HOF: Dave Concepcion

Discussion in 'Sports' started by TomVols, Jul 16, 2007.

  1. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have questions/doubts about some of your statements.

    5th in what? Among shortstops? What does this mean?

    One of the "hall"-marks of people arguing for their favorite player to be in the Hall is to pick some arbitrary number that will make their guy look good. Since when was 64 RBI considered good, let alone Hall-worthy? Your statement here is one of the funniest I've seen to argue a player into the Hall.

    They both hit .267 for their careers. What, are you looking at fractional BA's? He surpassed Schmidt by less than 100 in hits, while Schmidt surpassed him in walks by almost 800. Just compare their OBP's and OPS's and the comparison becomes kinda silly. Again, you picked an arbitrary stat to an arbitrary player. Not a good argument.

    Again, arbitrary timeframe. Why not compare them from 1972-1981, or 73-82? Why does it have to be 70-79? Because it disguises the weakness of your overall argument. Again, let's compare their OBP and OPS and it's not even close.

    When, in the 70's? Not for their career - Rose has many more. Another arbitrary timeframe. I even doubt he beat Rose in the 70's.

    Interesting that you use a Bill James stat to make an argument that James himself condemns - that is, arguing because one player is in the Hall, another player comparable to him should be in the Hall. James says, and I agree, you should avoid using current Hall members to compare potential Hall members, because it will serve to dilute the Hall further, because some past Hall selections have been poor. Tony Perez is among those poor choices. And even if you disagree with that, you have to admit that he was a marginal choice - he barely made it.

    Again, I would like to see the win shares you are comparing - is this for the 70's or for career? Perez probably doesn't do well with win shares, because he really wasn't that great. Good, but not great. Like Davey.

    A pretty meaningless argument for position players, since the dumb fans vote, and Davey benefitted from the popular Big Red [Vote] Machine.

    Debatable. The Reds also had more wins to distribute to their many good players. Also, the Reds weren't that good in the 80's. If you read James on Win Shares, he debunks the thinking that players on good teams will be robbed because they have to share with more good players. So if you use James, you should use him correctly.

    I've never heard such an argument. It usually works the other way. I think Davey playing for the BRM helps him. If he played his whole career with the Seattle Mariners (back in the 70's and 80's when they stunk), I don't think anyone in their right mind would even mention Concepcion and the Hall in the same breath.

    Let's not dilute the Hall further by another marginal BRM selection to go along with Tony Perez.
     
    #2 Andy T., Jul 16, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 16, 2007
  3. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Big Red Machine was my favorite team in the 70's, but I don't think Concepcion belongs in the HoF. My arguments are the same as Andy's, and I'll add this one.

    Here's a list of other players who won the All-Star Game MVP.

    Terry Steinbach
    Jeff Conine
    Julio Franco
    LaMarr Hoyt

    Winning All-Star MVP is not a good argument for HoF inclusion.
     
  4. PastorSBC1303

    PastorSBC1303
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tom, I agree with the others. You are stretching big time on this one...

    As Andy said, if you put Davey on the Mariners during this same period of time no one ever mentions him for the HOF.
     
  5. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow. So much fluff. Where do I begin?
    Look them up. Go to baseball reference, baseball Almanac, or look in a Total Baseball.
    I read the wrong stat. He's 5th in his era in hitting among players with equal or greater at-bats. The other four: Rose, Garvey, Buckner, and Buddy Bell.
    That statement is used by Keith Olbermann as his lynch-pin. I find it weak by itself, but the mistake too many make is to take these out and elevate them by themselves (some call it Barry Bonds disease). They take one item and isolate it without looking at the totality of a players career. You're violating Bill James's criteria (See "Politics of Glory", p 131ff). We could pick another number - the bottom line is he drove in more than comparable players in his spots in the order.
    So?
    If you are arguing that Schmidt is a better slugger, you win. But my unborn child knows that. You cannot discount that number just as you cannot discount the other numbers in Davey's favor.
    A decade is an arbitrary time frame? Most all the experts use a full decade if possible. Bill James often does this with his all decade team, of which, for the 70s, Davey is the SS.
    No, he doesn't say this. He says this should not be the only criteria or the major criteria. (Ch 11).
    Not to get off the subject, but when you have more RBI than anyone else in your era, a higher slugging pct, top 5 in ba, 7 100+RBI seasons along with 9 20+HR seasons, how can you not be considered one of the best in your era, the gold standard for HOF inclusion? I'll figure up his HOF monitor numbers later. I'm curious as to where they are.
    Circuluar reasoning and a little well-poisoning to boot.
    I agree that you should use Bill correctly. Physician, heal thyself :) If you want to argue that Ozzie Smith's teammates are as good as the BRM, then you have quite an argument to make
    You made a form of it when you argued that Davey had good players and more wins to gain WS.

