Okay, let's not run and hide. We make predictions because they are fun. We also do it to sound smart. Rarely will anyone stand upon that hill and take the slings and arrows that some fans may want to hurl at me. I have placed my predictions in four groups. As an aside, I care most about the Diamonbacks prediction. Jon Heyman drew my ire with his Diamonbacks love. In fairness, I figured I'd make my own predictions instead of cherry picking his. Though the guy wrote a whole article on why the Diamondbacks were the team to beat, so I guess I really didn't cherry pick, but here goes:
Nailed it:
Diamonbacks - All the evidence was there to point to a fluke in 2007. But let's ignore evidence. Evidence doesn't play baseball. It just happens. Ballplayers play ball. You can't have an opinion unless your a ballplayer - or unless you're a fellow dork who tries to sound cool by saying things like "ballplayers play baseball." So true. It just so happens that these ballplayers were out baseballed by those basebally baseballers known as the Dodgers. Which brings me to...
Dodgers - I didn't have them winning the West, but as it shook out, the record I had them at wound up being good enough.
Red Sox - Okay, the record was off. But this team made the playoffs. I'm taking credit.
Angels - Okay, I had the Sox at 100 wins. The absolute (and slightly unexpected) awfulness (see "slightly" below) of the Mariners helped get them there. But see above. I'm taking credit.
Yankees -They were short a few wins, but they were in the running. And missed out as I suspected they could.
Blue Jays - Aside from the NL Central and AL East, this team likely wins any other division.
Phillies - I had the Mets better, but the Phils in the playoffs. I'll take it.
Giants - Were less horrible than everyone else predicted.
Reds - Dusty Baker is further disconnected from baseball reality.
Cubs - Shorted them some wins, but had them winning the division.
Orioles, Pirates, Nationals, Royals - Two foot putts.
Slightly Right
Oakland/Texas/Seattle - All the Seattle love was not understood by me. The 2007 version lived and died with the bullpen, which is the most erratic part of a team. It's why a hero in one town is a villain in another (Gagne, Wagner, Timlin, etc). How well did people think the pen would do when their new "ace" came in without a 200 inning season under his belt. By the way Mr Bedard, we're still waiting. So I had Oakland ahead of Seattle, but Texas behind them. Slight credit.
Milwaukee Brewers - I had them above .500, but not in the playoffs.
Mets - Were in it to the bitter end, but I had them in the playoffs
Slightly Wrong
Cleveland - Probably should go in the "Boy was I wrong" category. I had them as the wild card. At least they rallied to get to respectability.
Cardinals - I thought they'd be worse, but they weren't great.
Astros - See my manager rankings. When this team was below .500, I had Cecil Cooper at 12. He had them lurking in September. Never a serious threat, but not the below .500 team I thought they's be.
Gulp! Boy Was I Wrong
Detroit - Seriously? Guys? Were you serious? Not only were you not the second best team in baseball, Kansas City radio shows are likely saying things like, "Well it could be worse. We could be the Tigers." By the way, baseball's three highest payrolls? All watching the playoffs.
Tampa - I did have the caveat that for three years, people saif "Look out for the Rays." My response was "Put up or shut up." Well put men. Well put.
Rockies and Padres - This year's game 163 will determine who gets to axe their manager.
White Sox and Twins- Sox could still miss the playoffs. I thought Dye, Thome, and Konerko were on the wrong side of prime to continue being threats. I also don't like that Ozzie thinks he can just outcrazy the rest of the league. Twins would defintely fall under this category regardless of any rationalization.
Atlanta and Florida - Maybe Florida is a slightly wrong, but a misjudgment on over/under .500 should put me here.
So I got more right than wrong, but the Arizona pick should count triple. That was my one shining moment.
Wade Boggs, Jim Rice, Peter Gammons - Two of these things go kind of together. Two of these things look kind of the same. But one of these things just doesn't belong here. Now it's time to play our game. It's time to play our game.
I like Gammons enough - if for no other reason than to see where he can oddly interject the word "but" into his breakdowns. No seriously, I like him. He's a pretty progressive thinker in baseball circles, yet he somehow managed to win the favor of the BBWAA. So this means, that if Murray Chass is playing our little game, then the answer to the above is Jim Rice.
Rice passes the baseball card test with flying colors. Baseballreference.com calls it the black ink test. Rice led the league in home runs three times, RBI twice, SLG twice, H once, and even once for triples. The gray ink (measuring top tens) is also a slam dunk when compared to other Hall members. He also fares well in the Hall standards and montior tests that measure those extras (MVPs, AS games, silver sluggers etc).
