User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.6334 seconds
45 querie(s) executed
| ||||||||
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
| ||||||||
Baseball Primer Newsblog — The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand Wednesday, January 11, 2012Jim Kaat: Dave Concepcion, Jim Bunning, Jack Morris and the Hall of FameHey Meow Mixer…it might help if you stopped using the O’Connell/Madden/Ogle approved Elias ####### Sports Bureau.
Repoz
Posted: January 11, 2012 at 08:01 AM | 62 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags: fantasy baseball, hall of fame, history, sabermetrics |
Login to submit news.
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsNewsblog: This was the wildest game in MLB history
(14 - 11:27am, Feb 08) Last: My name is Votto, and I love to get Moppo Newsblog: These MLB legends were trailblazers in Japan (8 - 11:14am, Feb 08) Last: Ziggy: social distancing since 1980 Newsblog: 2023 NBA Regular Season Thread (478 - 10:32am, Feb 08) Last: Crosseyed and Painless Newsblog: The Boomers Were Right: Batting Average is REALLY Important (16 - 8:36am, Feb 08) Last: . Newsblog: How to Watch the Caribbean Series (8 - 8:23am, Feb 08) Last: Jose is an Absurd Sultan Newsblog: The 53-year-old who might pitch forever (7 - 7:39am, Feb 08) Last: Adam Starblind Newsblog: Stat of the Week: Zack Greinke’s Defense (1 - 5:19am, Feb 08) Last: John Reynard Hall of Merit: Ranking Right Fielders in the Hall of Merit - Discussion thread (54 - 10:52pm, Feb 07) Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to Newsblog: The A’s Teardown Is Not Going Well (7 - 10:41pm, Feb 07) Last: A triple short of the cycle Newsblog: Dodgers to retire Valenzuela's No. 34 (27 - 8:27pm, Feb 07) Last: rr would lock Shaq's a$$ up Newsblog: OT: Wrestling Thread November 2014 (2642 - 6:29pm, Feb 07) Last: 57i66135 is a hard word for me. Newsblog: OT - 2022 NFL thread Part II (349 - 6:27pm, Feb 07) Last: Zach Newsblog: OT Soccer Thread - Hi Ho Hi Ho it’s Back to Club Football We Go (418 - 6:25pm, Feb 07) Last: Mefisto Sox Therapy: The Future Starts Now (Hopefully) (27 - 5:22pm, Feb 07) Last: villageidiom Hall of Merit: Reranking Left Fielders: Results (16 - 2:54pm, Feb 07) Last: DL from MN |
|||||||
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 0.6334 seconds |
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Rally Posted: January 11, 2012 at 08:32 AM (#4033963)There isn't much room for debate on their batting. Larkin's at +189 runs, Concepcion at -139. Only way this could be remotely true is if Concepcion was better than Ozzie on defense.
Mr. Kaat needs a tautology lesson, I fear.
OK, this is just crazy talk. It was a freakin perfect game. In the World Series.
I can't think of any single game feat more impressive than that (context considered).
Yawn. A bunch of players think their longtime teammate should be honored as well. This is some sort of revelation? Koufax and Drysdale probably think Maury Wills belongs. Winfield and Henderson probably think Mattingly belongs. Ask Brock and Gibson and they will probably say absolutely Joe Torre belongs. I'm sure Mantle, Berra. and Ford thought it was criminal that Maris wasn't inducted.
On that specific question (comparison to Rice only), would they be wrong?
Unlikely. They might say something nice but Roger kept everyone at a distance.
It's been re-worked to make Maris out to be some Gary Cooper type character but in his day he was not regarded as such.
On that specific question (comparison to Rice only), would they be wrong?"
About as close as two players can be. Both in career WAR and for being the exact same type of slugger at their peaks, and peaking at the same time in the late 70's.
I was going to say, I read the headline without noticing the colon and figured TFA would be about the relative merits of all four for the HOVG.
As AROM points out in #1, the argument for Concepcion being as good as Larkin is pretty dire. I understand Dan R's argument about DC's value relative to his own contemporary SS, but that's not Kaat's argument. The traditional stats look like this:
G PA R H HR RBI BB SO SB BA OBP SLG
Barry Larkin 2180 9057 1329 2340 198 960 939 817 379 .295 .371 .444
Dave Concepcion 2488 9640 993 2326 101 950 736 1186 321 .267 .322 .357
Concepcion had an admirably long career, but Larkin's edge in rate stats is overwhelming. The traditionalist argument for Concepcion is entirely intangible (because I don't think Kaat is trashing Larkin's defense, or particularly exalting Concepcion's; even if Concepcion was great, Larkin was still very, very good).
That's just ugly. The 88 OPS+ would be among the very worst in the HoF.