    These other players do not have numbers like Davey. If they do, then that's different. But you're committing the fallacy of taking one item and isolating it. We have to look at a total resume.
    Another Bill James fallacy. We cannot put Davey on another team, so it's fallacious to ask what if. I disagree with your contention, though. I think he'd probably be helped to not be in the shadow of the BRM, but that's so debatable it's fallacious.

    Maybe I'm wrong. But then so is Sparkey, Olbermann, James, Rose, and a myriad of others who argue for Davey's inclusion.
     
    #5 TomVols, Jul 16, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 16, 2007
  6. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doggie's mod HOF monitor: 100 right on the dot. Likely HOF. I would've thought it would've been higher. Still, doesn't diminish the totality of his qualifications. Of course, had he played SS or 2B, his would be higher. That may be a bit of a weakness in the stat.
     
    #6 TomVols, Jul 16, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 16, 2007
  7. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    I still don't get this. He had a better BA than Rod Carew? George Brett? Bill Madlock? Davey's .267 BA along with his anemic .322 OBP and .357 SLG are just not Hall worthy, unless you can show me dominance in the field or on the basepaths like Ozzie. Davey was a fine defensive SS, but he was not spectacular. He stole some bases, but not a ton. He was a good player, but not great. You can be just a "good" player and still make the Hall, but you need to have more impressive career stats - like 3000 hits or something. Davey doesn't have that.

    If you know James, you know that RBI is his least favorite stat. Who couldn't drive in 64 runs per year playing on the BRM? RBIs have to be contextualized.

    Because you were the one who brought up the fact that Concepcion had 90 more hits than Schmidt in his career, and so I simply pointed out the huge chasm between their walk totals.

    Yes, when it comes to looking at a players career, you have to look at the whole career, not just some 10-year timeframe. What about players who start playing in 1975 and are great from 1977-1984? They get left off both the all-70's team and all-80's team. I understand doing all decade teams are fun and convenient, but they are essentially meaningless.

    I'll stick with the argument that the Win Shares stat is designed to be neutral for players on good teams vs. players on bad teams. My side point was that Davey's career went well past the BRM days into the 80's when the Reds weren't very good and the Cardinals were.

    Of course Sparky is going to say that. And Rose, too. Are you sure James argues that he should be in the Hall? I read Politics of Glory and I don't remember reading that. James makes a definitive argument in favor of him? If he does, then he is wrong. Won't be the first time.
     
  8. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    I did no such thing. You argued that winning an All-Star Game MVP is part of why Concepcion should be there. Winning an All-Star MVP shouldn't be a part of anybody's HoF resume. The only reason All-Star MVP is even part of the argument is because the rest of the arguments are weak.

    Derek Jeter, among other great players, was selected All-Star MVP. But, when Jeter comes up for inclusion, there will be no need to bring that up because he's a slam-dunk selection. Because Concepcion is a weak candidate, it becomes necessary to bring up his All-Star MVP selection.
     
  9. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are on much better footing with Perez. I won't argue against him. I won't argue for him, either. He is a marginal Hall selection. He is definitely in the "second room" of the Hall. He's not with the greats of the game.

    So who's next after Davey? Ken Griffey Sr.? George Foster? Jack Billingham? Rawly Eastwick? :laugh:
     
  10. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is not a lynch-pin of a resume (and I didn't say it was). I point it out because (1) It is noteworthy, and (2) It usually surprises people. It's just one plank. Probably the least, but it's still an accomplishment that usually garners what statisticians call "black ink," a standard many use to determine Hall worthiness.