So where does Rice fall short? Two things: The media elects the Hall members (initial balloting). The other thing is that Jim Rice is Brian Griese. Spanning 16 years, Rice played the majority of his games in left field. He took over the spot held by 23 year Hall of Famer Carl Yazstremski. How do you think Mike Greenwell feels abou all this? Preceded by Yaz and Rice, then essentially succeeded by ManRam, no team may be able to claim a better continuum of left fielders. If Jason Bay gets to that stratosphere, Rice better hope the veterans commitee already has him in the Hall, or he would further pale in comparison.
It also doesn't help that a guy like Albert Belle put up similar numbers in fewer seasons, as did Dale Murphy - as a center fielder by the way. Rice gets lost in the shuffle, primarily because he is the link between the Fisk/Yax Sox and the Boggs/Clemens Sox. All of these reasons work against Rice, but let's see how he stacks up in all-time terms.
HR: 382-->317 20.5
2B: 373-->438 (14.9)
3B: 79-->118 (33.1)
SB: 58-->352 (83.6)
H: 2452-->2428 1.0
BB: 670-->1018 (34.2)
AVG: .298-->.309 (3.6)
OBP: .352-->.389 (9.6)
Clearly, speed was not part of his game. Playing the monster was appropriate. It allowed Rice to be a league average fielder. Sure there are fewer putouts (this can be argued though, since line drives could fall into a glove at Fenway that fall to the ground at Yankee Stadium), but there are more chances for assists. That strategy has pretty much kept Manny from receiving the DH tag. Well that, and he once suited up alongside David Ortiz.
All in all, Rice has had moments of dominance in his career, and that's what we're led to believe as being the criteria. One must wonder, if Bob Stanley doesn't bounce one, is this even an issue? That's for you all to decide below...
This fellow from Cleveland was a major factor in my recent brain explosion. I streamed some KNR on back to back weeks, as I saw just how awful the Browns were. It's my sadistic side I guess. I enjoy finding the angriest shows the day after a loss. For instance, streaming the FAN in New York, post-Mets loss, would bring a lot of joy to my day.
On Monday, I heard the second swipe by Mr Munch at CC Sabathia in as many weeks. I can only imagine that this occurs Tuesday through Friday as well, but I have no desire to listen to enough Cleveland radio to confirm this. What made my brain explode was this (call the wife if this abruptly ends - it means the transplant didn't take): "...and will CC Sabathia ever win a big game in his career?"
How shall I approach this? Well, here are the NL Wild Card standings as of today:
Milwaukee 87-71
NY Mets 87-71
Houston Astros 83-74
Here were the standings on July 1st:
St Louis 48-37
Milwaukee 45-38
Florida 43-40
The Milwaukee Brewers are 13-2 in games CC Sabathia starts. That's a winning percentage of 86.67%. For the season, Milwaukee has a winning percentage of 55.1%. If the Brewers never make the trade, presumably they would have been stuck with a league average pitcher in their rotation. Here is what the wild card standings would look like with a league average pitcher in that spot:
NY Mets 87-71
Houston Astros 84-73 (CC beat the Astros)
Florida 82-76
St Louis 82-76
Milwaukee Brewers 81-77
They would be six back with four to play. They're a long-shot, but maybe Bud will add a couple games to be played in Milwaukee. Oh, and they would be looking up at four teams as opposed to tied for first. By the way, all this doesn't take into account CC's league leading six complete games. Those outings kept the bullpen fresh, which may have contributed to wins in games that he didn't even play.
So Munch, when will CC when a big game? I'd say every win since July 7th has been freaking huge!
Sorry folks. I meant to continue this series sooner than now. See, what happened was, my brain exploded after reading prior comments that Tony Oliva was not in the Hall. Luckily, I have T1000 DNA which allows me to regenerate. But then I listened to some Cleveland sports radio (just to get a feel for their hatred after losing to Baltimore), and "Munch on Sports" made my brain explode again. Fear not, the glitch has been fixed. I can safely type the words: "Let's examine if Tony Oliva is Hall worthy" without the slightest tremors under the skull.
Tony Oliva is one of those guys that you just think, "He retired when - mid seventies? So he's hall eligible around 1980. I'm sure that somewhere in these 28 years they put him in. Maybe with Palmer's class or Rollie Fingers." Then you hear the truth, and you say (provided that you don't have T1000 DNA), "Really? I don't believe you." Of course, our job at IJWMFTT is to make you believe. Or disbelieve. Or to forget believing and to start seeing. Yeah the third one. I like that the best.