Only Ozzie (87), Maz (84), Schalk (83), Aparicio (82) and Marranville (82) are worse. Hell Bob Lemon has an 82.
Never heard Concepcion considered as near the glove man as the other no hit SS's. Am I wrong?
This is why former players always make for great GMs.
[/sarcasm]
DB
I disagree; I think Morris's game was more impressive. He held the opposing team scoreless for 10 innings in a Game 7. Larsen was pitching a Game 5 with the series tied at 2, so not win-or-go-home, and his team scored 2 runs for him in the 9 innings (as opposed to Morris's team, who didn't score for him at all over 9 innings).
Perfect games, at their core, are flukes.
Yeah, and in the case of the Larsen game, there were three defensive gems and a ball hit into the stands down the line that was foul by not that much. The most impressive thing about Larsen that day was his 97-pitch count, and the fact that he went to three balls on only one batter.
And even Morris's fabulous performance was to some extent a fluke, as it hinged upon Lonnie Smith's baserunning boner, which would've likely given the Braves the win if he hadn't made it.
In terms of pitching performance under pressure, I can't think of any game I've ever seen that topped Chris Carpenter in last year's deciding Division Series game against Roy Halladay. 1-0 on the road against the best pitcher in baseball, in a win-or-go-home situation, how in the hell can you possibly beat that?
some dumb reporter asked Stengel afterwards if that was the best game he had ever seen Larsen pitch, and Casey said "so far"
He was considered a great glove man. Even in Philly, there was an argument about whether Bowa** or Concepcion was a better fielder.
** Bowa set the record at the time for fewest errors in a season, ergo, he was a great fielding SS.
Side note, Bowa's humor claim to fame is that he called Concepcion "Elmer", which Bowa thought was his name because he always saw E Concepcion in the box score. Bowa, at least, felt a real rivalry with Concepcion. I'm not sure it wasn't 1-sided.
See: Game 7, 1991 World Series.
I do think it's a huge deal that this was a Game 7 in a World Series. The entire season, the championship, swung on the game; they had gone as far as they could go, and with a win there would be no more work to be done (unlike Carpenter's game or Larsen's game). It was immortality.
I would never downplay Morris's effort. I just don't think it is a significant point in his case for the Hall of Fame. I don't think it makes him a great postseason pitcher per se. It was -- and as you note he had help from his fielders, as all pitchers do -- a great single game performance at a time when his team could not afford to settle for anything less than that performance.
I have a simple rule in life. I never have a drink earlier than noon or whatever time it is that I first see/hear reference to Lonnie Smith's baserunning.
Agree that Morris's performance in that game is an all-time classic gem, and there's no need to downplay it.
Does that make him a Hall of Famer?
Of course not.
If we are talking just pure pitching performance, Larsen's perfect game was much more impressive.
Morris allowed 7 hits and 2 walks to go with 8 Ks in 10 innings. He wasn't in any way unhittable, he had runners in scoring position in three innings, and as stated, only Lonnie Smith's baserunning error prevented him from losing. It was a perfectly fine performance, but it wasn't even his best performance of all-time.
? I responded to Snapper's #4, which specifically considered context:
Some do. It's a minority opinion, but he has his supporters. A lot of it for being innovative in how he played on turf. I think this would get him more support if "turf shortstop" had turned out to be an evolution instead of an evolutionary dead end.
That it was game 7, and went into extra innings with no margin for error, makes Morris' feat barely more impressive.
What's the most impressive showing for a position player in a WS game? Reggie's 3 HR on 3 swings?
Sound principles to live by, my good man. Sound principles to live by.
Some of the newer metrics hate Bowa a lot; DRA has him as one of the worst SS of his, or any, era. Here's WAR Fielding Runs for shortstops (1970-79 only), however:
Player Rfield G
Mark Belanger 193 1402
Bert Campaneris 86 1342
Dave Concepcion 55 1349
Bill Russell 47 1317
Larry Bowa 43 1489
Tim Foli 43 1165
Bud Harrelson 28 1009
Freddie Patek 25 1329
Chris Speier 25 1295
Roger Metzger -32 1191
Don Kessinger -42 1355
Bowa doesn't look ridiculous there. But it does show that Belanger and Campaneris were the gold standard. I was an NL fan and only got to see Belanger or Campaneris on TV, usually in the postseason, so can't comment much from observation, but the rankings of the NL shortstops in that list are similar to what I would have come up with at the time. (Yes, we did think Bowa was pretty good :)
Yes. If you remove the World Series context, you have Haddix to consider, other perfect games, The Spahn/Marichal 16 inning duel, the 20K games, etc.
