PDA

View Full Version : Who Was The Better Reds Shortstop



Krusty
08-15-2006, 10:19 AM
Interesting question that I heard the other day and thought I would pass it on.

Who was the better Reds shortstop.....Barry Larkin or Dave Concepcion?

justincredible
08-15-2006, 10:33 AM
Larkin.

I'm not old enough to have seen DC play so all I have to go by are statistics. Offensively Larkin trumps him in about every single category except for sacrifices and IBB. All of this in about 800 fewer at bats.

Defensively they look to be right about the same but like I said, I haven't seen DC play other than the highlight films I have seen.

guttle11
08-15-2006, 10:35 AM
Larkin, simply because of offense. Both were great defenders in their day, but Larkin could hit. His MVP trophy is reason enough for him.

Krusty
08-15-2006, 10:37 AM
But Concepcion has those gold gloves. Even though Larkin might have the better offensive numbers, wouldn't Concepcion have the edge with his defensive stats?

westofyou
08-15-2006, 10:38 AM
But Concepcion has those gold gloves. Even though Larkin might have the better offensive numbers, wouldn't Concepcion have the edge with his defensive stats?
Not if he played at the same time as Ozzie.

Larkin was more athletic then Davey.

RFS62
08-15-2006, 10:39 AM
Larkin, no doubt

Johnny Footstool
08-15-2006, 10:40 AM
Larkin's defense was GG caliber. He has so few Gold Gloves because he was a contemporary of Ozzie Smith.

And there's no way Concepcion's glove made up for the extra runs Barry Larkin created.

cumberlandreds
08-15-2006, 10:52 AM
This is a two part question and answer,IMO. Davey was the best defensively and Larkin was easily the best offensively. How's that for copping out on answering.

Always Red
08-15-2006, 10:52 AM
Larkin's defense was GG caliber. He has so few Gold Gloves because he was a contemporary of Ozzie Smith.

And there's no way Concepcion's glove made up for the extra runs Barry Larkin created.
You've got it right.

I loved the way Davey played SS, and he defined the way SS was played on astroturf. Personally, I think he belongs in the HoF.

But Larkin was better, across the board, than Davey. I think Larkin is a for sure HoF (probably not first ballot), and Davey, hopefully will be a Veterans Committee selection someday.

Good question, but it's like asking "who's prettier? Catherine Zeta Jones or Keira Knightley" :eek:

Chainer
08-15-2006, 10:55 AM
Larkin, by far.

redsfanmia
08-15-2006, 11:24 AM
Whitey Richardson was far superior.

Roy Tucker
08-15-2006, 11:30 AM
Larkin, by far. Davey's stick was pretty awful when he came up and he eventually became a competent MLB hitter. Larkin's offense was stellar. And I'd call their defense equal. I don't think Larkin ever got the appropriate kudos for his defense. He was phenomenal in the field. We really got spoiled as Reds fans with the decades of quality SS play.

And this is from a guy who thought Kurt Stilwell was the future and couldn't understand why they played this Larkin guy.

MartyFan
08-15-2006, 11:35 AM
My heart says Davey...My brain says Larkin.

I hate my brain...

goreds2
08-15-2006, 11:44 AM
I am partial to Dave Concepcion. (My childhood poster of him is currently in my boys bedroom).

I think he was under-rated as a batter because of Bench, Perez etc. He did not produce a lot of RBI's but was a GREAT clutch hitter. I have also heard Marty and Joe talk about this when talking about Davey should be in the Hall of Fame.

EDIT: I also think he was the pioneer of the ASTRO TURF BOUNCE to first base.

Johnny Footstool
08-15-2006, 11:49 AM
And this is from a guy who thought Kurt Stilwell was the future and couldn't understand why they played this Larkin guy.

You and the Royals both!

:laugh:

Stupid Royals!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

savafan
08-15-2006, 11:52 AM
EDIT: I also think he was the pioneer of the ASTRO TURF BOUNCE to first base.

You're correct. Many announcers still call it "The Davey Concepcion"

NJReds
08-15-2006, 11:57 AM
My heart says Davey...My brain says Larkin.

I hate my brain...


I hate your brain too... Um, I mean ditto. :evil:

I feel the same way. Davey is one of my favorite all-time players, but Larkin was a better all-around player. I'm glad that I got to root for both of them.