When you sit down and "look at the back of the baseball card," without reading any numbers, some things start to make since. Corner outfielder with above average but not elite power, fifteen years that include a decline phase, and a Minnesota Twin when being a Twin wasn't cool until Kirby Puckett made it cool.
The question with Oliva's candidacy (much like Allen's) is this: is an eight year stretch of being forty percent better than average Hall worthy? What holds these guys back is that players have had similar stretches, if not better, and had respectable decline phases. In other words, most HOFers hit certain thresholds, and that's what baseball reference examines for their four HOF tests. To be fair, BR has two tests that reward dominance. Oliva matches up very well as an average HOFer in the black and gray ink tests. In other words, he has better credentials than some who are ALREADY in the Hall.
As you will see below, he falls short of various thresholds in my top 100 analysis:
HR: 220-->317 (30.6)
2B: 329-->438 (24.9)
3B: 48-->118 (59.4)
H: 1917--> 2428 (21.1)
AVG: .304-->.309 (1.7)
SB: 86-->352 (75.6)
BB: 448-->1018 (56)
OBP: .353-->.389 (9.3)
As far as the counting stats go, he's far from being in the top 100. He's pretty much right there in averages. He has three batting titles to his credit - one of which came on his way to becoming Rookie of the Year. Oliva led the AL in 1971 with a slugging percentage of .546. In 1972, he played ten games due to needing knee surgery. After that, he became one of them newfangled designated hitters.
It seems that with Tony Oliva, we have another Terrell Davis on our hands. Dominance in a pitching era. Is eight years enough? I leave it to you to cast your votes...
What is keeping Tim Raines out of the Hall? Is it the stories that he would have fit in well with 1986 Mets? I once listened to a show where a former umpire spun a story about one of the few times Tim Raines was caught stealing. The umpire said he didn't know if he should laugh or feel bad about a player who was acting a bit goofy.
For me, I can't begrudge a writer for keeping a bad guy out of the Hall. BUT people should be allowed to atonne. And let's not wax nostalgiac about some of these guys who have made it. Raines has served as a coach/manager in the minor leagues for the past five seasons. He also testified to his transgressions. It seems he has tried to make amends, but maybe Raines has other factors going against him.
For one, Raines played for the Expos. Perhaps the writers have forgotten about the Expos. They were essentially the second or third best team in the East during Raines' tenure. The Mets and Cardinals were just a little better. Maybe the writers hated the Expos logo. What was that thing anyway? Before becoming MLB's official AAAA team, the Expos were chock full of good players. Maybe not great, but good nonetheless ( eg Wallach, Galarraga, Brooks, Dawson).
Raines stood out on these teams, and as you'll see below, he stands out in Major League history:
HR: 170-->317 (46.4)
Hits: 2605-->2428 7.3
2B: 430-->438 (1.8)
3B: 113-->118 (4.3)
BB: 1330-->1018 30.6
SB: 808-->352 129.5
Avg: .294-->.309 (4.9)
OBP: .385-->.389 (1.1)
Raines is the first player in our series to hit multiple times on the top 100 scoreboard. Oh, and Raines' stolen base percentage of 84.7 is the best in major league history. So those who want to tout stolen bases as a plank for candidacy remember: Raines stole more bases and did it at a better clip. Your guy shouldn't get in until Tim Raines gets in - if stolen bases is your basis. Of course, Raines brings more to the table, coming very close to cracking the top 100 in doubles and triples.
With the glove, Raines' fielding percentage and range factor were above league average. It is apparent to me that his exclusion is personal. Saying 170 home runs is low for a corner outfielder is a tad weak. His most similar test (10 players with similar gray ink) returns five players already in the Hall of Fame. On the low end of this spectrum are Julio Franco and Kenny Lofton. Pretty good company. Raines' similar by age test yields fifteen out of twenty-one seasons where Raines was comparable to a Hall of Fame caliber player (Lou Brock and Rickey Henderson).
Twenty-four percent in a year where Goose Gossage was the lone honoree? It seems to me that the BBWAA is content to keep Tim Raines out, and that is a glaring hole in the Hall.
Aren't the filters a beautiful thing? Imagine being #### Allen, waking up in the morning, and saying, "Hey, I wonder if some guy is taking a lunch break to write a blog about me today." Then when he types his name, he gets zero hits, because his name has been inexplicably changed to ####. Good thing Mr Allen won't find this. With the way this series has gone so far, he may not like what IJWMFTT has to say.
