Concepcion -- HOF?

I don't have a real strong opinion on this, but I thought I'd combine two themes that popped up in other threads.

Alan Trammell was certainly an above-average hitter for a SS of his era, but in working through the numbers, I doubt he was as dominant as Concepcion.

Trammell played in a league with many good-hitting shortstops, he wasn't even the best...there was Ripken, Yount, Franco, Fernandez, and others.

But look at Concepcion. He was far, far better than the shortstops of his time.

Let's take one year: 1976. He hit .281 with 9 homers and 49 walks, seemingly nothing special. This wasn't an unusual year for Davey, it was pretty much his typical year from 1973-1982.

But he towers over the competition:
His OBP of .335 was second among NL shortstops, to Bud Harrelson's .351. His slugging percentage of .401 is downright Ruthian: Next highest was Tim Foli at .366, six teams had starting shortstops under .300. And he was probably the best-fielding shortstop in the league.

In a typical Trammell year, his numbers are better than Concepcion, but he doesn't dominate nearly as much.

Does this mean Concepcion should be a Hall of Famer, and forget about Trammell and Ozzie?

I don't know if Concepcion is a Hall of Famer, but I am pretty sure he's not better than Trammell, even if it could be shown that he's more runs above the average player than Trammell.

Two reasons:
1. This is sort of what Bill James calls the "Gavvy Cravath" argument. Just because Cravath led the league with 19 homers, that does not make him as good as Ruth leading the league with 54 homers. The game has changed.
2. The "average" level is susceptible to wild swings based on importing a few good players.
If you take the 1980s....move Ripken and Yount and Fernandez and Franco to the NL, what happens then? Well, now Trammell is miles ahead of the next-best guy in the AL, Greg Gagne or someone, and the average player becomes Ozzie Guillen. Ozzie Smith, compared to the average, is just a nice player, not a dominant figure at all.

This doesn't really make any sense; shifting a few players around, even importing a few superstars, doesn't really alter one player's impact that much.

Reality: Moving Ripken, Yount and Fernandez to the NL doesn't impact Ozzie's value one iota. Exchanging three shortstops maybe moves the league average runs per game from 4.3 to 4.35. Unless Ripken lands on a close division rival, the Mets in '87 or something, moving him to the NL does not seriously impact the Cardinals' season.


The average can change wildly due to a few more or less superstars; replacement level does not. The best first basemen of the 1990s are a lot better than the best first basemen of the 1970s, but the level for replacement level at first base is still the same: A first baseman who hits around the league average with average power and average walks. That guy's not going to be a starting first baseman for very long.

Same with shortstops. If you have four or five shortstops in the league who hit 40 homers, and the average shortstop now hits 20 homers a year, does this mean that a shortstop who hits 20 homers a year is no better than Darrell Chaney or Tim Foli?

No, but a replacement-level shortstop is still a replacement-level shortstop...someone with a .200 OWP or something.

The third-best NL first baseman of the 1970s was (take your pick) McCovey, Watson, or Garvey...this was out of 12 teams. Does this make Bob Watson better than Hank Greenberg, who was the third-best first baseman in the AL during the 1930s, which was only an eight-team league?

[Golden Bear]

I've already gone through my reasoning in another thread, but I'd put Concepcion in the Hall.

[Xanadu Dragon]

Does Davey differ all that much from Speier and Templeton?

Originally posted by Xanadu Dragon
Does Davey differ all that much from Speier and Templeton?

I don't know, but of course, Concepcion's HOF credentials really isn't the issue I wanted to discuss.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Dave Concepcion typifies a "gray area" Hall-of-Famer. This is reflected in Bill James" HOF Monitor index. Concepcion scores 107, which is just above the midpoint of the gray area. (The HOF monitor is an attempt to predict who WILL go into the Hall. From 70 to 130 is a gray area, where some are in and some are out. Check Baseball-Reference.com for more info.)

I count 15 shortstops in the Hall to date (including Ozzie Smith, who has been elected.)

I consider 7 of these shortstops to be demonstably better than Concepcion: Honus Wagner, Luke Applling, Lou Boudreau, Ernie Banks, Ozzie Smith, George Davis, and, probably, Joe Sewell. All but Sewell and Davis were selected by the writers.

There are 3 shortstops I would consider in Concepcion's class, although slightly better. These are (in order of ability) Pee Wee Reese, Luis Aparicio, and Phil Rizzuto. Only Aparicio was selected by the writers.