    Well, you asked: The numbers are BA, OBP, SLG, OPS, SB%, and Modified HOF standard:
    Davey's numbers: .267, .322, .357, .679, 74%, 141
    Ozzie: .262, .337., .328, .665, 78%, 142
    Aparicio; .262, .311, .343, .654, 78%, 140
    Maranville: .258, .318, .340, .658, 60%, 59(!)
    Reese: .269, .366, .377, .743, 64%, 99
    Tinker: .262, .308, .353, .661, 25 (No SB)

    Davey is better or comparable to these, and they are ALL HOFers. Only Reese has better numbers across the board, and there are adjustments that would take too much time and space. Ozzie dominant on the basepath? Slightly better than Davey. Fielding? Ozzie over Davey .978 to .971. Ozzie's FPCT was 12 points higher than the league average SS in his era. Davey? 8 points higher. (Factor in Davey's time at 3B, and he has a 23 point advantage over the league average.) Yeah, Ozzie and Davey are miles apart. As one sportswriter opined, if Davey could do a backflip, he'd be in the Hall. :laugh:

    You just don't find comparable players en bloc who are not in the Hall. People with Davey's numbers typically are or will be in.
    There's that "one stat" fallacy again. If Davey had 2800 hits, he'd be there, regardless of what else he'd done. Did you know that every eligible player with at least 2,763 hits are in the Hall? Interesting. Anyway, I reject the "one stat" fallacy, as do most.
    Sheer sophistry. Now you're using the BRM against him. But let's play this out. Turn your logic around. A player with poor RBI is playing on a poor team. He should have his number overlooked?
    I totally agree. I'm doing that, and for some reason it's not going over too well :laugh:
    You look at what they do against players in that same time frame. I can't help it that Davey played from 1970-1979. One of the criteria used by James is who is best in his decade. I wouldn't say all-decade teams are the bene esse, but they aren't meaningless. If you were the best at your position for ten years (at least), then that says something.
    Not necessarily true.
    Okay, but still, the 80s Cards were not the BRM as you implied.
    And Sparky could say that about Trammell. And Rose could say that about Bowa. But they didn't. Poisioning the well again, eh? James makes the argument in one of his Abstracts. I don't have them in front of me. He mentions Davey in Politics... but in a neutral way.

    I am not agreeing with this, but there are three major arguments against Davey's inclusion, given his numbers are quite comparable and virtually no one with his numbers are not in or will not be in the Hall:
    1. He played on the BRM. we've already dismmissed that bromide.
    2. He's foreign born, and foreign born players are not looked at favorably, and get in at a slower rate. I don't know that I buy this at all, but just for fun, start naming the Hispanics in the Hall. The list isn't very long.
    3. He wasn't the showman Ozzie was. (If Davey could do a backflip...). I might agree that 1 and 3 hurt him, but shouldn't. 2, I'm not ready to cede, but anything is possible given how screwed up the process is.
    Kinda like someone is a "first-ballot" HOFer? So what? Either they're in, or they're not. Much is made of this, but why? Anyway, Perez's numbers and achievements are worthy. Perez supposedly was a "victim" of the foreign born thing, but all-in-all, I say he's worthy.
    I've had to pare down my list because the list from years past included guys who have gotten in (I don't include the "locks"). So I must not be far off my rocker :)
     
    #10 TomVols, Jul 17, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 17, 2007
  11. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, Leo Cardenas, from the Reds. His numbers compare favorably with those of Dave Concepcion. And he could play shortstop, as well. I'm pretty sure the four you mentioned would not have been very good fielding at that position, with the possible exception of Ken Griffey, Sr. But he still would have had a heck of a time throwing anyone out left-handed. :)

    Ed
     
  12. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    :laugh:
    His numbers aren't up to Davey's, and his HOF monitor is below 40. I don't even think he'll make the Reds' HOF :)
     
  13. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Should I divulge my whole list and then go back and do the individual reasons why? :)
     
  14. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    A few points in response:

    1. MVP selection in an exhibition game is utterly meaningless.

    2. The fielding numbers you posted comparing Ozzie and Davey make my point. Davey was good. Ozzie was great. You disparage Ozzie for being a "showman". I say that he was just more athletic than Davey. He was simply better. If Ozzie was at Davey's level in the field, he would have never made the Hall. And vice versa.

    3. Ozzie only slightly better than Davey in baserunning? Oh my lands. Let's look at the stats. 580 steals vs. 321. 80% success rate vs. 75%. 1250 runs vs. 1000. 100 fewer GIDP's for Ozzie. It is not even close! Davey was good. Ozzie was great.

    4. I agree that if Davey had 2800 hits, a few more steals and few more runs and RBI, then he would be in. But he doesn't. He only has 2300 hits and 300 steals. You made my point again. He doesn't have the career stats that garner Hall attention.