Somewhere along the way, it was made a standard that positions up the middle were for the glove, and the corners were for power. Of course, guys like Ripken, Alex Rodriguez, Nomar Garciaparra, Andruw Jones, Jeff Kent, Mike Piazza, et al, changed that mold. It's a bit strange too. After all, the league has grown by a third in the last thirty years, yet clubs still demand (and find) multi-tool players.
The HOF argument series has taken on three shortstops. The goal was to examine the player within his area, and from a broader perspective. In other words, if there isn't domination (which there isn't - otherwise there's no argument) is the whole of his career enough to be enshrined alongside those who were dominant? With Richie Allen, we take on our first corner infielder.
Third base is a strange position to grade. As a corner infielder, a HOF third baseman should have some degree of power. So too should a first baseman. Third basemen can be forgiven for not exceeding the power threshold (traditionally 400 HR) if their gloves are above par (see Robinson, Brooks). First base is less forgiving. It is considered an easier position, thus it is a threshold position. You don't have to get to 500, but you may want to make a run at it.
So what's a guy to do when he plays concurrent with the greatest fielding third baseman of all time, and is replaced by the greatest hitting third baseman of all time? Move to first! Let's do the top 100 test, and see if any thresholds are surpassed:
HR: 351-->317 10.7
2B: 320-->438 (27)
3B: 79-->118 (33.1)
H: 1848--> 2428 (23.9)
BB: 894-->1018 (12.2)
BA: .292-->.309 (5.6)
OB: .378-->.389 (2.9)
SB: 133-->352 (62.3)
Other than Maury Wills' stolen bases, Allen is the first to break through on the top 100 leaderboard in a category. His career BB/K ratio is 894/1556. Yikes! If Allen could have worked more walks, he might have the OBP. People will argue that the relationship between slugging and on-base is inverse. To slug, one must swing. Sometimes, they miss. It's how you can strikeout 100 plus times for ten years of your career, yet still hit .292.
I argue that HOF corner position players can do both. This list includes Ruth, Aaron, Bonds, and Manny Ramirez et al. We'll see exhibit B in four years with Sammy Sosa. Exhibit A, you may know, is Mark McGwire.
The baseballreference.com tests do put Allen closer than any player we have examined thus far. His black ink (league leader) score is 27. The average HOF score? 27! His grey ink (top tens) score is 159. The average HOFer is 144. The HOF standards score is lower than the average hall of famer, because of the thresholds noted in the analysis above. Alan Trammell's Hall Monitor score is actually higher than Allen's because of positional adjustments and the quality of his teams. Once again, we have a guy better than some who are in the Hall of Fame, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you too are a Hall of Famer.
The case of Alan Trammell is a tricky one. Was the whole greater than the sum of its parts? Or were the parts good enough to stand alone? As double play combos go, no two names role off the tongue like Trammell and Whitaker. And that's Trammell's problem. It's Trammell and Whitaker. In football, Aikman to Irvin gets you to Canton. In baseball, it simply allows a town to wax poetically of the sweet music you made together.
For example, baseballreference.com has some good indicators that allow you to compare players. You can see a player's numbers (with a positional adjustment) relative to his ten closest peers. The flaw is that it contains active players. As it stands, Trammell and Jeter are in the same ten player range. Jeter is likely Hall bound, but mainly because people are extrapolating his career over another four or five years. By that time, Trammell will be a speck in the rear view mirror.
Another metric they have is similarity by age. It takes the player that the selected player was most similar to in each year of his career. Twenty-two year old Alan Trammell was most like twenty-two year old Edgar Renteria. Edgar's name continues to emerge during Trammell's twenties. Aged thirty-one through thirty-seven, who is Trammell's counterpart? You might have known it. It was Lou Whitaker.
It keeps coming back to Sweet Lou. Was it unfair for the individuals involved? Or was it good for them to have such a solid player on the other side of the second base bag (i.e. do the parts look better when the whole is greater than their sum?) Just to fill everyone in, Whitaker may have been Roberto Alomar before Roberto Alomar was Roberto Alomar. He hit 244 HR, which prior to Jeff Kent, puts him in the top five percent of all second basemen. In fact, he's two behind the AL record held by Joe Gordon. Whitaker even has three gold gloves. And to show you why I put only a small amount of stock in gold gloves, Whitaker failed to win in 1991 when the gap between his fielding percentage and league average was highest.