There are 3 shortstops I would consider in Concepcion's class, although Concepcion was slightly better. These are Bobby Wallace, Joe Tinker, and Rabbit Maranville. (Where you rank Maranville depends on the weight you give to the opinion of his contemporaries, and the value of his defense, which was, to my mind, unquestionably mega-Gold Glove.) All were elected by the Veterans Committee.

There are 2 shortstops that Concepcion is clearly superior to; by far, in my opinion. These are Dave Bancroft and Travis Jackson. Bancroft is a Frankie Frisch-era Veterans Committee selection and Travis Jackson was chosen by the Veterans Committee with some Frisch-era holdovers.

Concepcion appears to be in the bottom of the middle of HOF shortstops. He wouldn't disgrace the Hall if he were inducted; that's already been done. Madonna is not only not a virgin, she's not even "Like a Virgin". Ditto for Cooperstown and enshrining players at Concepcion's level.

Concepcion's strongest arguments for the Hall, in my opinion, lay in:

(a) His 9 All-Star game selections

(b) His 5 Gold Gloves

(c) His role as a star on two World Championship teams.
(He was NOT as star on the 70 and 72 Reds, however.)

(d) His standing as the best shortstop in the National League
from 1973-82.

The main argument against Concepcion is the shortstops that came after him. Ripken, Trammell, Ozzie, and Larkin are all superior to Concepcion by a ridiculous amount. As time passes, Concepcion will have to be compared not only to those guys, but to A-Rod, Nomar, Jeter, and, possibly, Tejada. It's not quite like comparing Gavy Cravath and Cy Williams to Ruth, Gehrig, and Foxx, but it's not a completely incorrect analogy.

My bottom line is that there are more deserving players than Concepcion. Santo, Whitaker, Oliva, Carter; they all come before Dave. Stan Hack, Joe Torre, maybe even Gil Hodges, are ahead of Concepcion in the Cooperstown line.

It IS possible, however, that Concepcion is, at present, the best shortstop eligible for election to the Hall of Fame who is not yet enshrined. (If anyone can name someone better, I'd like to know; I can't think of anyone now.)

I can't advocate Concepcion's election at this time. There are many more deserving players not yet in. However, his selection would not, by any means be an outrage. He does appear, however, to be a Veterans Committee-type selection, and those selections haven't always helped the Hall.

[Xanadu Dragon]

Originally posted by Baudib
I don't know, but of course, Concepcion's HOF credentials really isn't the issue I wanted to discuss.

Then why the title "Concepcion -- HOF?" ?

To pose a question/issue that can be summed up in the Concepcion example.

[Xanadu Dragon]

Hello Golden Bear! No problem - try it again.

[gyb13]

Originally posted by Baudib
The best first basemen of the 1990s are a lot better than the best first basemen of the 1970s, but the level for replacement level at first base is still the same: A first baseman who hits around the league average with average power and average walks.

By this reasoning, a replacement player is an average player.

Same with shortstops. If you have four or five shortstops in the league who hit 40 homers, and the average shortstop now hits 20 homers a year, does this mean that a shortstop who hits 20 homers a year is no better than Darrell Chaney or Tim Foli?

No, it means that he (the avg SS who hits 20 HR) is as good compared to his league as Chaney/Foli were compared to their leagues. It says nothing about the comparison between the avg SS and Chaney/Foli as players.

The third-best NL first baseman of the 1970s was (take your pick) McCovey, Watson, or Garvey...this was out of 12 teams. Does this make Bob Watson better than Hank Greenberg, who was the third-best first baseman in the AL during the 1930s, which was only an eight-team league?

If you can't see the fallacy in this question, we're beating a dead horse.

[Golden Bear]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear
Dave Concepcion typifies a "gray area" Hall-of-Famer. This is reflected in Bill James" HOF Monitor index. Concepcion scores 107, which is just above the midpoint of the gray area. (The HOF monitor is an attempt to predict who WILL go into the Hall. From 70 to 130 is a gray area, where some are in and some are out. Check Baseball-Reference.com for more info.)

I count 15 shortstops in the Hall to date (including Ozzie Smith, who has been elected.)

I consider 7 of these shortstops to be demonstably better than Concepcion: Honus Wagner, Luke Applling, Lou Boudreau, Ernie Banks, Ozzie Smith, George Davis, and, probably, Joe Sewell. All but Sewell and Davis were selected by the writers.

