Pyramid Hill lights up
Women of Excellence Awards
16th Annual Music Festival
Hall of Fame baseball writer Hal McCoy is in his 36th year of covering the Cincinnati Reds, the longest tenure for any active writer covering one team. Counting spring training and postseason games, McCoy has covered more than 7,000 major-league baseball games, written close to 18,000 baseball stories and eaten enough hot dogs to give Babe Ruth indigestion.Home > Blogs > The Real McCoy | Cincinnati Reds baseball news > Archives > 2009 > February > 04 > Entry
Concepcion or Larkin? Take your pick
An intriguing question was posed on Mark Schlemmer’s WONE radio talk show in Dayton this week: Davey Concepcion or Barry Larkin?
Listeners were asked to choose which former Cincinnati Reds shortstop they would pick for their team.
Schlemmer asked me and I said, “I’ll give you the first pick and I’ll take the other guy.” It’s that close.
If somebody threatened to force-feed me a peanut butter cookie made from Peanut Corporation of America peanuts, I’d say: Larkin.
Defensively, they’re a wash. Both played 19 seasons. Larkin’s fielding percentage was .975 and Concepcion’s was .971, with Larkin winning three Gold Gloves and Concepcion five.
The difference is offense. Larkin was a force while Concepcion was a snug-fitting piece on the Big Red Machine. While Larkin’s career average was .295 and Concepcion’s was .267, interestingly enough, Larkin drove in 960 runs, only four more than Concepcion.
Larkin hit 198 homers and won nine Silver Slugger Awards. Concepcion hit 101 homers and won two Silver Slugger Awards. Larkin wins the on-base average contest .371 to .322. Larkin was on 12 All-Star teams to nine for Concepcion.
Both played their entire careers in Cincinnati, although late in his career Larkin had to veto a trade to the Mets to stay. And I believe Larkin and Concepcion are the only two players ever to wear a captain’s ‘C’ on their Cincinnati uniforms.
My solution? Larkin at shortstop and Concepcion at third, where he played during his last days in Cincinnati.
Or maybe I’d put Larkin at third and Concepcion at short. Wouldn’t matter either way.
I do remember that when Larkin was coming up through the system - real, real fast (only 175 games in the minors), Kurt Stillwell was another shortstop in the system.
There was discussion about moving Larkin to second base so Stillwell could play shortstop. That didn’t happen and Stillwell eventually was traded.
How fortuitous was THAT move - leaving Larkin at shortstop?
There are those who remember the time Larkin was in a snit about something and ripped the captain’s ‘C’ off his chest. It didn’t last long and blew over and was one of the few times Larkin was not the perfect citizen.
And there was the time when his contract was about to expire and CEO-at-the-time John Allen didn’t want to re-sign him. GM Jim Bowden traded him to the Mets, but Larkin invoked his no-trade clause and said no.
Then he went over Allen’s head to owner Carl Lindner and got himself a $27 million deal.
Lindner loved Larkin and Ken Griffey Jr. Once Lindner drove his $200,000 Bentley convertible to a game. Larkin and Griffey asked to take it out for a spin and Lindner tossed them the keys.
Before they returned it, they removed all of Lindner’s cassette tapes and replaced them with rap and hip-hop tapes.
And speaking of cars, when Larkin retired, he bought a new Mercedes for clubhouse attendant Rick Stowe.
Concepcion had trouble gaining clubhouse attention from the media because of the presence of Pete Rose, Joe Morgan, Johnny Bench, Tony Perez, George Foster and Ken Griffey Sr.
And he loved attention. In the mid-70s, when clothes were garish, Concepcion went beyond garish, purchasing and brown and tan suit in large plaid. With it, he wore a dark brown velour bow tie.
When he boarded the team bus in the outfit, Rose burst out laughing and said, “When did we trade for Bozo the Clown?” He did look like a dressed-up Bozo and for the rest of the year that was his nickname, “Bozo.”
One time Concepcion felt he was wronged by the media and when he was approached after a game, he said, “I’m not talking to you guys.”
So we all ignored him. And ignored him and ignored him. Nobody tried to talk to him.
He always called me Mack-Coy and after about three weeks, I was walking past his locker and he said, “Hey, Mack-Coy, I talk to you guys now.”
I said, “OK, Davey.” And we cruelly ignored him for another week before we approached him again. He never refused to talk again.
When it comes to shortstops, though, both should have their pictures emblazoned in the grass behind their position in Great American Ballpark. That was 38 straight years of unbelievable shortstopping for the Reds.
Which one would you take?
Permalink | Comments (148) | Post your comment |
Comments
By Wilona
April 4, 2009 7:12 AM | Link to this
Good evening. If you aren’t fired with enthusiasm, you will be fired with enthusiasm. I am from Honduras and too poorly know English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Discount first class business class airline tickets upgrade secrets travel flights.” Thanks :P. Wilona.By barry
February 10, 2009 9:56 AM | Link to this
I had the privilege to see both play and it WAS a privilege. Davey was my favorite from the BRM as I was growing up, and Larkin was the same during his era. Both are still favorite all time Reds for me. If I had to pick one to be on my team, I would have to go with Davey. I would love to watch him play again. He was so smooth in the field and clutch with the bat. Offensively, Larkin is superior but my heart just leans towards Davey. I would be happy with either, and BOTH BELONG IN THE HALL OF FAME.By barry
February 10, 2009 9:55 AM | Link to this
I had the privilege to see both play and it WAS a privilege. Davey was my favorite from the BRM as I was growing up, and Larkin was the same during his era. Both are still favorite all time Reds for me. If I had to pick one to be on my team, I would have to go with Davey. I would love to watch him play again. He was so smooth in the field and clutch with the bat. Offensively, Larkin is superior but my heart just leans towards Davey. I would be happy with either, and BOTH BELONG IN THE HALL OF FAME.By Albert
February 10, 2009 9:19 AM | Link to this
Mike Dayton..you do alot of attacking on this board..keep it clean mikeyBy RonnieO
February 9, 2009 9:12 PM | Link to this
I would’ve thought that, too - dando. Until I checked the stats. Davey had many more RBI opportunities than Lark irrespective of what the other guys around them were doing. Davey came to the plate 4,374 times in his career with runners on vs. 3,844 for Larkin. Davey had 2,663 ABs with RISP vs. only 2,335 for Larkin.By dandobrando
February 9, 2009 8:03 PM | Link to this
Concepcion’s RBI total vs. Larkin’s is impressive given the fact that he was surrounded by big-gun RBI men for so many years. Larkin drove in runs because he was an offensive force on an otherwise ho-hum offensive team for so many years. Concepcion drove in a comparable total over his career despite the fact that he was overshadowed by hall-of-famers who knocked the cover off of the ball. Davey should be in Cooperstown. No question as far as I’m concerned.By David
February 8, 2009 6:44 PM | Link to this
Oh, we can keep talking about Barry Larkin if you want. I haven’t exhausted nearly all the ammunition against his hall bid. :)By BrarHopper
February 8, 2009 4:58 PM | Link to this
Looks like the whole Davey & Barry things is kinda talked out. Agree that fans are baseball hungry, especially after such a boring winter watching the Reds do a whole lot of nothing despite CasteLindner’s big promises.By Gary Maloy Jr.