Yachtzee
08-15-2006, 12:07 PM
Davey was one of my favorites as a kid, but Barry is far and away the better shortstop. As I mentioned in the Larkin - HOF thread, Bill James noted in the New Historical Baseball Abstract that Larkin was one of the most complete baseball players (hitting, defense, speed, etc.) of all time. He's certainly in the top 10 for all-time great shortstops, even if you factor in the likes of Jeter, A-Rod, Garciaparra, and Tejada.

terminator
08-15-2006, 12:09 PM
Frankly, Concepcion was twice as good as Larkin in the only category that really counts -- number of World Series titles won while playing for the Reds!

Krusty
08-15-2006, 12:17 PM
Let me ask you this....

Is the double play combination of Davey Concepcion and Joe Morgan the best in Reds history?

RedsBaron
08-15-2006, 12:24 PM
Let me ask you this....

Is the double play combination of Davey Concepcion and Joe Morgan the best in Reds history?
Without doing any research, yes.

RedsBaron
08-15-2006, 12:25 PM
Interesting question that I heard the other day and thought I would pass it on.

Who was the better Reds shortstop.....Barry Larkin or Dave Concepcion?
Larkin, easily.

RedsBaron
08-15-2006, 12:26 PM
Good question, but it's like asking "who's prettier? Catherine Zeta Jones or Keira Knightley" :eek:
Catherine Zeta Jones (This would be a much more enjoyable question to research;) )

BuckWoody
08-15-2006, 12:27 PM
Head - Larkin
Heart - Concepcion

Head wins.

The both deserve to be in the HoF in my completely biased opinion.

Tony Cloninger
08-15-2006, 12:34 PM
Were is Chico Ruiz? "Bench me or trade me"....ranks right up there with "Give me liberty or give me death"

goreds2
08-15-2006, 12:34 PM
Let me ask you this....

Is the double play combination of Davey Concepcion and Joe Morgan the best in Reds history?

I think Concepcion and Oester was the better combo. Oester had the better turn on the double play due to his SHORTSTOP arm.

westofyou
08-15-2006, 12:48 PM
Mcmillian and Temple weren't shabby.

RedsBaron
08-15-2006, 12:54 PM
For a brief period of time, Larkin and Pokey Reese were quite good as I recall.

redsmetz
08-15-2006, 01:03 PM
Larkin solely based on his offense (as many have said already). Davey wrote the book on shortstop in his era and Larkin, while better offensively, was in the transition phase from the light hitting, slick fielding times of Concepcion and Smith to the heavy hitters that now occupy the slot.

2001MUgrad
08-15-2006, 01:06 PM
As an overall player I'm going to have to say Larkin. Larkin had a good stick and its not like he was a Hazard defensively. Larkin should have had about 3-4 more gold gloves, he was far superior defensively when Ozzie was getting the last few he got. I did not see Davey play, but from what I gather he was the prototypical SS for the era, great defensively, but was lucky to hit .280 and had very little power. And, I don't mean this to discredit Davey. There are many that think he is HOF caliber and would probably be a shoe-in if he didn't play along side Morgan, Bench, Rose, Perez, etc.

I just hope that when its Larkin's turn on the HOF ballot that he gets judged by his contemporaries and not by the offensive standards of ARod, Tajeda, etc.

Roy Tucker
08-15-2006, 01:09 PM
For a brief period of time, Larkin and Pokey Reese were quite good as I recall.

That would be my vote as well. I think they turned two very well but it might be their collective range that is clouding my judgement.

A large but overlooked reason for the Reds success in 1999 was up-the-middle Larkin-Reese-Cameron defense.

RANDY IN INDY
08-15-2006, 01:12 PM
Mcmillian and Temple weren't shabby.

:beerme: Still would give the nod to Morgan/Concepcion. They worked very well together. Joe's quickness made up for a not so great arm, and Concepcion was fabulous at quickly giving him a ball he could handle at 2nd on the turn. Concepcion's range behind the bag also allowed Morgan to make a lot of fabulous plays to his left. Davey had wonderful range at shortstop and he made a lot of difficult plays look very routine. Steady and smooth as silk. The best I have ever seen, defensively, at the position. A joy to watch all those years.