There are 3 shortstops I would consider in Concepcion's class, although slightly better. These are (in order of ability) Pee Wee Reese, Luis Aparicio, and Phil Rizzuto. Only Aparicio was selected by the writers.

There are 3 shortstops I would consider in Concepcion's class, although Concepcion was slightly better. These are Bobby Wallace, Joe Tinker, and Rabbit Maranville. (Where you rank Maranville depends on the weight you give to the opinion of his contemporaries, and the value of his defense, which was, to my mind, unquestionably mega-Gold Glove.) All were elected by the Veterans Committee.

There are 2 shortstops that Concepcion is clearly superior to; by far, in my opinion. These are Dave Bancroft and Travis Jackson. Bancroft is a Frankie Frisch-era Veterans Committee selection and Travis Jackson was chosen by the Veterans Committee with some Frisch-era holdovers.

Concepcion appears to be in the bottom of the middle of HOF shortstops. He wouldn't disgrace the Hall if he were inducted; that's already been done. Madonna is not only not a virgin, she's not even "Like a Virgin". Ditto for Cooperstown and enshrining players at Concepcion's level.

Concepcion's strongest arguments for the Hall, in my opinion, lay in:

(a) His 9 All-Star game selections

(b) His 5 Gold Gloves

(c) His role as a star on two World Championship teams.
(He was NOT as star on the 70 and 72 Reds, however.)

(d) His standing as the best shortstop in the National League
from 1973-82.

The main argument against Concepcion is the shortstops that came after him. Ripken, Trammell, Ozzie, and Larkin are all superior to Concepcion by a ridiculous amount. As time passes, Concepcion will have to be compared not only to those guys, but to A-Rod, Nomar, Jeter, and, possibly, Tejada. It's not quite like comparing Gavy Cravath and Cy Williams to Ruth, Gehrig, and Foxx, but it's not a completely incorrect analogy.

My bottom line is that there are more deserving players than Concepcion. Santo, Whitaker, Oliva, Carter; they all come before Dave. Stan Hack, Joe Torre, maybe even Gil Hodges, are ahead of Concepcion in the Cooperstown line.

It IS possible, however, that Concepcion is, at present, the best shortstop eligible for election to the Hall of Fame who is not yet enshrined. (If anyone can name someone better, I'd like to know; I can't think of anyone now.)

I can't advocate Concepcion's election at this time. There are many more deserving players not yet in. However, his selection would not, by any means be an outrage. He does appear, however, to be a Veterans Committee-type selection, and those selections haven't always helped the Hall.

Excellent discussion, Fuzzy. A few friendly amendments:

Arky Vaughn and Robin Yount are also superior HOF SS. Many consider Trammell to be a superior eligible unenshrined SS, although I think it's a pretty close call between them.

And, to answer the question you seem to be indirectly asking, Baudib, I think both Concepcion and Trammell belong in the HOF. You've got two guys with 2300+ hits, GG-caliber defense at SS for a dozen or so years, (and above average for the rest), multiple All-Star appearances (9 for DC, 6 for AT), and superior all-around games, plus they were both cornerstones of WS teams -- in Trammell's case, arguably the best player on his team. (And you can't blame Davey for being on the same squad with Morgan, Bench, and Rose.) With those sort of credentials, it's less a question of "Why?" and more a question of "Why Not?" to me.

Here's the text from an old post of mine on the subject:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dave Concepcion -- Solid SS on Big Red Machine; long, distinguished career (2499 games). Exceptional glove man. He never really had a signature season, but he was good for a long time; you could claim he was one of the best SS in the game from 1973-1985. His offensive numbers pale when compared to today's super SS (or even compared to his replacement Barry Larkin), but when taken in the context of when he played, they were very good for a SS. Responsible for a minor innovation -- the bounce throw to 1b on AstroTurf. Stole bases, too -- 321 at 75% efficiency.

Alan Trammell -- Another SS with an excellent all-around game. Best BA of the three (.285), with a signature season in 1987 when he should have been MVP (as should have Smith in the NL). Excellent glove, part of the famous "Trammaker" DP combination. Did everything well, but nothing extraordinarily well; Bill James would call him the classic type of player that gets underrated. Overshadowed by his contemporaries -- couldn't field or run like Ozzie, and wasn't Cal Jr. at the plate, but for a SS he had five tools (well, not a lot of power, but some) for a long time.