February 8, 2009 2:08 PM | Link to this
Obviously, Hal, people are yearning for baseball. They’re so off-topic here that it hurts to read. I thought we were talking about Concepcion vs. Larkin. I guess not. The clock is ticking way too slowly, Hal. Give us some more reminiscing!By HuberTucky
February 8, 2009 1:30 PM | Link to this
Speaking of big fat stupid salaries… someone please explain to me how arbitration works. Nationals offered $500K to pitcher Shawn Hill; Hill wins his case for a raise from $402K to $775K based on a 1-5 record w/5.83 ERA in 12 starts & was on the DL from June 25 on due to sore elbow. So that performance is worthy of a 93% raise? Absurd. What’s crazier is Manny nixing $25 mil to play a friggin’ game for one year in sunshine country! IMO — This world is upside down and Selig & Boras suck.By michael
February 8, 2009 8:05 AM | Link to this
agree…the salaries are just astounding! I can’t believe that a guy would turn down 25 Mil to play just one year of baseball in Los Angeles! Thats getting paid to take a vacation!By James Bradley
February 8, 2009 2:14 AM | Link to this
Bud Selig is a corporate stooge and a toad. Nothing more than an old con man/used car salesman. Wanna buy a used Rambler? See Bud in his plaid clown coat, floppy hat and big shoes for a good deal. He’s got nothing on Jerry Cohen, Perry Gerson, Emmert Royer, the Kwik Brothers, Giant Don & Kash Amburgey.By David
February 7, 2009 11:45 PM | Link to this
I love reading the various blogs today about the A-Roid situation. Some poor schmuck summed it up best when he noted that Jose Canseco has now done more for baseball than Bud Selig. Couldn’t agree more. Time for a new commish, and a new hard-line approach with the union. If the cost of that is a yearlong lockout, so be it. If the next lockout cleans up the problem, fans will come back when the games resume. Time to get salaries, drug testing and revenue sharing cleaned up once and for all.By BrarHopper
February 7, 2009 4:49 PM | Link to this
That’s no surprise about A-Rod now is it? Did you see his response? Like McGuire, he would not give a simple yes or no answer. He says, “You’ll have to talk to the union.” Why would he need the union to answer for him if the answer is simply NO? How easy is it to answer no? Oh, I guess the answer isn’t no.By michael
February 7, 2009 2:50 PM | Link to this
While we are talking great Shortstops, does it really suprise anyone that A-ROD tested positive for Roids? His stats have always made me go “Huh” ?By michael
February 7, 2009 2:41 PM | Link to this
James, it just may be that Mike- Dayton doesn’t get enough attention at home. I do appreciate the excellent example of grammer that he sets for us. If he could combine that with a decent knowledge of the game he would be a force! Retard…is that a word, or just slang?By Gary Maloy Jr.
February 7, 2009 2:11 PM | Link to this
Davy C. is my man. He was the best shortstop in the game for 12-13 years running. He was overshadowed in the clubhouse by the (English-speaking) Bench, Rose, Morgan, Foster, Griffey’s of the world. His was the cream that floated to the top after the others had either been traded (Perez), lost to free agency (Foster, Griffey, Rose, Morgan), or retired (Bench). By then, he spoke English enough to have a relationship with the press. Remember it was Tony Perez who translated for him for years. His stats are better than Ozzie Smith’s. And I have to say that if Larkin, with his personality, played for the BRM and accumulated Concepcion’s stats, he would have been HoF already. That would mean that Concepcion would have to be plugged into the 80-90-00’s and Larkin’s stats. He would also be lined up for the Hall of Fame, as he would have been the best man on most of those teams as was Larkin. What’s my point? Concepcion is being punished for not speaking English fluently (being a shy young kid, hiding being Tony Perez for years), and for being on the Big Red Machine with all the greats. What I simply cannot understand is this. They say Concepcion isn’t in the Hall because of Bench, Perez, Morgan and Anderson (and the Pete Rose memorabilia). But what about Phil Ruzzuto? He was a bum on several great Yankee teams. NO WAY does he deserve the Hall, but he’s there despite many great HoF teammates. That’s no argument that can be used against Concpcion. The writers have given him an injustice, and I really hope the veteran committee punches his ticket before too long. Both belong in the Hall. No doubt about it. Back to Davey. How many RBI’s would he have had if he hadn’t hit behind Foster, Bench, Perez, et al.?? (Gawd I can’t wait for spring training to start!!!)By James Bradley
February 7, 2009 12:56 PM | Link to this
Mike-Dayton, you should go back and read your posts. You’re the master of personal attacks calling other people retard and dope and idiot. What is wrong with YOU that you feel it necessary to so often project your shortcomings on others?By Mike-Dayton
February 7, 2009 12:52 PM | Link to this
It’s - “you’re” bothering me” - you retard.By michael
February 7, 2009 12:51 PM | Link to this
Hey there Dragons fan, I didn’t say how he got there…actually it was meant to be a positive comment for Larkin. Hey, who else were Reds fans going to vote for? He was the best player on some bad teams. Go away kid…your bothering me.By Mike-Dayton
February 7, 2009 12:33 PM | Link to this
Michael - again you are wrong as you might have been confused (like it was your first time) by what I wrote - I wrote he was never added to the roster 6 times and not once of those added six times was he the only Red on the All Star team — in 1996 and 1997 he was VOTED in by the fans which goes against your stupid point that he was the token player seeing as token players get added after the fan vote seeing as the manager has to pick at least one player from each team. I know it’s all quite confusing to you but work it out there cowboy and you’ll figure it out.By michael
February 7, 2009 12:04 PM | Link to this
Mike- Dayton….isn’t it nice to be able to sit behind your computer and say whatever you want without getting your a$$ kicked? Larkin was selected in 96 and 97 as the Token Red. Maybe you could do better on a Dayton Dragons blog.By sun deck lover
February 7, 2009 12:03 PM | Link to this
David makes some decent points, and brings up some good questions to debate. But the comment that “Ozzie and Cal are rightfully already in.” (Hall of Fame) sort of validates the Larkin arguement. I am not going to touch on Ripken other than noting that he had alot more games/ABs to rack up his numbers-obviously,but not going to ever question his nod, just that it would be hard to use his numbers against anyone else but Ty Cobb. As far as Ozzie, best defensive ss ever? Maybe. Enough of a difference to totally disreguard the fact that his offensive numbers are terrible (even given the the pre steroid era)? My point - if Smith is a no doubt, first ballott HOF guy, than so is Larkin. No question. Among retired/dead baseball players, Barry’s total career numbers and accomplishments are top 10 if not the top 5 of all time. Yes, I am biased as a Reds fan, and a fan of Larkin, but it is hard to look from a numbers standpoint and not see him being a lock. Your point is taken though with players that have realatively close stats like Davey and Alan, and voters have done some stupid things. Look at the people who gave a gold glove to a DH. So I can agree with the fact that he might not get elected, but never to the fact that he doesn’t deserve to. BTW, every player has a career year offensively, and Larkin and Davis at the time were in a self admitted/organized home run derby that season. Speaking of Eric Davis- there is the would of, could of debate your looking for.By Max Venable
February 7, 2009 11:56 AM | Link to this
You will be chuckling even harder when he gets in the Hall, which he will. On your weak SB argument Larkin stole 30+ bases 5 times 40 + twice and 50 plus once. In one year Trammel stole exactly thirty 3-0. He never came close to that figure again. Larkin stole 61% more bases than Trammel its significant and Larkin was better in every single catagory.By David
February 7, 2009 10:53 AM | Link to this