Mark Belanger 193 1402
Bert Campaneris 86 1342
Dave Concepcion 55 1349
Bill Russell 47 1317
Larry Bowa 43 1489
Tim Foli 43 1165
If that's close to accurate, Concepcion doesn't deserve a sniff. If you're going in with a 88 OPS+ you better be an elite fielding SS, best in your era. He's in a lump of guys for 3rd best.
FWIW, highest 9 inning game score ever.
Not good. He'd have to retire first.
And full context (playoff implications, state of the game, state of his body), the most impressive I've seen was Pedro's six innings of no-hit ball in what had been a slugfest Game 5 of the 1999 ALDS.
Not better than either of these.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SFN/SFN196307020.shtml
No hitter and hits 2 homers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFHZGIQusOg
Dan Rosenheck has Concepcion's name in his screen name, but actually pushes Campaneris as the best remaining SS candidate from that era in HoM arguments.
I might have to institute a #22-style drinking rule with respect to that game. When Pedro came in, you knew it was over. In the damn 4th inning.. sigh.
--In the HoF structure, he'd be a VC pick.
--That case would rest on the ten solid years at the core of his career, age 25-34, when he put up 99+% of his total value according to WAR.
His 25-34 years rank 19th all-time for SS according to WAR.
Top twenty-one:
Wagner*
----------70
----------60
----------55
Ripken*
Larkin*
----------50
Trammell
Jeter
----------45
Smith*
Appling*
Reese*
Boudreau*
Cronin*
Tejada
Wallace*
----------40
Bancroft*
Campaneris
Vaughan* (better earlier...)
Fletcher
Tinker*
----------35
Peckinpaugh
Bell (Jay)
Concepcion
Parent
Dark
----------30
*HOF
NOTES: Damn, that Honus!!! Rizzuto would probably be on the list, but he missed three years (age 25-27) due to WWII. Jimmy Rollins will probably make the list, as he has two more years to go before he's filled up the 25-34 years and is currently hovering at just under 29. A-Rod not here because he switched to 3B at age 28.
Wagner*
----------70
----------60
----------55
Ripken*
DAVIS G*
Larkin*
BANKS*
----------50
Trammell
Jeter
GLASSCOCK
WALLACE
DAHLEN
----------45
Smith*
Appling*
Reese*
Boudreau*
Cronin*
Tejada
Wallace*
----------40
Bancroft*
Campaneris
Vaughan* (better earlier...)
Fletcher
LONG H
MCKEAN
Tinker*
----------35
Peckinpaugh
Bell (Jay)
Concepcion
Parent
Dark
----------30
Dan R's main point is that replacement-level SS was so horrid in that era that Concepcion shines. I think he ends up rating him the equivalent of McCovey. Anyway, he's got a point. From 73-82 (the period identified by Don), Cocnepcion had a 101 OPS+ which was good for third best of those 10 years among players with at least 800 games at SS with Robin Yount leading at 106. Of the players who made it to 800 games in that 10-year period, the median OPS+ is 77 (DeJesus). Tim Foli got 5100 PA with a 66, Veryzer almost 3000 PA with a 62. Drop it to 400 games and the median becomes Kessinger with a 75 but the bottom plummets and you get Luis Gomez with about 1400 PA at 40; the infamous Mendoza is here with a 41 in nearly 1500 PA. In WAR terms, he's 2nd with 33.5, only 1.5 behind Yount and way ahead of Templeton in 3rd with 20. In WAR terms he was playing at an HoF level for those 10 years.
Whether the talent pool was awful or there was a collectively insane response to astroturf resulting in all-defense, no-hit SS I don't know. I am not a fan of putting a guy in the HoF just because his competition at the position stunk at an historical level but I can see where it greatly increases his "value." (Similar to our recent discussion about durable average pitchers being valuable.)
As to his actual HoF chances, he's got a shot with the VC. His fate with the writers was pretty much sealed because he wasn't considered one of the great fielding SS of all-time but he was on the ballot for 15 years peaking at 16%.
On Vizquel: He's got a shot. The HoF does historically go for great-fielding SS. Maranville was considered the best ever to that point -- it took him a while but he made it. He was superceded by Aparicio who also added a ton of steals (and has one of the oddest HoF voting histories you'll ever see). Then of course Ozzie. Nobody thinks Vizquel is Ozzie's equal so I don't see him making it but his 11 GG are second only to Ozzie's 13 at SS. I'm expecting him to have a Concepcion-like existence at the bottom of the backlog for a long time.
