10 in the AL in OBP 1998 and 1999. I just liked him then.

NOT saying that he was better than he ever was 1998 and 1999. He had lost his quickness and defensive ability then and was forced to move to third, and he wasn't particularly good in the field at that point. Earlier in his career though, with his .320 BA, SS hits record, baserunning, and great defense he was arguably a great player.

Went to Japan in 1996, so he deserves some credit for that. I can't seem to find his stats from that season though. Anyone know?

He is a player who gets little talk about the HOF, yet looking back on his career he looks to me like a credible candidate. He was very similar in type to Concepcion or Campaneris but with a higher batting average. Any thoughts on Tony Fernandez?

[jalbright]

Tony Fernandez was in Japan in 2000, not 1996. His stat line as presented in Japan Baseball Daily's Data Warehouse is:


G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI K BB SB CS GIDP AVG OBP SLG
103 440 370 64 121 24 1 11 74 47 58 2 4 10 .327 .418 .486

[2Chance]

Tony Fernandez set a record in 1986 for most hits by a shortstop, 213, beating the old record of 211 held by Cal Ripken and Garry Templeton.

This record may have been broken since (can somebody confirm or deny?), but it stuck in my head.

Cecil Travis fans: in 1941 he had 197 hits as a shortstop and 21 as a third baseman for his total of 218.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't see much of a case for him. After the Tony Perez fiasco we don't need any more Reds of the '70's being elected.

I consider Concepcion to be more Hall-worthy than Perez. Perez was a star at the level of a Gil Hodges. Concepcion was a star at the level of Pee Wee Reese. If Perez didn't hang on as long as he did, he wouldn't be in the HOF, period.

[KHenry14]

Concepcion is an interesting HOF case. IMO he was the best SS of the 70's, yet that is a very weak time for SS's. Is being the best of a weak crop make one Hall worthy? In Davey's case, I don't think so. Usually I do give credit for being the best at a position during a particular time, Ron Santo is a good example of that. But Davey's case is no where near as good as Trammel's, and when the likes of Larkin, Ripkin, Jeter, Tejada come up, no way does Davey compare to them. Yet this isn't meant to dimish his talents or his contributions, but that doesn't make him Hall worthy in my book.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Concepcion is an interesting HOF case. IMO he was the best SS of the 70's, yet that is a very weak time for SS's. Is being the best of a weak crop make one Hall worthy? In Davey's case, I don't think so. Usually I do give credit for being the best at a position during a particular time, Ron Santo is a good example of that. But Davey's case is no where near as good as Trammel's, and when the likes of Larkin, Ripkin, Jeter, Tejada come up, no way does Davey compare to them. Yet this isn't meant to dimish his talents or his contributions, but that doesn't make him Hall worthy in my book.

I agree that he's not as good as Trammell.

Let's pretend that Trammell, and other guys ahead of Concepcion (if any) all are inducted. Is Concepcion good enough then, or is he below the cutoff point, period?

Trammell's first in my line; I'd put him in before Davey. Who comes after Trammell at SS that's not in, however? Cecil Travis, Vern Stephens, Bert Campeneris, Marty Marion, and Larry Bowa come to mind. Where's Davey vis a vis these guys?

[Freakshow]

I consider Concepcion to be more Hall-worthy than Perez. Perez was a star at the level of a Gil Hodges. Concepcion was a star at the level of Pee Wee Reese. If Perez didn't hang on as long as he did, he wouldn't be in the HOF, period.
I get Perez ahead of Hodges.

Win Shares comparison
Perez: Career - 349; Top 3 - 33/32/31=96
Hodges (adj. to 162 G schedule): Career - 277; Top 3 - 30.5/27.4/27.4=85.2

WARP3 Comparison
Perez: Career - 108.6; Top 3 - 10.0/9.9/9.6=29.5
Hodges (adj. to 162 G schedule): Career - 94.2; Top 3 - 11.5/10.0/9.3=30.7

I don't think it's fair to downgrade Perez for being able to play to an advanced age versus Hodges younger breakdown.

[Food]

Concepcion HOF-caliber is a misconcepcion.

[538280]

I consider Concepcion to be more Hall-worthy than Perez. Perez was a star at the level of a Gil Hodges. Concepcion was a star at the level of Pee Wee Reese. If Perez didn't hang on as long as he did, he wouldn't be in the HOF, period.

Well, longevity is a big and extremely important part of HOF worthiness and greatness as a player. I don't really understand why some people just throw it aside like that. I don't see Gil Hodges being comparable either. Perez's OPS+ was higher than Hodges', despite the huge longevity gap. For peak it's not really close either:

Perez: 163, 159, 145, 140, 125
Hodges: 143, 142, 141, 138, 128

Hodges may have been better defensively at first base, but then Perez also spent a good time at the more important defensive position of third base. I think comparing Perez to Hodges is selling Perez WAY short; he was worlds better than that.

[KCGHOST]

Why are we wandering off on Hodges versus Perez? This thread is about Dave Concepcion.

Had Concepcion traded places with Chris Speier, it would be Speier we would be talking about today. These guys were almost exact contemporaries. Speier played from 1971-1989, had 7156 AB's, a .676 OPS, and accrued -149 RCAA. Concepcion played from 1970-1988, had 8723, a .679 OPS, and accrued -165 RCAA. The only real difference in these guys were the quality of team mates.

[DoubleX]

Tony Fernandez set a record in 1986 for most hits by a shortstop, 213, beating the old record of 211 held by Cal Ripken and Garry Templeton.

This record may have been broken since (can somebody confirm or deny?), but it stuck in my head.

Cecil Travis fans: in 1941 he had 197 hits as a shortstop and 21 as a third baseman for his total of 218.

Alex Rodriguez had 215 in 1996 and 213 in 1998.