It’s not a matter of changing the argument, Mike. It’s simply a matter of giving you more argument. And I’m not dismissing Barry’s stats. I’m putting them in perspective. 130 extra stolen bases may seem significant. Over a 19-year career, that’s an average of fewer than 7 extra stolen bags a season for Larkin over Trammell. Since neither guy was ever compared to Rickey Henderson, Vince Coleman or Tim Raines anyway, is 7 extra steals a year enough to separate Larkin from the hall votes Allan has not been getting? As for steroids…if you think they weren’t around in the mid 90s, your head is in the sand. And if you think that a necessary byproduct of steroid use is that your body changes to godzillaesque proportions, your head is still in the sand. Depends on how you use the drug, and for how long. Did Roger Clemens suddenly become Godzilla? How ‘bout Andy Pettite? If the drugs were used for a shorter period and for the purpose of say, recovering from an injury, the pronounced body changes don’t necessarily occur. I have no knowledge that Barry cheated. I simply look at the numbers. I see a 19 year career in which for 16 years, a good season’s HR total for the guy was 12. One year 17. OK, that’s chance. A year with 20. Hmmm….maybe more chance, luck, whatever. Benefit of the doubt. But 33? Nearly three times the output of a normal season? All I’m sayin’ is it makes you go “Hmmm.” And yes, the debate was Larkin v. Concepcion. The thread strayed off topic when someone made me chuckle by saying the names Barry Larkin and Hall of Fame in the same sentence. That gets me every time.By Goliath
February 7, 2009 10:34 AM | Link to this
Steroids its a shame you have to try to smear this guys red. In 1996 when Larkin hit 33 dingers Barry Bonds in 95, 96 and 97 was still hitting in the 40 HR range not 72 or 60 or even 50 the STeroid problem hadn’t even cropped up yet. Silver Sluggers, true just like MVPs and ROY, Cy Youngs, etc they are all league awards it doesnt dimish a thing. If you want to compare Trammel to a a Reds Shortstop compare him to Concepcion its a closer comparison. I think Davey should get in and I am not saying Trammel shouldn’t but I am saying Larkin was a better all around player than either.By Mike-Dayton
February 7, 2009 10:07 AM | Link to this
David - you are certainly the master at changing the argument when it appears you are losing. What does Alan Trammel have to do with Hal’s blog? Sure we were talking about Larkin and the HOF but you went back and grabbed Trammel as if he was a poster boy for SS and then declared Larkin’s better stats, 30/30, MVP as being not important. And every time Larkin has a better stat than the guy you’re comparing him to, you dismiss the stat as a non-issue or write something truly pathetic as hinting that it was steroid driven. What a tool. And Larkin is up for the HOF is two years I believe, so your dopey point about comparing him ARod, Jeter and a real steroid use Tejada is really dumb since they will STILL BE PLAYING and can have their HOF credentials examined after they retire. Also, you wrote Ripken and Smith already are in the HOF from Larkin’s era as if there can only be two from any era. Larkin goes in before Smith anyway … I think Alan Trammel is calling you.By Mike-Dayton
February 7, 2009 9:47 AM | Link to this
Actually Michael - you really don’t know what you’re talking about as Larkin was voted the starter 6 times and added to the roster 6 times and not once of those added six times was he the only Red on the All Star team. So your token line was already dumb, not it’s dumb and wrong.By michael
February 7, 2009 8:39 AM | Link to this
And when you mention All- Star appearances, don’t forget that Larkin was the token player from some bad Reds teams.By michael
February 7, 2009 8:32 AM | Link to this
Although I choose Davey as my Captain and SS, I do think Larkins speed has to count when he is considered. His 83% stealing success rate is pretty significant when you consider the amount of attempts. Concepcion was successful at 74%, and I think both should be considered for their baserunning abilities.By David
February 7, 2009 3:09 AM | Link to this
What’s your point about Silver Sluggers? It’s a league award. Larkin won 9. He had no competition in the NL. Trammel won 3 or however many. He had Cal Ripken for competition. You want to put Larkin’s offense up against Ripkens and see if the number of bats changes any? Therein lies part of the bigger problem for Larkin. How many shortstops from his era are you going to call Hall of Famers? Ozzie and Cal are already rightfully already in. Is there room for a third from that era? Do voters really care that Larkin has 130 more stolen bases than Trammel? Larkin’s calling card to the hall was not his speed. Do voters really care that Larkin reached base two more times out of every 100 at-bats than Trammel? Is it really a big deal? Also, are voters also going to consider that had Larkin been able to stay healthy for any degree of time, we wouldn’t be having this debate. His numbers would clearly differentiate him from the pack. But like it or not, he wasn’t, and the numbers don’t. You don’t elect a guy on woulda coulda shoulda. Larkin’s got a real issue with the fact that Cal and Ozzie already represent his relative era in the hall, and if you want to talk about the later years of Larkin’s career, now you’re overlapping with guys like A-Rod, Tejada and Jeter, guys who will finish with numbers Larkin can’t touch. Does it devalue the accomplishments of those three guys to have Larkin in the hall with them, when his numbers aren’t in the same ballpark? I understand your argument and your loyalty. I just don’t think it’s as easy a call as you think it is.By Goliath
February 7, 2009 1:18 AM | Link to this
How about Larkins 9 SIlver Sluggers to Trammels 3? Thats the award given to the best offensive player at his position. Or better yet Lakins 12 Allstar games with 6 times voted the starter to Trammels 6 All Star Games with none as the starter? He leads Trammel in HRs by 13 SB by 143 in Runs by 98 in BA by 10 points, SLG by 30 pts OBP by 19 points. And in hits and RBIs where Trammel leads by 23 and 43 Larkin has 300 less ABs. With all the above and the fact that he was an MVP, and the 1st 30/30 SS he has a much more legitimate to the Hall of Fame and will get there in his first 2 trys. Trammel and Larkin both won a ring but thats a was all though it still is another reason voters will like Larkin.By Goliath
February 7, 2009 1:17 AM | Link to this
How about Larkins 9 SIlver Sluggers to Trammels 3? Thats the award given to the best offensive player at his position. Or better yet Lakins 12 Allstar games with 6 times voted the starter to Trammels 6 All Star Games with none as the starter? He leads Trammel in HRs by 13 SB by 143 in Runs by 98 in BA by 10 points, SLG by 30 pts OBP by 19 points. And in hits and RBIs where Trammel leads by 23 and 43 Larkin has 300 less ABs. With all the above and the fact that he was an MVP, and the 1st 30/30 SS he has a much more legitimate to the Hall of Fame and will get there in his first 2 trys. Trammel and Larkin both won a ring but thats a was all though it still is another reason voters will like Larkin.By David
February 7, 2009 12:49 AM | Link to this
I think you can scratch Barry Bonds’ name off your Hall of Famer list. Yes, some members of the 30/30 club are HOF guys. The point was, a large number of them aren’t. My point is, I think when voters spend time looking at the numbers, a one-time MVP award and a fluke 30/30 year won’t necessarily put him over the top. It’s a long, long road between Trammell’s vote totals and what Barry would need. And I’m not sure the difference between the two bridges that gap. You hear all kinds of misleading information about Larkin. Stuff like how he “ushered in the era of the offensive shortstop.” No spin zone alert: By the time Larkin hit .300 over a full season, Trammell had already done that a few times. By the time Larkin had his (only) 30 HR season, Ripken had done it several times. Larkin was good defensively, but he didn’t have a trademark on defense. His predecessor is credited with inventing the astro-turf bounce. That’s a trademark. Ozzie did backflips and made some absolutely obscene plays on defense. Trademark. Like it or not, Larkin doesn’t have something like that to his credit on defense. But hey…if the MLB Network named him the 9th best ss ever, that should be good enough for the commish to waive that whole 5-year thing and just put him in right now. I wonder how many people in the MLB Network have HOF voting privileges?By Goliath
February 6, 2009 11:27 PM | Link to this