RANDY IN INDY
08-15-2006, 01:23 PM
The good thing about Bray is that he hasn't logged many innings in the minor leagues, and as a closer at William and Mary, I doubt that he logged that many innings in his college career. The Reds should really try to put him on an off season arm strengthening program and consider him at some point as a starter.

cumberlandreds
08-15-2006, 01:32 PM
The good thing about Bray is that he hasn't logged many innings in the minor leagues, and as a closer at William and Mary, I doubt that he logged that many innings in his college career. The Reds should really try to put him on an off season arm strengthening program and consider him at some point as a starter.

This must be a newsflash! Bray moving to SS! Wow! I thought he was doing OK as a relief pitcher. ;)

Cyclone792
08-15-2006, 01:47 PM
As many others have said, Larkin was better, and it's not particularly close.

Larkin is a top five shortstop of all-time in my book while I'm not sure if Concepcion can even crack the top 20. Davey was a phenomenal defensive shortstop, but his offense just doesn't touch most of the top shortstops in the game's history, including Larkin's.

RANDY IN INDY
08-15-2006, 01:59 PM
The good thing about Bray is that he hasn't logged many innings in the minor leagues, and as a closer at William and Mary, I doubt that he logged that many innings in his college career. The Reds should really try to put him on an off season arm strengthening program and consider him at some point as a starter.

Oops! Wrong thread.:laugh:

Redlegs23
08-15-2006, 02:10 PM
I pick option 3....Rolls Royce.

redsmetz
08-15-2006, 02:12 PM
And this is from a guy who thought Kurt Stilwell was the future and couldn't understand why they played this Larkin guy.

I rarely admit this, but I once thought The Dave Clark Five were better than The Beatles. They were a fine band and my only saving grace is that, unbeknownst to most people, the DC5 did outlast The Beatles by several months, officially breaking up later in 1970. :rockband:

vic715
08-15-2006, 02:26 PM
A lot of you are saying "easily its Larkin".I've lived through both of their careers like a lot of you on this board and while I'll agree Larkin is the better it sure isn't a slam dunk. Davey always hit 7th or 8th behind the big run producers of the BRM .He was a great glove guy , A fantastic clutch hitter and he was also a lot more durable than Larkin.They played almost the same amount of time (19 years )and Davey played in about 300 more games.Their offensive numbers are close in total hits and RBIs in that span as Davey did come to bat more often.
I would Imagine If Davey would have hit in the top of the order And he couldn't because Rose and Morgan and Griffey held those slots his numbers I'm sure would have been better. The Question to me would be what if Larkin would have been the SS during the reign of the BRM would he have been able to hit at the top of the order with that lineup.Maybe but we'll never know.If that had been the case maybe Barry's numbers wouldn't be as good as Daveys.This is an interesting debate because both these guys belong in the HOF.

westofyou
08-15-2006, 05:09 PM
I liked Davey going in the hole better and I liked Larkin going to his left more, that might be because I still have bad memories of Larkin going in the hole as he got older.

RANDY IN INDY
08-15-2006, 05:18 PM
There wasn't anything in Larkin's defensive game that I liked more than Davey's. With that being said, I liked Larkin's offensive skills a lot more than Concepcion's. It's a tough call. I think Riverfront played a lot shorter in Larkin's career than it did in Concepcion's. Higher outfield walls and I just think the ball started carrying better as the stadium aged.

RedlegJake
08-15-2006, 05:20 PM
Like Vic, I'd agree with Larkin overall but certainly not a cakewalk. Concepcion became a better hitter than he is often credited for because of his terrible offensive careeer start and I'd give Davey the edge defensively. Larkin though was a complete offensive package - power, average, OBP, speed. The great thing is the Reds enjoyed almost 30 years of watching 2 great Shortstops. I can't think of any team that had such a long tenure of truly great SS play.

RANDY IN INDY
08-15-2006, 05:22 PM
Throw McMillan and Cardenas in the mix and it goes way back.

CySeymour
08-16-2006, 10:02 AM
I look at it this way: Larkin could be described as a "franchise player.". I don't think you could describe Davey that way.

Heath
08-16-2006, 10:07 AM
Throw McMillan and Cardenas in the mix and it goes way back.

There's a woy thread banging around here with a History of Reds' SS. IIRC, they had 5 shortstops in 50 years or so. (McMillan, Cardenas, Woody Woodward, Concepcion, Larkin, Lopez.) You could argue that Eddie Kasko was the starting SS in '61.

I'm still thinking on the answer. It's a like a tie for me. /endcopout.

I'm still waiting on woy's thread of Reds third baseman in the same era. They went through 3rd Basemen the way Krono posts. :D