    5. For the most part, I trust the Hall selection process (as of today - it was not always trustworthy, which is why many undeserving guys made it back in the old days). That is why I won't argue against Perez. He was voted in. I can see the arguments both ways on him. The same with guys like Blyleven, Jim Rice, Gossage, Dawson. These are all guys who have come fairly close to being voted in. Concepcion has not even sniffed the 75% level. His highest vote was 17%, and he has floated around the 10% level for most of the time. That says something. And it should tell you something. We are not debating a guy who has had more than 50% of the vote. He hasn't even come close to 25%!

    6. By the way, I feel the same way about Trammell as I do Concepcion, although I think (no, I know) Trammell was the better player overall. But Trammell just doesn't have enough umpff to make the Hall, IMO. He is more worthy than Davey, though.

    7. You know, I love Sparky, but many times he isn't that smart. He is quite obvious about his bias towards the BRM over his days at Detroit. He takes much more pride over the BRM, and rightly so, because when people talk about the greatest teams of all time, the Reds of the 70's are mentioned every time, while the '84 Tigers are never mentioned. So as Sparky grows older, his affinity for the BRM obviously grows stronger as he looks back to the "good old days".
     
    #14 Andy T., Jul 17, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 17, 2007
  15. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    We're going in circles, so my final defense of Davey's worthy numbers :):

    1. I won't call it meaningless. I won't say it's a lynch-pin argument though. However, if AS MVP is meaningless because it's an exhibition award voted by the media, then what else is the media voting for that's meaningless? What other awards are polluted? I just can't call it meaningless because I value the mid-summer classic.
    2. If the 7 point difference and the 4 point over-league-avg. difference is the line between good and great, you must believe there are an awful lot of great players, or you have invented an artificial boundary. :)
    3. The 78 vs 74% is not miles apart. And Davey's 321 SB stands out because he wasn't fast (I made that point early on). Using the delayed steal and just pure smart baserunning, Davey racked up an impressive amount. If he'd had Ozzie's legs....
    Besides, Davey created more runs per (3.97 vs. 3.76) and had 130 more total bases. Davey was IBBed more and drove in 160+ more runs. We can do this all day. That's why their HOF monitors are so close. The numbers just don't show the disparity you want. I would love to find the Fielding runs and Fielding wins for Davey. I've heard they're good, but I just can't find them.
    4. Circular reasoning. Besides, SS hit totals rarely reach the so called "Buckner line" (You know why it's named that).
    5. Do you really want to go down this road? The BBWA members are notoriously..well...stupid. The Veterans Committee is probably worse. Rick Ferrell gets in the hall, and Sonny Jackson, Orval Grove, and Morrie Martin get votes? Please.
    6. Re: Trammell, there's not as much overlap to compare them head-to-head. Tram has good numbers. His HOFM is much lower than Davey's. But his relative lack of longevity probably hurts him a bit. And among the top ten Tram comparables, only 2 are presently in the Hall (Barry Larkin is marginal and most comparable), whereas Davey has many more. Tram was very good. Some of his numbers are better than Davey's, but some are worse.

    Some posit that Omar Vizquel will be a test case for SS. You never know how the BBWA will vote.
    7. The '84 Tigers don't merit discussion among the greats. Good team. Good talent. But not even in the same galaxy as the BRM. A good 80s WS winner though.

    There is a presupposition of the "immortals." Just goes to show that there's a fine line. What I wish I'd done is mask the statistics (Olbermann's trick) and let people guess who is the HOFer or if someone is a HOFer. The "blindfold" test usually trips people up. However, I don't think we should just look at the numbers as the threshold, as some argue should be done. (Some argue there should be statistical thresholds for the Hall.)
     
  16. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, btw, I don't disparage Ozzie being a showman. I just point out what is. How many times have you seen highlights of Ozzie's backflips? How many times have you seen highlights of Davey's skip throw?

    Okay...which one influences the outcome of a game? But ESPN doesn't care so much, do they? Just a random thought.