Pathetic David truely pathetic. If you don’t like the guy just say so, Larkins body didn’t change at all over his career. Barry was asked to fill all kinds of roles during his career, lead off hitter, 2 hole hitter, and when he hit 30 HRs he was the 3 hole guy and adapted his game to fill the needs of that spot in the order. Steroids my a$$. Oh and you could name all 52 members of the 30/30 club. Thats 52 over the history of the game tens of thousands of players and only 4 of the 52 have been SS one is possibly the greatest player to play the game ARod the other an MVP and perrenial All Star Jimmy Rollins and one of the finest young players in the game Hanley Ramirez. I also noticed that everyone on your list was a considered a stud and one of the top players in baseball at the time they did it. You left off a few HAll of Famers like Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, and Barry Bonds. Of course Larkin did it before the Steroid Era was in full swing, thats the only reason there are 52 guys that have done it roids. He was the first SS to do it and he’ll be a first or second ballet Hall of Famer like him or not.By michael
February 6, 2009 10:13 PM | Link to this
I read this as who would we rather have as our SS…Larkin may have better stats, but he was all about Barry Larkin. Davey was the best SS on the best team in Baseball. Davey all the way.By David
February 6, 2009 10:09 PM | Link to this
The 30/30 credential certainly is interesting. I guess it’s good news for the HOF bids for guys like Jose Canseco, Shawn Green, Jose Cruz Jr., Dale Murphy, Eric Davis, Howard Johnson, Darryl Strawberry, Ron Gant, Dante Bichette, Ellis Burks, Larry Walker, Preston Wilson, Bobby Abreu, Brandon Phillips, Jimmy Rollins, Carlos Beltran, and….well, you get the picture. And I’m also amazed that no one in this town (as best as I can remember) has ever raised the question of whether Larkin ever experimented with the cream and the clear, given the fact that the one year he hit 33 dingers was the only season he hit more than 20. And after one 20 HR season, he had one with 17, and after that, a bunch of seasons with 12. Things that make you go “hmmm……”By Walt
February 6, 2009 9:42 PM | Link to this
You can discount an MVP year if you want fact is he won it. Few Shorts stops have and most are Hall of Famers. That year he led the league in Runs scored, Stole 51 bases, hit 319 and the fact is writers gave him credit for his defense and leadership. He was also the first SS since 1869 to hit 30 Hrs and steal 30 bases in the same season. As for the “in what was a rare season when the Reds were actually competitive,” statement in 94 they had the best record in the NL when the season and playoffs were canceled by the strike, you might remember that the team won the World Series in 90 so it wasn’t that reare for the team to be competitive at that time. The writers rewarded him for his career at that point? OK sure whatever, look at his stats between 88 and 98. Best NL short stop the entire time.By PeteF3
February 6, 2009 9:27 PM | Link to this
1995 was the year that Mo Vaughn beat out both Albert Belle and Edgar Martinez in one of the award’s greater travesties, so I can’t pretend to examine the writers’ logic too closely. 1987, of course, was the year that a bunch of writers turned their ballots in early and gave the award to George Bell, before Toronto coughed up the division lead to the Tigers.By David
February 6, 2009 8:58 PM | Link to this
I don’t underestimate the MVP. I just don’t overestimate it, either. There’s a whole slew of one-time MVPs who aren’t Hall of Famers. And when you look at Larkin’s numbers in his MVP season, and then compare them against the numbers of other players who also won MVPs, Larkin’s MVP year was probably the weakest MVP effort in the NL in the last 25 years. It was simply an opportunity for the writers to give Barry some props for a good career to that point in what was a rare season when the Reds were actually competitive, giving you an excuse to even consider him. If Larkin posts those numbers and the Reds finish fourth or fifth instead of first, do you think he’s the MVP? Methinks he’s not in the top-5 vote-getters in that scenario.By Max Venable
February 6, 2009 8:55 PM | Link to this
Trammel vs Larkin ? Trammel no MVP, NO 30/30, his 25 more hits came in 300 more ABs. Larkin has 100 more runs scored in 300 fewer ABs, stole 143 more bases, has a slugging pct 40 points higher, and an OBP 20 points higher. Infact Larkin was better in almost every single catagory. The MLB Network named Larkin the 9th best SS of alltime right behind Derek Jeter. Trammel was no where on that list for a reason. Trammel was a fine player but was not in the same class as Larkin who will get in the Hall while Trammel does not. Fact not fiction.By Max Venable
February 6, 2009 8:55 PM | Link to this
Trammel vs Larkin ? Trammel no MVP, NO 30/30, his 25 more hits came in 300 more ABs. Larkin has 100 more runs scored in 300 fewer ABs, stole 143 more bases, has a slugging pct 40 points higher, and an OBP 20 points higher. Infact Larkin was better in almost every single catagory. The MLB Network named Larkin the 9th best SS of alltime right behind Derek Jeter. Trammel was no where on that list for a reason. Trammel was a fine player but was not in the same class as Larkin who will get in the Hall while Trammel does not. Fact not fiction.By Sal Butera
February 6, 2009 8:39 PM | Link to this
Larkin. The MVP and the 30/30 season put him over the top both over Davey who I love but also as a all of famer. I think Larkin will go in on his first ballot. Davey should be in there too he was the best SS in base ball for 10 straight seasons.By PeteF3
February 6, 2009 8:23 PM | Link to this
Don’t underestimate the MVP Factor. Larkin has one, Trammell doesn’t. Granted, Alan got screwed out of the award in 1987, but I digress…By David
February 6, 2009 8:20 PM | Link to this
I tend to agree with you Pete. I’m just saying that if you look at Allan’s numbers against Barry’s they’re close to a wash. Trammel has a few more hits as I recall, Barry more power and steals. Both about the same in fielding percentage. Given the fact that Trammel is just as immortal in Detroit as Larkin is in Cincy, I don’t think the slight difference in numbers is going to persuade enough Hall voters who obviously don’t support Trammel to support Larkin.By Mike-Dayton
February 6, 2009 8:14 PM | Link to this
David - try not to choke on your smug chuckle in a couple years when Barry gets in the HOF …By PeteF3
February 6, 2009 8:08 PM | Link to this
The fact that Alan Trammell is not in the Hall of Fame says more about the BBWAA than it does about Trammell’s career. Any comparison to Trammell should in no way negatively impact the HOF argument for Larkin. I’ll take Trammell over Concepcion any day, and I’ll also take him over the monstrously overrated Jim Rice.By David
February 6, 2009 8:00 PM | Link to this
Telling to me, sun deck lover, is the fact people love to assume that Larkin was denied gold gloves at short because Ozzie was “winning them on reputation” even in Ozzie’s older, declining years. And yet, when the shortstop gold glove torch was finally passed from Ozzie to someone else, it didn’t go to Larkin. It went to Jay Bell. Go figure.By David
February 6, 2009 7:56 PM | Link to this
I chuckle when people say Barry Larkin and Hall of Fame in the same sentence. Check out Alan Trammel’s HOF vote totals. As players, they’re way too similiar in numbers, and both played for smaller(ish) market teams their entire careers. And Trammel hasn’t come close to getting elected. What on earth other than Rose-colored glasses makes you think that if Trammel can’t get more than 25 percent that Larkin is going to get 60 or 70 or whatever it takes?By Mike-Dayton
February 6, 2009 6:13 PM | Link to this
.27 a game … nice Math huh.By sun deck lover
February 6, 2009 6:11 PM | Link to this
Hey Albert. Migh want to do some homework before talking trash about Ozzie. I grew up watching Smith and Larkin play (both on turf) so it wasn’t much of a shock to me when I compared numbers, but you must have been to busy writing love letters to the Wizard to see Barry play. Let me give you a few stats. Larkins AVG .295, SLG .444, OBP .371, HR 198, RBI 960, TB 3527. Smiths AVG .262, SLG .328, OBP.337, HR 28, RBI 793, TB 3084. And before you throw that better defensively crap out, Larkin FP .975, Smith .978. And please note that all of the offensive catagories that he was crushed in were in 400 fewer games for Barry. The Wizard couldn’t carry his jock, let alone the silver slugger. Go somewhere else - maybe a few baseball games.By Mike-Dayton
