HOF: Dave Concepcion

Dave Concepcion belongs in the Hall of Fame

http://tomica.wordpress.com/

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

: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

 

Should I divulge my whole list and then go back and do the individual reasons why?

 

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.)

 

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

 

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:

 

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.