    Honest to goodness, Davey was one of my faves on the BRM. But I never considered him HOF material until I got into the numbers. When I started seeing how comparable he was to the Wiz, and how he was a "lock" while Davey was not being mentioned, I got even more interested. Then you start looking at the other comparables who are in, and that got me on the bandwagon. You will hear no more eligible Reds (modern era, anyway) being argued for inclusion. Since Bid McPhee is in, that may just rule out everyone :)
     
    #16 TomVols, Jul 17, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 17, 2007
  17. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    I said I trusted, for the most part, the Hall selection that is in place today. They fixed the Veterans Committee to make it less political. I think the BBWA voters take their job more seriously than when the Hall was in its infancy (the longer an institution is around, the more revered it gets). So generally, I think the BBWA voters are doing a good job. Like I said, we can debate guys like Gossage and Rice and Blyleven who are all getting considerable attention from the BBWA voters. Perez was the same way. He was getting 50-60% votes for several years before he finally got in. How can you with a straight face try to make an argument for a guy who consistently gets 10%? The whole discussion is a non-starter. If we are going to dilute the Hall with guys like Concepcion, then it is no longer worth anything.
     
  18. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Take Davey's comparables: is the Hall diluted with Ozzie, Reese, Maranville, and Aparicio? Their numbers are comparable or worse than Davey's. (I have some good stories about Reese since I lived near Ekron and in Louisville).

    I just don't like the circular reasoning you're using. "The BBWA shouldn't vote him in because the BBWA hasn't voted him in." :laugh:

    I also don't agree that the BBWA and the Vets Cmte are fixed by any stretch. Two words: Rick Ferrell. :) I think with each passing year, the critics are right about revamping the whole thing and I wouldn't be opposed to closing the Hall and revoting on everyone. The present system has presented a mess.

    After you answer the above, I'm done on this one. You're ahead of me on some of my picks :) But I'm going to post the stats just for the heck of it.

    By the way: where else can numbers be considered "subjective"? Ya gotta love baseball stats! :laugh:
     
  19. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, it is probably diluted with Maranville and some with Reese. It is also way diluted with Rizzuto. Ozzie is worthy candidate and Aparicio, too.

    My point in discussing the BBWA vote is that when someone argues for a guy who consistently only gets 10% of the vote, then I am fairly confident that it is a losing argument. There are enough voters (over 500) to balance out the few "homer" votes that guys get. The BBWA vote, along with the unimpressive stats you have posted for Davey, convince me that the discussion is a nonstarter. Come back to me when at least 1/3rd or even 1/4th of the people who watch and write about baseball for a living start considering Davey a Hall candidate.

    The Vets committee is a separate issue. Almost all of the poor choices in the Hall came from the Vets committee. The BBWA for the most part has done a good job. But I bet if the Vets committee someday voted in Davey, you would be singing their praises!

    Stats have to be interpreted - they are not bare numbers. You cannot just compare the bare numbers for players of different eras. For instance, comparing Concepcion with Maranville is pretty meaningless, since they played in vastly different eras. You also have park factors, etc.
     
  20. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    The circular reasoning never ends. :laugh:

    The BBWA had a prominent member speak out on Kirby Puckett's inclusion. His job? He was a writer for Sports Collector's Digest. Did you know that no broadcaster (unless he writes an occasional token piece) is permitted membership? The NY Times, LA Times and other major news outlets prohibit their journalists from being part of BBWA or voting for the awards, citing journalistic integrity conflicts? I am one of many who believe the BBWA is not representative of the knowledgable field (much like coaches who vote in the USA Today CFB poll) and that the BBWA has a conflict of interest inherent in the membership. (By the way, have you ever heard the bromide about people not getting votes for the HOF because they were never ROY, POY, or MOY? Could that be because the BBWA votes for all of these? :laugh: I guess I'll leave it with this: I'm just not as enamored with the BBWA as you. Some writer for the Palookaville Post just doesn't impress me the way a Marty Brennaman, Joe Buck, or a upper level writer would.
    Well, I wouldn't say all. But a good many have come from the Vets committee.
    A blind hen gets some corn every once in a while! :)
    Gee, that sounds an awful lot like what I've been arguing. You take a player and compare him against the players of his own era. However, positions like SS and 2B have always had some measure of statistical consistency over the years, much more so than OF. Rather than the error of starting with the premise that a player is a HOFer and then use the numbers to prove he is, or start with the premise that a player is not a HOF and find numbers to show he isn't, let's evaluate each candidate on his merits based on the players of his era, his position in history (if the positions share some comparability over the years), and his own individual merits. This is thinking that is considered revolutionary in the baseball landscape.
     

Share This Page

Loading...