February 6, 2009 6:05 PM | Link to this
Larkin had 4.46 assists/putouts per game during his career Concepcion had 4.73 … no way do I take DC’s offensive production for .17 chances more per game … with a greater chance he will make an error being as BL’s career fielding average is higher. Larkin everyday all the way to the HOF.By Wizard
February 6, 2009 5:12 PM | Link to this
Thank you very kindly, Albert The Great!By Sir Charles
February 6, 2009 4:33 PM | Link to this
@ mikedayton I’m not dismissing Barry’s efforts with the bat. I’m only placing more emphasis on Davey’s glove. Simple as that. If I’m building a team from scratch…I take the need for the glove over the need for the bat at that particular position. As for the fielding percentages…I think everybody who knows anything about stats knows that fielding percentage is VERY inaccurate in judging a players defensive abilities. Davey’s range allowed him to REACH more balls than Lark did. Davey’s ability to throw the one hopper on the rug to first granted him the opportunity to throw to first more on balls that Larkin would’ve just held onto…meaning more opportunities for throwing errors from Davey. Don’t get me wrong, they’re both fantastic players, and Lark is obviously the more well-rounded of the two…but we’re talking SS here and I look for defense FIRST there. So I’ll stand by my pick for Davey thank you very much.By Albert the Great
February 6, 2009 3:43 PM | Link to this
Again, Reds fans are clueless..Ozzie Smith got in on the 1st ballot..Larkin and Concepcion were both pretty good but not HOF caliber like the WizardBy David
February 6, 2009 3:08 PM | Link to this
So Concepcion moving to third was the reason Vern Rapp got fired? And all this time I thought it was the fact that the Reds were 70-92 under Rapp and Pete Rose was willing to come back as player/manager. How silly of me.By Cait
February 6, 2009 2:48 PM | Link to this
I don’t think Larkin would have hit in the 2 hole on the Big Red Machine. I’ll keep Morgan or Griffey Sr. there over Larkin. At best, Larkin is a 6 hole hitter on the BRM, only hitting second in case of someone else’s injury or day off. Nothing against Larkin. But Davey was on a better team overall. He got more ABs because the Reds had a better offense then. He hit behind two of the greatest RBI guys in history and faced better pitching in somewhat of a dead ball era. That said, they are so close in overall talent, I’d be quite happy with either one.By michael
February 6, 2009 2:11 PM | Link to this
I agree that Larkin would have been a 6th or 7th Hitter on the Machine. Griffey Sr. was a terrific #2 hitter against the (most common) RH pitching.By RonnieO
February 6, 2009 12:56 PM | Link to this
bclion, go to Baseball Reference and check the stats. During the first WS season (75), Davey hit SECOND 51 times and 7th 38. And for hitting in the bottom half of the order so often the rest of the time, Davey came to the plate 4,374 times in his career with runners on (vs. 3,844 for Larkin) and 2,663 times with RISP (vs. only 2,335 for Larkin). Yet Larkin has more RBIs? Sparky wouldn’t have hit Larkin 7th and that’s the difference. Larkin would have hit in the 2 hole on the Big Red machine.By bclion
February 6, 2009 11:03 AM | Link to this
I take Davey every time. Put Larkin hitting 7th in any lineup and see where he ends up offensively - that is where Davey hit in the Big Red Machine lineup most of the time. I like Davey far better defensively, I don’t care about the stats. He had better range than Larkin. I didn’t like the stuff Larkin pulled, going around the Manager etc, getting his big contract from Lindner when he was clearly pretty much done. Folks can disagree all day long, I take Davey and you take who you want.By michael
February 6, 2009 10:52 AM | Link to this
Good points RonnieO, but Davey did play more games overall and I do think his range was better, allowing him to get Larkins “base hits”. Also, I don’t think you would have seen any Big Red Machine member tear his captains C off. The team was very upset when T. Perez was traded, but I don’t remember anyone throwing a tantrum. Rose, who was captain, stated his mind and went out and played. Larkin was a me first player and I would rather have Davey C in my line-up. Don’t get me wrong…Larkin was gooood!By RonnieO
February 6, 2009 10:33 AM | Link to this
I think you make a great point about the difference in media coverage, michael. When Concepcion was in his prime, we knew what we read from Rit, Si, and Hal, once a day, what we saw from TWIB once a week along with CBS game of the week and what got in SI once a month. Larkin, on the other hand, played in an era when the good folks at ESPN run 24 hour coverage with sixteen different reporters, every rumor is reported and every foible exposed. Now, Davey being in the lineup every day IS selective memory. Davey missed half of 73 with a broken ankle, Davey had shoulder surgery in 82 and only played over 100 games once his last three seasons. In fact, Larkin played more in the last three seasons at the end of his career, despite age and injury, than Concepcion did. But to the point, michael, you can still look this stuff up where it is archived. It’s a fact Davey grumbled about Foley, it’s a fact Rapp was fired afterward, it’s a fact Davey fought with Pallone, etc, etc. It’s also a fact that during a slump Davey polled beat writers as to whether or not he should be in the lineup (1980)!!By Cait
February 6, 2009 10:27 AM | Link to this
Can I keep both? I was fortunate to witness both players careers. I feel Davey was just as good offensively, but faced better pitching than Larkin because pitching talent was as diluted and because he was surrounded by better teammates who got pitched around, then pitchers would bear down on Davey. Larkin was easily the best player on his team. Concepcion was a great player among exceptional players. Had they played in each other’s eras I have no doubt their stats would be reversed. But there was no one on the Reds to overshadow Larkin - so he will get HOF votes that Davey also deserves, but Davey is overshadowed by Bench, Perez, Morgan and Rose. How many more RBI would Davey have had if those guys weren’t cleaning the bases ahead of him?By michael
February 6, 2009 9:43 AM | Link to this
RonnieO…it may be my selective memory or less media coverage, but I don’t remember those things about Concepcion. I only remember Davey as being in the lineup everyday and producing. I can’t say that about Larkin. I would rather have a captain who sets an example of excellence in my lineup.By RonnieO
February 6, 2009 8:47 AM | Link to this
David - you’re entitled to your opinion, but the point of departure here is who would you rather line up at shortstop to play a game of pro baseball. Not whose personal narrative do you prefer, or who would you rather have a beer with, or who do you wish was your neighbor. Believe me, I loved me some Concepcion when I was a kid - and he was an awesome shortstop. But before we declare him Saint Davey - let’s remember the whole story. Davey had no problems throwing team mates and managers under the bus to the press when something upset him. Anybody else remember when they moved Foley to short and Davey to third? Wasn’t too long after that Vern Rapp gets fired? What was that about trashing your manager? Davey antagonizing Pallone to the point where the Reds couldn’t get a single call when that guy umped? What about not putting yourself above the team? Hal pointed out the times Davey threw fits with the press when he didn’t get enough attention. Like I said - you can’t go wrong lining either of these two up at short. But Davey was every bit as human and faulted as darn near anybody else who can name who played baseball.By David
February 6, 2009 3:07 AM | Link to this
Davey. Not even close. Concepcion never stabbed a manager in the back and got him fired. Concepcion never put himself above the team by refusing to switch positions. Concepcion never used a friend (Stowe) as a pawn to guilt his team into a new contract even though he couldn’t play more than 50 games a year because of injuries.By Prime Premium A#1 Idiot Retard
February 6, 2009 1:49 AM | Link to this
I agree with all the geniuses on here… LARKIN all the way, because he’s from Cincinnati. Tee hee.By DL
February 6, 2009 12:42 AM | Link to this