And of course his offensive performance is simply proof he didn't use PEDs. :-)
EDIT: Back to the Concepcion bit ... guys like Mendoza/Gomez were generally the replacement-level guys but each spent about 1.5 seasons as a starter. From 76-81, Veryzer averaged about 400 PA per season with a 55 OPS+ -- he was the Tigers primary SS during that period. The 80s weren't really much better with Rafael Belliard plus Andres Thomas spending a fair time as starters. From an arbitrary 1972-1990 I get 28 seasons with 400+ PA and an OPS+<55 with 80% games at SS. Mendoza with a 25, Piccolo with a 31, Bowa a 39. Look at 100-400 PA and you get 68 more seasons with an OPS+ under 55 with Angel Salazar contributing 300 PA of 23 and another nearly 200 PA of 9. Replacement level SS was way, way down there for that period. Not that TPJ has anything to brag about in the 00s.
Since the vast majority of us believe in the "replacement level" principle, I really think we should be taking this system more seriously. I think it is finding true replacement value a lot better than the more generic methods.
Of course, this is not Kaat's argument, and the "ask his teammates" argument is stupid. (BTW, I believe Bowa's beef with Concepcion dates back to Davey's public badmouthing of Bushmills.) And I can't help thinking, as post #6, that Morris's election would help Kaat's own case. On the bright side, I think most of us would agree with Kaat's thoughts on the "first ballot." And if his argument isn't intended to be "ask Concepcion's teammates whether he was any good" but rather a more general "players should be allowed to vote too", he's probably right about that.
Oh, and Vizquel is 100% in. 2,841 hits from a SS, 11 Gold Gloves, career makes for a good story, very well-liked personally. The steroid trainwreck will affect the timing, that's all. Totally in at this point.
Might Mr James have a different opinion in his latest abstract?
If yes, what is his current take on the top 10 of all time.
As I recall he was also a big fan of Bagwell, thinking him a shoo-in for the HoF if he continued unabated (which he unfortunately didn't).
the three homers is impressive, the three swings point is just a minor bit of trivia, it doesn't affect the value of each at bat in the slightest and outside of a story perspective it has absolutely no bearing or relevance on the type of performance.
Right, but doesnt the same reasoning apply to these "pitchers scores" that first Bill James come up with? They quote Kerry WOods's score or whatever, does it matter if he KO's them or gets them on a ground ball? At a certain pt. you just can't quantify it to the pt. of a single number. There are several basic skills involved at even it's barest level...
*******
I dont think the discussion of best player at his position is so cut dried as some of you think. You put different players in different eras with a different emphasis on skills and you might find vast discrepancies. Most eras probably have at least two guys who can be put forth as best at that position. And once you factor in park effects, league wide effects, injuries, usage, big game performance, etc. there is a large area of grey.
ANd then you, as a researcher try to figure out what the turnover rate is or what the average longevity should be for such a player. Be it ten years or 5 years or whatever. There might be 20 generations of CFs with 2 guys for every generation. Sure Mays and RIcky would always have longer careers but for a given stretch, one year, or one month or one week. WHo knows?
That much is hard to argue. As a personal opinion it rankles me to no end that people are willing to re-characterize a players career or somehow look at him differently by assuming he plays at a time when he didn't. LIke giving Rizzuto war time credit. Or credit for Lefty ODoul, or for Minoso. THere's lots of reasons could be race, could be sitting in the minors. I understand the logic, or fairnes of it. But nobody wants to oh, I dunno say compare Clemente to Aaron say there could not possibly be an argument.
WIth Frank Robinson, OK I can him I guess. But take all three of them: Clemente, Aaron, Robinson.
What if they played in the dead ball era? WHo gets more love? People will easily assume Rizzuto will perform just as Rizzuto in years even when he didnt play or that Ted Williams won't get hurt if he plays during WW II and/or Korea. Well who knows?
YOu dont even have to change a players temporal data. Just plug Clemente and Aaron into the large ball parks in the Latin American leagues where they played winter ball in the 60s. CLemente might come out ahead as larger ball parks might test a different skill set.
It's not all that cut and dried if you are willing to place players in different contexts. Not just years, but ball parks, or against different pitchers, or in overcast conditions etc. etc.
But like I said, the latter part of this rant is just personal. I just see SABR guys buying completely into an argument that Bill James made 30 years ago without even allowing for the full consequences of it..
James may have wrote that elsewhere (and his ranking of Bags as the #4 all-time 1B would certainly suggest he believed it), but his comment on Bagwell in the New Historical Abstract famously consisted of the single word "Pass."
technically a K is a more or less a true pitcher out, while a ball in play is a team out. That is why the ko gets bonus points. Game score is really a score about dominance, and getting strikeouts is about dominance.
Yep, I gave up that fight this year. I think Viz is massively overrated, but there is no way he is not eventually going in, he was borderline at 2300 hits, and nobody on the planet cares how he got to 2800.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main