Whoa there! Did you see that? Even this article about Alan Trammell turned into a piece on Trammell and Whitaker. Let's get back on track with my top 100 test:
HR: 185 (160 behind the position's all-time leader)
BB: 850-->1018 (16.6)
2B: 412-->438 (6)
3B: 55-->118 (56)
Hits: 2365--> 2428 (2.6)
BA: .285--> .309 (7.8)
OBP: .352--> .389 (9.6)
SB: 236--> 352 (33)
If not for an injury in 1992, Trammell gets into the top 100 in hits and maybe doubles. In fact, the subsequent decline phase kept him from being a .290 hitter with decent raw numbers at the shortstop position. Only once in his career (an by .1 percent at that) did Trammell field at a percentage below league average, winning four gold gloves.
More analysis can be done by peeking at the "grey ink" test. This test monitors the number of top tens a player had in certain categories. It rewards value over the long haul over a short period of dominance (i.e. it shows how Trammell was better than Cecil Fielder). Trammell scores a 48 where the average HOFer scores a 144. There are a few players in the Hall who are belwo this average and closer to Trammell.
That said, there is a Hall Monitor that compares numbers against those in the HOF. This shows the likelihood of someone making it into the Hall based upon those who have received their pass. This measure accounts for position. Trammell scores a 118.5, and the threshhold for "likely" HOFer is 100.
So based upon the "behavior" of the BBWAA, it would seem that Trammell should have been voted in by now; however, the raw scores indicate he is a little short of worthiness (I hate using that word, since he has 185 more HR than me, but hey...). It's a conundrum for sure. But here's the saving grace - managing. If the Cubs win it all, Trammell will likely get another gig. If he wins a World Series as a manager, he will have a borderline HOF playing career, a World Series MVP, and a World Series win as manager. Sound like a anyone you know? A former catcher maybe? A former catcher turned manager of the 1996, 98, 99, 00 champions? Anyone? Bueller?
*Quick note: I think it's agreed that Joe Torre IS getting in quite soon.
Our old buddy was on the four letter during Sunday's broadcast (as per usual) of the Diamondbacks/Dodgers game. I told you the drum breats were getting louder. The following phrase was used to hail Wills' candidacy: "He changed the game." Now let me reiterate: Of the people ahead of Wills on the all-time stolen base list, nine played their last game before Wills played his first. Three were contemporaries, and one of those isn't HOF worthy, so not all base stealers of the 60s and 70s are automatically Hall worthy. Six are modern, and only two of them are Hall worthy. In other words "Wills did something pretty well (don't forget SB %) that people did before, during, and after his tenure.
That's not exactly changing the game.
Also, on the list of the top 100 base stealers, 59 played before Wills. 41 were contemporaries or more modern players. So, changed for who exactly? It seems like Wills was above average at a fading skill. Of the modern players in the top 100, Rickey Henderson, Ozzie Smith, Barry Bonds, Luis Aparicio, Paul Molitor, Craig Biggio, and Rod Carew are hall worthy (either in or soon to be). Most on this list have exceeded a Hall threshhold in another category. In other words, there isn't a correlation between base stealing and Hall worthiness.
Babe Ruth changed the game. More players have exceeded the magical 500 HR threshhold. A decade from now, Ruth will still be no lower than 5th all-time (accounting for A-Rod and Pujols). With the stolen base making a comeback, Wills may still be in the top thirty a decade from now. But the offensive skills of players like Brian Roberts and Carl Crawford trump Wills. Are we to put them in the Hall? If you want a player similar to Wills, look at a current Dodger, and answer this: Would you put Juan Pierre in the Hall of Fame?
I usually hum a Brian Wilson diddy, or Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue." When I read this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/art icle/2008/04/05/AR2008040502239.html?nav=emailpage ) by Dave Sheinin, I changed my tune to Handel's "Messiah." Steve Czaban asked during his afternoon duties on WTEM whether Alex Rodriguez would get a clutch hit in his Yankee career. Mike Schmist was on the same station today, asking the same thing. Schmidt also said that Manny Ramirez would be average if not for his clutch hits. In other news, Tom Brady's 2007 would have only been a####e if he threw for half the touchdowns that he did.
This clutch thing sounds great, but how do we define it? My regret about the online version of the linked article is that it omits the graphic that that accompanied it in print. Four hitters were evaluated four clutchiness. The evaluation covered the prior three years, and used three definitions. One was close and late. Another was RISP with two outs. The final definition was the Jamesian definition (which accounts for time of year and the opponent).