[SmedIndy]

I say no to Concepcion. He was the best of a bad bunch of shortstops. It's not a great accomplishment to say you were better than Tim Foli or Roger Metzger or Bud Harrelson or lest we forget, Enzo Hernandez.

I started both the 1971 and 1976 seasons in Diamond Mind. There's a lot of dreck at SS.

Maybe if you artifically limit Concepcion to his peak years, and forget about his first few years and the end of his career when he had to one-hop the ball to first, then he may look like a HOF player.

Originally posted by gyb13

By this reasoning, a replacement player is an average player.

No, it means that he (the avg SS who hits 20 HR) is as good compared to his league as Chaney/Foli were compared to their leagues. It says nothing about the comparison between the avg SS and Chaney/Foli as players.

If you can't see the fallacy in this question, we're beating a dead horse.

No...

1. A first baseman who is a league-average hitter (all positions) is a replacement-level first baseman. On many teams, the first baseman is the best hitter on the team. In any event, almost all first basemen are above-average hitters compared to shortstops and second basemen and catchers and third basemen.
2. If you're using runs above average, then the 20-homer shortstop is no better than Chaney/Foli.
3. The fallacy of the Watson-Greenberg analogy is the exact fallacy I'm trying to get you to see.

Greenberg was the third-best first baseman because he played against the two greatest first basemen of all time. When you add Gehrig and Foxx to the equation, the "average" first baseman is something like a .300 hitter with 30 homers. This is the same problem that A-Rod and Nomar and Jeter cause; a few outstanding players distorting the "Average."

And if you compare Watson and Greenberg to their league averages for their best 5-10 years, I'm not sure that Greenberg would come out ahead. This is because the first basemen of Watson's time were markedly worse than the first basemen of Greenberg's time (please don't do the math here, I'm just making an argument).

If Greenberg and Watson have the same "runs above average," this does not make them equal players.

But replacement level stays fairly constant. A replacement-level first baseman is someone who is around the league average (for all hitters); a guy first baseman with an offensive winning percentage of .480-.500.

Two players who are even in "runs above average" can have remarkably different runs above the replacement level; Greenberg and Watson might appear to be the same, using runs above average, but Greenberg would beat the hell out of him in runs above replacement level.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by Baudib



But replacement level stays fairly constant. A replacement-level first baseman is someone who is around the league average (for all hitters); a guy first baseman with an offensive winning percentage of .480-.500.

Two players who are even in "runs above average" can have remarkably different runs above the replacement level; Greenberg and Watson might appear to be the same, using runs above average, but Greenberg would beat the hell out of him in runs above replacement level.

Of course you fail to see that Greenberg's era and Watson's era were remarkably different, and Greenberg's park and Watson's park were remarkably different.

Originally posted by SmedIndy


Of course you fail to see that Greenberg's era and Watson's era were remarkably different, and Greenberg's park and Watson's park were remarkably different.

I don't fail to see that. I assume everyone knows that. But do you think Watson was better than Greenberg?

[Golden Bear]

It's important to look at context, but at some point you've got to take into account what the guy did. It's not Concepcion's fault he didn't have a lot of other SS to be better than in the 70's; this is like criticizing Larry Holmes because there were no heavyweights nearly as good as him during his prime -- it doesn't mean Holmes wasn't a great fighter. (Besides, I think Bowa was awfully good, and Bill Russell, Rick Burleson, Mark Belanger, etc., had their moments -- the cupboard wasn't completely bare.) Park effects are minimal anyway

The guy was a legitimately great fielding SS; for at least 10 years he was as good as you can ask any SS to be. (Was he Ozzie? No, but that's not fair; Roberto Clemente wasn't Babe Ruth, either, but he's still a HOF. Same thing with Ozzie's fielding at SS.)

Offensively, he was very good, for his era. There were 1b and CF who had numbers like Concepcion's during the same time frame; heck, there were some guys at those positions whom Davey was clearly better than with the stick, especially when you include baserunning into the equation.

There's a school of thought which just dismissively waves away counting stats, but I'll say it again -- 2326 hits. There's only 105 guys who've ever gotten more through 2001, and very few of them could play a skill position at the very highest level.

I'm not going to tell you that Concepcion is the best ever, or even the top tier. But he's clearly a significant achiever who has reached the levels generally assocaited with enshrinement.

I know I won't convince the purists who want to boot half of the population of Cooperstown out onto the street, but if there are folks on the fence, I hope I've made a fair case here.