I agree that this city was lucky enough to have both. But I go with the 95 NL MVP, Barry Larkin. Not many SS have a league MVP on there resume.By Mad Dog
February 5, 2009 9:52 PM | Link to this
I saw Davy at Crosley his rookie year . He caught a high line drive that caused him to do a backflip . After that I wanted to be a shortstop . In reality you cannot compare the two . Because there were less teams , pitching had not been saturated when Davy played . So Davy had it harder at the plate . But Larkin was all league , with more competition . Davy with my heart . Larkin with my wallet .By Caleb
February 5, 2009 7:24 PM | Link to this
I’d take Larkin because of the offense. And Davey should be in the HOF. He was the best player at his position for his era.By JRed
February 5, 2009 7:03 PM | Link to this
Like Hal, I saw both play, and I agree with Hal and Palm Beach, et al. Hold a gun to my head—it’s Larkin. Otherwise, flip a coin. Both were the best all-around SS of their generation. I would take either over Ozzie Smith or any other SS in Cooperstown who comes to mind. Any franchise would have been blessed to have either. This one was fortunate enough to have had both.By boxter
February 5, 2009 6:56 PM | Link to this
Larkin rips the C off his jersey. Larkin refuses to bat leadoff when asked to “help” the team. Larkin was jerk and remains one now. Had to love his 1 1/2 speech when he got inducted into the Reds phony HOF. Larkin is a loser.By Mike-Dayton
February 5, 2009 5:43 PM | Link to this
Sir Charles - with your logic, Juan Castro is the greatest SS in Reds history because he was best fielder the Reds have ever had at SS. Your ability to dismiss the other 50% of the player’s value with the phrase “any offensive is a bonus” is ridiculous. Also, you state that “he simply wasn’t nearly as good as Davey with the glove” dismisses the fact that Larkin has a higher career fielding % than Davey. You would think that someone who is not in Davey’s class as you state, would have a lower fielding %, not higher. Davey had better range as he had a higher total chances per game which is fine seeing as Davey was a great SS but Larkin is going to HOF and Davey is getting nowhere fast in the HOF even with Bench, Perez, Morgan and Sparky lobbying for him. Larkin will need no help.By Sir Charles
February 5, 2009 5:23 PM | Link to this
I’ll have to take Davey too. While I thought Lark played an excellent SS defensively, he simply wasn’t nearly as good as Davey with the glove. Don’t get me wrong, Lark was a great defender…just not in the same class as Concepcion. Lark certainly has the edge in regards to offense, but we’re talking SS here…any offense is a bonus, the D is the key to it and Davey wins that battle IMO. And as for you final comment…yes, Reds fans have been awfully spoiled when it comes to shortstops over that long period. I don’t think any team has ever had such a long stretch of overwhelmingly great SS play.By Larkin all day long
February 5, 2009 5:22 PM | Link to this
Larkin played in 264 less games than Concepcion and …. Larkin had 939 walks - Concepcion had 736… and Concepcion struck out about 400 more times than Larkin. Runs BL-1329 DC-993 Larkin scored 15% of each PA - Concepcion only 10.4%, that equates to close to 30 runs each year or one every 5 games or so. Hits 2340 2326 Larkin finishes with more hits than Concepcion in hundreds of less games. Total Bases 3527 3114 Larkin did more extra base hitting Stolen Bases 379 321 Larkin stole more … Caught Stealing 77 109 and got caught less - Larkin 83% successful, Concepcion was only 74% Batting Average .295 .267 Larkin average almost 30 points higher On Base Average .371 .322 On Base % is a critical important offensive category and Larkin dominates this category Slugging % .444 .357 Larkin almost 90 points higher than Concepcion … guys it’s not even remotely close offensively.By PalmBeachFlyer
February 5, 2009 5:21 PM | Link to this
I saw both play entire careers…Tough choice but Larkin. Both should be in HOF.By Y-City Jim
February 5, 2009 4:33 PM | Link to this
I pick Davey because he was so likable.By RonnieO
February 5, 2009 4:25 PM | Link to this
Steve, I can just as easily make the case that Concepcion got more chances than Larkin beacuse of the pitching they played behind. In Davey’s seasons as starting shortstop, the Reds pitching staff finished dead last in strikeouts 5 times and never recorded over 1,000 strikeouts in a season. Larkin, on the other hand, played behind staffs that recorded over 1,000 strikeouts 7 times, finished first in Ks once, never finished last - and never finished lower than 4th the first five seasons he started. Range doesn’t matter if the ball never gets put in play. Larkin didn’t get the chances in equal part because the ball never got out there!By PeteF3
February 5, 2009 3:48 PM | Link to this
I still dispute the idea that Concepcion was demonstrably better with the glove than Larkin. Even then, you can’t just declare that offense is irrelevant, and Larkin blows Concepcion out of the water on that front.By steve
February 5, 2009 3:31 PM | Link to this
RonnieO The reason Davey averaged more chance per game was simple, he got to balls that wouldn’t be considered chances with Larkin playing. With Concepcion, Joe Morgan rarely ever played close to the 2nd base bag because Davey could cover that area. Left Joe to cover more toward first which was a great benefit when Perez had to hold a runner on. Concepcion was a great shortstop that covered a heck of lot more ground than Larkin, and when it comes to shortstop, fielding is what’s important.By chandler
February 5, 2009 3:25 PM | Link to this
First things first….Joe and Sam are both a*s clowns.You two probably know more about european soccer than baseball. I’ll take Davey anyday all day.He should be in the HOF.By RonnieO
February 5, 2009 2:26 PM | Link to this
Shortstop is about defense exactly one half of every inning. The other half it is about not making outs, getting on base, advancing bases, and scoring runs. But I will take Karl’s bait anyway. Larkin averaged 4.5 defensive chances per game over his career and fielded those at a .975 efficiency. Davey averaged 4.9 defensive chances per game and fielded them at .962 efficiency. There is not a total of one defensive assist difference per game between them - which is a stastical tie. To just make a statement about one guys defense being hands down better than the other doesn’t make it a fact - it makes it another opinion.By PeteF3
February 5, 2009 2:26 PM | Link to this
I have nothing against Davey but he does not belong in the HOF. (And neither does his modern-day equivalent, Omar Vizquel). He just doesn’t stack up to Ozzie Smith on any level. Ozzie stole 580 bases at a 79% clip—Concepcion stole 321 at 74%. His career OBP is higher and the OBP at his peak years blows Davey’s away. His defense was better. The only advantages Concepcion had were slightly more power and the fact that he pitched 1.1 scoreless innings in 1988. So Ozzie tops Concepcion in all major categories—and frankly I think Ozzie, while deserving, is towards the bottom end of the HOF class.By Jim
February 5, 2009 2:20 PM | Link to this
My heart tells me Concepcion, because of my childhood knowledge those Reds were baseball they could do no wrong, but Larkin is the one I watched through his prime. I agree I want a team with both starting. Both are Hall of Famers, but both probably will not make it until a veterans committee votes them in. And if there are those who think they shouldn’t be in then we better pull Ozzie Smith from it.By Petef3
February 5, 2009 2:07 PM | Link to this
Larkin was better and it’s not even particularly close. One of the most complete players in the history of the game. There are numerous comments here that are puzzling to me, but most puzzling is the “All-Star by default” criticism. People here are apparently mistaking Larkin’s Reds teams for the ’00s Devil Rays or the ’80s Mariners—all of Larkin’s teams had plenty of talent on them.By Karl
February 5, 2009 2:03 PM | Link to this
Concepcion, shortstop is about defense and he was better at that….By chevelle67
February 5, 2009 1:49 PM | Link to this
Davey would have never ripped the captain “C” from his jersey like Larkin did. I respectfully would have to choose the team player Conception over Larkin.By Doco
February 5, 2009 1:46 PM | Link to this
Davey had the “intangibles”? Are Rose, Morgan, Perez, Bench, and Foster the “intangibles” you speak of? What a dumb word. How about ACTUAL things that made Davey better?By RonnieO