Ryan Zimmerman, perceived locally as a clutch player, was stacked up against Derek Jeter, David Ortiz, and Alex Rodriguez. In each situation, when a player's average exceeded his season average, it was considered a clutch performance. In all, you could say this evaluation provided nine opportunities fot clutchiness.
So who came out on top? Alex Rodriguez. Who's score was undetermined? Derek Jeter. From one season to the next, Jeter's clutchiness changed. If clutchiness is an actual thing, just shy of tangible, but nonetheless a possessed skill, shouldn't it stay with you throughout your career? It's not like speed or strength, which leaves when the body accumulates wear and tear. Clutchiness comes and goes. So it seems to be more happenstance than an actual trait.
And the four letter in Bristol is also guilty. A segment on the flagship show ran which asked "Bad game or defining moment?" Let it be known, that the four letter was willing to throw out 500 plus home runs, gold gloves, and multiple MVPs, because Alex Rodriguez had a bad game when his injury riddled team was six back of the wild-card in August. Joe Carter and Bill Mazerski never flew out I guess...
IJWMFTT radars went berzerk last week when the folks on WTEM's John Thompson show emphatically declared that Maury Wills belonged in the Hall of Fame. Of course, Maury agreed. I didn't want to go as far as to say that Maury Povich had a stronger case, but I did say that he was slightly better than Bert Campaneris - but had the advantage of wearing a Dodger uniform. I also said that every city has a Wills. It was then that I made my biggest mistake. I invoked the name of Dave Concepcion.
I have been told by many that the HOF is incomplete without Dave Concepcion. I knew that I invoked his name, I would have to do part deux. And if I did part deux, I'm likely in this for the long haul. This may become a series. Lucky you!?!
Dave Concepcion was a shortstop before it became an offensive position. His peak years (74-82) started eight years before Ripken's rookie season. His decline years (83-88) were in the midst of Ripken's peak years. That said, Ozzie Smith and Omar Vizquel (oh Lord this will be at least a three part series now) excelled defensively in Cal's era. And they did/will receive the nod.
In other words, defensive specialists CAN get in, BUT it's pretty clear that one must excel at something offensively. Remember, The Wizard was in the top 100 of a few offensive categories. Wills had the quantity of stolen bases, but should be discounted for his percentage. Wills was nowhere near the top 100 in other categories. Where does Concepcion stack up in my top 100 criteria (Again I'll ignore HR for his era, and see the explanation for below analysis in the Wills entry)?
Hits: 2428-->2326 (4.3)
Doubles: 438-->389 (11.2)
Triples: 48-->118 (59.4)
Walks: 736-->1018 (22.3)
BA: .267-->.309 (13.6)
OBP: .322-->.389 (17.3)
Steals/SB%: 321/74.6--> 352 (10)
Concepcion, in seven more seasons than Wills, doesn't crack the top 100 in any of these categories. To that end, Wills would appear to be a stronger candidate. Of course, the baseball HOF is different than the football HOF. The football HOF recognizes a certain degree of dominance. It's why Jim Brown could get in with seasons to spare. It's why many think Terrell Davis will get in with a six season career. The baseball HOF is about threshholds. Dale Murphy is in the Hall of Fame if Philadelphia's fences were a foot shorter. As it stands, writers can't get over the fact that he is two homers shy of 400.
Back on track, Concepcion had seven more seasons to exceed these threshholds. It's quite trange that he did not. If Concepcion hangs it up after the same number of years as Wills, he finishes with a 100 OPS+. Now that's average, but in that era, average is pretty good for a shortstop. Concepcion would pass "the Jim Brown test."
It's his decline phase that's amazing. He lost it so much, so fast. In 1981 and 1982, he is a silver slugger with a 116 and 97 OPS+ respectively. In 1983, his OPS+ is 61. Perhaps Concepcion's Big Red Machine teammates trumpet his cause so much because they played with him in his peak (when he was an above average hitting shortstop), and thought he'd be a shoe-in for 2500 hits, a .330 OBP, and 400 steals. They didn't see his decline years after Foster, Bench, Rose, and Morgan had left. People will say you shouldn't hold that against him, but there is a laundry list of players who got over the hump in their decline years. And that hump is a bit higher at other positions.
**Quick note on fielding. I think everyone knows he was a great fielder with range factor and fielding percentage above league average. He won five gold gloves (more than Wills, but at the same time, it's an elected award). Baseball history is littered with above average fielders, and it would take a "plus play" every series to truly be distinguishable as a fielder (Ozzie Smith).