Derek Jeter had 219 in 1999, but is on pace for approximately 220 this year.

[Cougar]

I consider Concepcion to be more Hall-worthy than Perez. Perez was a star at the level of a Gil Hodges. Concepcion was a star at the level of Pee Wee Reese. If Perez didn't hang on as long as he did, he wouldn't be in the HOF, period.

As people have said, it's not a perfect analogy, but it's apt, I think.

These players weren't necessarily the same type of ballplayer statistically, but stylistically the comparison rings quite true.

[Cougar]

I agree that he's not as good as Trammell.

Let's pretend that Trammell, and other guys ahead of Concepcion (if any) all are inducted. Is Concepcion good enough then, or is he below the cutoff point, period?

Trammell's first in my line; I'd put him in before Davey. Who comes after Trammell at SS that's not in, however? Cecil Travis, Vern Stephens, Bert Campeneris, Marty Marion, and Larry Bowa come to mind. Where's Davey vis a vis these guys?

Among eligible SS, I rank Davey only behind Trammell (#1) and Bill Dahlen (#2). I've got Larkin rated virtually even with Trammell, when he's eligible. Ripken heads the class, but his induction is a formality.

[538280]

I don't know that I'd support Concepcion. I asked it before-but what exactly separates him from Tony Fernandez? Fernandez may have been only a slightly worse fielder, but his OPS+ was 11 points higher. Davey has a little more longevity on his side, but either way that's a really close comparison, and I don't think being close to Tony Fernandez is a great endorsement for the HOF. I think they're both very, very good players but not HOFers. Campaneris is in the group too.

[leecemark]

--I think what separates Conception from Fernandez is two things. One Conception had little competition as best SS in baseball at his peak (I'd call him the best SS of the 70s, but its a weak field). Fernandez had half a dozen better SS's active during his career. Two Conception is identified with one of the best and most popular teams of the modern era. Fernandez was kind of a nomad. I think Conception was a little better, but he has a much higher profile. His HoF chances are modest, but Fernandez are non existent.

[chuckywang]

If Phil Rizzuto is in the HOF, so should Concepcion.

[jalbright]

If Phil Rizzuto is in the HOF, so should Concepcion.

That's not a very good argument, as it eventually means we should take everybody who is as good or better than the worst mistake in the Hall.

Jim Albright

[brett]

Forget defense for a minute. Smith was a significantly better offensive player than Concepcion for his time period. Their OPS+ are almost identical and Smith's 580 steals were very meaningful and valuable for his era.

If you are looking at defense and position, heck Jim Sundberg has an OPS+ of 89 and caught almost 2000 games with 6 gold gloves.

I have run Concepcion and Smith of offense and Smith is a slightly but solidly above average overall offensive player for his period and Concepcion is a slightly but clearly below average offensive player.

[538280]

I agree with Brett's assessment 100%. I think Ozzie Smith is a very underrated offensive player, perhaps because his defense was so awesome. He was an all time great basestealer, and his OBP was very good in his best years, making him a very good leadoff type offensive player. Those types are almost ALWAYS severely underrated (think Rickey Henderson, Tim Raines Joe Morgan) Ozzie of course wasn't as good offensively as those guys but he was of the same type and contributed offensively in the same type of ways. Traditional statistical analysis (triple crown statistics, any offense model that doens't factor in steals/GIDPs) will show them to be much, much less valuable than they really are.

[chuckywang]

That's not a very good argument, as it eventually means we should take everybody who is as good or better than the worst mistake in the Hall.

Jim Albright

Well, if the Hall agrees that Rizzuto is a mistake, then no. How the heck did he get in the Hall anyways? Was he one of those early Veterans Committee selections?

[jalbright]

Well, if the Hall agrees that Rizzuto is a mistake, then no. How the heck did he get in the Hall anyways? Was he one of those early Veterans Committee selections?

Phil Rizzuto was a good player, but if he hadn't had a high profile in baseball after his playing days as an announcer, I think he would have been forgotten. He got in within the past decade or so via the Veteran's Committee (not the current setup), in part because of a New York push for him which included some heavy handed stuff by Steinbrenner (a refusal to play in the HOF game until Rizzuto was inducted--imagine, George being heavy handed ;) ) If you want more on this, read Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame? by Bill James.

Jim Albright

[Captain Cold Nose]

Well, if the Hall agrees that Rizzuto is a mistake, then no. How the heck did he get in the Hall anyways? Was he one of those early Veterans Committee selections?
Actually, he was quite late, 1994, although there was a lot of harping from certain circles (Steinbrenner, the NYC press) after Pee Wee Reese got elected in 1984.
There is a rumor (none of us were actually there, so none of us know for sure) that VC member Ted Williams pushed very hard for Scooter's election. They likely gave Rizzuto a lot of credit for time missed to the war.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Well, longevity is a big and extremely important part of HOF worthiness and greatness as a player. I don't really understand why some people just throw it aside like that. I don't see Gil Hodges being comparable either. Perez's OPS+ was higher than Hodges', despite the huge longevity gap. For peak it's not really close either:

Perez: 163, 159, 145, 140, 125
Hodges: 143, 142, 141, 138, 128

Hodges may have been better defensively at first base, but then Perez also spent a good time at the more important defensive position of third base. I think comparing Perez to Hodges is selling Perez WAY short; he was worlds better than that.

I agree with you on longevity; I just wish you would apply that principle to Omar Vizquel. :atthepc

Hodges was far more central to the Dodger successes in the 1950s than Perez was to the Reds' success in the 1970s. He also didn't do squat after 1980; he hung on, and added 30 HRs in 6 years. Had he not done that, he'd have had only 349 HRs, and I doubt he's have gotten into the HOF with such Roy Sievers-like totals.