February 5, 2009 1:36 PM | Link to this
See ‘em both play? Dude - I saw them both play in the same games a whole bunch in 86 & 87. I saw both in their prime - and it is an almost impossibly close compare. But I still say that Larkin gets the nod because of the offense. Over their careers, Larkin drew 200 more walks (939 to 736), struck out 300 fewer times (817 to 1,186), and made 1,000 fewer outs (5,978 to 6,932).By Sad Part II
February 5, 2009 1:33 PM | Link to this
Larkin of course — Concepcion’s negative intangibles (long name that is hard to pronounce, unpleasant odor associated with his shoes, unattractive baseball card photos, proclivity for masticating in public, failure in clutch situations when surrounded by bears) only add to the massive statistical gap.By michael
February 5, 2009 1:12 PM | Link to this
stuttgart…great point. I can see how younger than I reds fans could choose Larkin, but you really had to see Concepcion play. I chose Davey, and I was fortunate to get to see both in their prime.By RonnieO
February 5, 2009 12:59 PM | Link to this
You can still find the original AP story, Ross - it was precipitated by the Harris trade. Here’s an excerpt that is enlightening: - Larkin said he has not resigned his position as captain, but was making a point. “He [Harris] was the alternate captain,” Larkin said. “We lost some of the heart out of our team by trading Lenny. That was my reaction. This is not a protest. He was the guy on this team that I called captain, so away went the ‘C.’ It’s no big deal.”By Michael In Monterey, CA
February 5, 2009 12:47 PM | Link to this
The best player at the shortstop position begins and ends with Davey the “C”. Hopefully the veterans committee will display more common sense than the sports writers.By ross
February 5, 2009 12:45 PM | Link to this
RonnieO..did Larkin rip the C off because Of Perez being fired or was it the Harris tradeBy RRF
February 5, 2009 12:42 PM | Link to this
Larkin. Quick question, why do you believe the HOF would exclude Davey because of language? That is certainly not a criteria for selection and I don’t believe the HOF committee would exclude a player on language. Both deserve HOF selections.By ross
February 5, 2009 12:41 PM | Link to this
Cincinnati has been fortunate to have two great SS like these two guys..Davey should be in HOF if guys like Pee Wee Reese, Luis Aparicio, Ozzie Smith are in..he was a better all around player and also played on one of best teams in history..Larkin was a great player also..Reds fans have been luckyBy RonnieO
February 5, 2009 12:37 PM | Link to this
I’ll respect anybody’s opinion either way, but let’s not try to reinvent history so that it fits our pre-concieved notion about either player. For example, you can take out of context the time when Barry removed the “C” from his jersey. I think Hal referred to it as a “snit” and some on this thread assume it to be petulant, spoiled behavior. But do any of you know why he did it? He did it for one game only, and he did it out of respect for another player. He removed the C the day after the Reds dealt Lenny Harris. Larkin said Harris was the player he called “captain” - and he wanted to find a visible way to tip his cap, so to speak, to a team mate he thought was the heart and soul of that 1998 team.By Kathleen
February 5, 2009 12:23 PM | Link to this
Davey. Without question.By BrarHopper
February 5, 2009 12:14 PM | Link to this
All things considered these two guys match up pretty evenly. But Larkin loses out due to his Griffey-esque attitude. That attitude translates into clubhouse poison and resentment. Players loved Davey, resented Larkin’s entitlement attitude.By Sharpie
February 5, 2009 12:01 PM | Link to this
Davey! He was a tremendous SS and team player. Before he was a perennial all star I attended a clinic he and some of the other Reds put on during the all star break at Howe field in Dayton which was a annual event back then. Was a fan from then on. What players would do that now? A note on the power comments. Davey had plenty of power. He hit a red seat home run at riverfront. He just was not asked to hit home runs.By StuttgartTim
February 5, 2009 11:20 AM | Link to this
Davey. I will not resort to name calling as some did. It’s an honest disagreement of opinion. To those who say it isn’t even close, I will ask, however, if you actually saw Davey play or just looked at the stats? Davey’s intangibles give him the edge to me.By David
February 5, 2009 11:00 AM | Link to this
you forget 2 other pretty good ss Roy MCMILLAN and LEO CARDENAS great article but sir what about today.By michael
February 5, 2009 10:50 AM | Link to this
While I will not even attempt to take away from Barry Larkin’s abilities, Davey C. allowed me to enjoy 2 World Series and several other Post-seasons. He too was a team Captain. So, if you want to use those as your discriminator, Then Concepcion is the hands down winner.By I Worship Bernie Stowe
February 5, 2009 10:47 AM | Link to this
Davey…no question. He should already be in the HOF, but he was not a “me, me, me” player and didn’t stand out with the other members of the Big Red Machine. He was overlooked (remember Ozzie Smith was being the “flipper” of shortstops during the second half of Davey’s career). Davey needs to get in the HOF…just as Nuxy does too!By I Worship Bernie Stowe
February 5, 2009 10:46 AM | Link to this
Davey…no question. He should already be in the HOF, but he was not a “me, me, me” player and didn’t stand out with the other members of the Big Red Machine. He was overlooked (remember Ozzie Smith was being the “flipper” of shortstops during the second half of Davey’s career). Davey needs to get in the HOF…just as Nuxy does too!By jb
February 5, 2009 10:44 AM | Link to this
I pick Dave at SS and Barry at 3B. I sure hope we don’t have to resort to reminiscing all the time in order to get some enjoyment out of being a Reds fan.By David E. Lyons
February 5, 2009 10:42 AM | Link to this
I would take Davey without any thought….he was a a valuable cog in what many consider the greatest teams ever…Larkin was poison in the dugout, constantly undermining the manager, and no he would never even had the chance to produce the numbers with the awesome batters that would have batted before and after him in the lineup.By RonnieO
February 5, 2009 10:41 AM | Link to this
I agree with Hal - give me either one and I’ll be fine, but I’d prefer Larkin. The reason is offense - that +.050 difference in OBP for Larkin translated into 400 more runs scored over a same 19 year career. Larkin also gets an edge in base stealing ability, which helps keep the defense off balance. Now having said that - Concepcion has to be one of my sentimental favorite Reds, at least I like what I read about Dave a lot better than Lark.By HavaKlu
February 5, 2009 10:34 AM | Link to this
Although Larkin was certainly the better offensive player, Concepcion was certainly more dependable. Larkin played in only 75% of the teams scheduled games,spending as much time on the DL as Griffey. Davey played in 94% of his scheduled games when he was the full time starter. Larkin did have a higher fielding % .975—.971 but Davey had more range 4.71—4.32.By ryan kahn-madison, IN
February 5, 2009 10:29 AM | Link to this
By the way Mr. McCoy. I owe you a hotdog the next time I’m at GABP! Or a steak dinner…whichever you want.By osurickbee
February 5, 2009 10:28 AM | Link to this
Feel good, Big Red Machine era = Davy. Big money, me-first era, = Barry. tie breaker = Stats Winner - Larkin.By timb
February 5, 2009 10:23 AM | Link to this
On this board? Jeez, the fact that Lark was better than Dave gets barely a mention. But, the fact that Lark questioned his betters and authorities means he is a bad guy. One poster, so stupid it confounds me, says Barry was bad for the clubhouse. Despite the fact that his teammates elected him Captain! Let’s just be brutally honest, betweent he exciting race-bating talk shows in Cincinnati and the “difference” between Barry and Dave, a rational person can guess why the dolts here remember rumors and tantrums rather the lead-off hitter whose offense allowed me to enjoy a World Series victory…and, unfortunately, we won’t be repeating that World Series fun any time soon. Can anyone else guess?By michael
February 5, 2009 10:19 AM | Link to this
Concepcion was more dependable and more clutch. He was the best SS on the best team. I think Larkin was more worried about his bank account.By ryan kahn..-madison, IN.
February 5, 2009 10:16 AM | Link to this
Thanks for another awesome story Mr. McCoy. I am to young to know a lot about Concepcion other than highlights and stories. Larkin on the other hand I am very familiar with. He was my favorite Red growing up and I loved the way he played the game. I remember sitting in the upper deck behind home plate on opening day in ‘94. Larkin hit a bullet in the gap a legged out a triple just beating the tag. Riverfront erupted and I thought I was in heaven. I’d never seen anyone round the bases the way he did on the hit…it was awesome. Just one of a million Larkin stories.By mikey
February 5, 2009 9:58 AM | Link to this
larkin couldnt catch daveys jock strapBy Thomas Boykin,II
February 5, 2009 9:39 AM | Link to this
I think I would go with Dave because he set the bar to achieve the level of play that needed to be maintained in order to play the position, but Larkin sure exceeded the standard so he cannot be denied that he was an excellent short stop for the Reds during his tenure.By James P Haren
February 5, 2009 9:22 AM | Link to this
I agree that the Reds have had many great short stops but since I knew David and lived close to his home town for a year,I have to go with Concepcion.By Doco
February 5, 2009 9:14 AM | Link to this
Larkin. It doesn’t really seem that close. A career batting average 30 points higher, 12 all-star games, slightly better fielding %, and Larkin had good power for a SS. Davy may have had better range, but not by much. And Larkin put up those offensive numbers not surrounded by the Big Red Machine. He also would’ve started most of those All-Star games if it weren’t for the .250 hitting Oz doing back-flips.By Mike-Cinci
February 5, 2009 9:09 AM | Link to this
I pick Dave Concepcion. He was the best defensive shortstop I have ever seen and he was a fabulous hitter in the clutch. He was a team player on a team with more stars than a Hollywood movie set. Larkin was a better hitter. I thought Barry became a bit of a clubhouse lawyer in his later years. Leaving the team with Junior before the end of the last game of the season was inexcusable. Toward the end it seemed it was all about Barry and not about the team. The word is he undermined Jack McKeon and was Bowden’s spy in the clubhouse. I would pick Concepcion for a real baseball team and pick Larkin for a fantasy/rotisserie team. Both are Hall Of Fame players. Barry has a better chance given his better language skills and his popularity with the writers. Davey might get a better hearing from the old timers committee. In the end it is a choice between apple and cherry pie. Both are good. I just Davey a little better.By Scott
February 5, 2009 8:39 AM | Link to this
Hmm…I would have to take Larkin mainly for his offense. In case someone goes down due to injury I could ride Larkin’s bat until the whole team is healthy. This is pretty much like you said Hal, a wash. Will both of them get into the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown? What can we fans do to make that happen?By Ted Lawson
February 5, 2009 8:37 AM | Link to this
Larkin and Davy; Hal, its seldom I disagree with you but on this subject count me out. Davy Conception is the best shortstop I ever seen play the game Smith included. I’ve watched that particularlly close for over 50 years with the Reds and they have historically have had many many good Shortstops. Roy Mcmillan being right there with these two. Larkin never was and never will be the Shortstop Davy was in the field. All those Ribby’s Davy had was from one of the better clutch hitters of his time. His fielding takes a back seat to no one. Larkin being a native of cincy helps him with you guys alot. Davy didn’t have that and his command of the language didn’t help him either. A true shortstop does it in the field first and to me Davy has no match. Especially on artifical turf. Its a crying shame that he isn’t in the HOF. Sports writers are to blame for that.Larkin belongs too, but not before Davy Conception.By Kevin
February 5, 2009 8:26 AM | Link to this
Larkin.By Erik
February 5, 2009 8:20 AM | Link to this
Wow. This comment section makes me weep for the future of humanity. The answer is Larkin, and it’s not close and shouldn’t be a discussion.By steve
February 5, 2009 8:14 AM | Link to this
Larkin was a force, but when it came to defense, Davey was a Picasso. Watching highlights of Concepcion now really shows what joy he was in the field. He was smooth and covered more ground than any shortstop I remember. And since Shortstop is one of the most important defensive positions on the field, I’ll take him anyday.By Sad
February 5, 2009 8:12 AM | Link to this
I’m not sure what is dumber — the article or the comments. Hopefully the genes don’t get passed along.By beaverton
February 5, 2009 8:08 AM | Link to this
Good thought about putting Lark at 3B and Davey at short…except Lark would throw a tantrumBy chris carlisle
February 5, 2009 7:52 AM | Link to this
Larkin was by far the better short stop. His hitting and base running separate him from davey. I love them both for what they did for the Reds. However, if I was only able to get one of them my choice is Barry. BTW…ask Kansas City how Stillwell worked out.By chris carlisle
February 5, 2009 7:52 AM | Link to this
Larkin was by far the better short stop. His hitting and base running separate him from davey. I love them both for what they did for the Reds. However, if I was only able to get one of them my choice is Barry. BTW…ask Kansas City how Stillwell worked out.By Log Cabin John
February 5, 2009 7:34 AM | Link to this
Hal: Just for giggles, can you post the salaries for both Davey and Barry over their separate 19 years with the Reds? Let’s compare real value for money spent — something America doesn’t seem to consider anymore!By Rodney
February 5, 2009 7:32 AM | Link to this
Hey Null. I completely forgot about the time Larkin (and Griffey) left early. I call that quitting on his team!By null
February 5, 2009 7:17 AM | Link to this
I would go with Davey for only one important fact. Davey never quit on his team and left a game/season early before it was over. If I remember right, Larkin and Griff left early during the last game of the season in Florida. Davey has more class thatn Larkin ever will.By Pete
February 5, 2009 7:04 AM | Link to this
Davey’s my sentimental favorite. Yet the stats don’t lie — Larkin was better offensively. Joe — BOTH OVERRATED? You’re an idiot.By Steve
February 5, 2009 7:03 AM | Link to this
Hey Hal. That “C” that both players wore on their uniform along with $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks!By Tom
February 5, 2009 7:02 AM | Link to this
At the office, my friend Dave called Larkin the most overrated player to ever play the game. I could not agree more!By Brad
February 5, 2009 7:00 AM | Link to this
Hey Smitty, not only did Larkin refuse to bat in the number two spot in the order, he refused to move to center field when asked to do so.By Smitty
February 5, 2009 6:57 AM | Link to this
I remember Larkin as the guy who refused to bat in the number two spot in the order because his average suffered when he was asked to move runners up.By Buddy
February 5, 2009 6:55 AM | Link to this
Hal mentioned that the only negative about Larkin was when he ripped the “C” off of his uniform? I think Hal needs to go back to his archives. I recall many more negatives than positives about this man.By kim
February 5, 2009 6:52 AM | Link to this
I recall a player being traded away from the Reds after a season and a half with the team and his comment was that some day he would like to meet Barry Larkin. What he was saying was that Larkin was not good for the clubhouse.By sam
February 5, 2009 6:50 AM | Link to this
Hey Joe. Not only was Larkin an all-star by default, he was given an MVP award that he didn’t deserve. Dante Bissett had a much better year but the voters gave it to Larkin because Bissett played at Coors Field.By bill
February 5, 2009 6:47 AM | Link to this
I recall Larkin making three errors in one inning so the manager pulled. Then the media came up with a coverup that Larkin had a sore finger! LOLBy joe
February 5, 2009 6:45 AM | Link to this
Both of these clowns were highly overrated! Larkin had numerous all-star appearances only because of the rule that each team had to be represented. Hence, Larkin was an all-star by defautl.By Jammin
February 5, 2009 6:28 AM | Link to this
The heart goes with Davey-he was old school-worked his way up-no college pampering. By the stats though, ya have to go with Larkin.By Tim
February 5, 2009 5:54 AM | Link to this
I’ll take Davey on this one. He wasn’t afraid to laugh and enjoy the game. Remember when they put Davey in the drier and turned it on??? The clubhouse had to be a blast. Amazing how much a winning ball club can pick up the atmosphere.By MAC
February 5, 2009 4:35 AM | Link to this
Both were great, but Larkin was a much better hitter IMO. I guess the real question is Mr. Mack Coy, will it take another 19 yrs before we find our next good SS?By Tom Gray
February 5, 2009 3:13 AM | Link to this
I would pick Davey . When they kept tab’s on game winning hit’s for the Red’s Davey won almost every year. I think he was a much better shortstop. He was great in the clubhouse. He was just a better all around playerBy Rick
February 5, 2009 3:02 AM | Link to this
Larkin by a nose. Davey was great but Larkin had the offense over Davy.By HuberTucky
February 5, 2009 1:33 AM | Link to this
I seem to remember Larkin being a more solid and dependable hitter than Davey, but Davey is hard to beat on D.By Mike-Dayton
February 4, 2009 11:03 PM | Link to this
Larkin every day of the week … you flip Larkin and put him on the 1970’s teams and he will be talked about like Joe Morgan with the numbers he would have produced … you flip Concepcion to the late 80’s, 90’s and early 00’s, he is good but not Larkin-good. Larkin 30/30, MVP, 9 Silver Sluggers —— loved Davey from my youth but Larkin is going to the HOF.