Craig Biggio--Hall of Fame or Hall of Very Good? (1 Viewer)

[Koya]

And while we're at it, why is Biggio a lock and Lou Whittaker barely a vague memory for many people?Biggio: .283/.367/.436Whittaker: .276/.363/.426Biggio: 2930 H/281 HR/1125 RBIWhittaker: 2369 H/ 244 HR/1084 RBIBiggio: 4 Gold GlovesWhittaker: 3 Gold Gloves

If you apply the same test to Biggio vs. Whittaker as you did to Sandberg vs. Biggio the difference will be obvious. I think your top 5/top 10 season based analysis in the Sandberg post is a good one, the career numbers that Biggio will end with will push him over the top. He'll likely end up with more than 3000 Hs, over 1850 Rs, nearly 300 HRs and over 400 SBs.I'd stack Biggio's peak years against any post-Joe Morgan 2B. From 94-99, he was a consistently potent offensive force (in the Astrodome) and a Gold Glove fielder.

I just have Bigs at a very weak position, imo clearly behind Sandberg, Alomar and Kent.

So being the 4th best second baseman of the last 20 years is not HOF worthy? And Biggio has better numbers than Kent anyhow.

Considering the (lack of) strength at that position? Correct. The 4th best in twenty years at probably the weakest position = not HoF worthy imo.

 

[dawgtrails]

And while we're at it, why is Biggio a lock and Lou Whittaker barely a vague memory for many people?Biggio: .283/.367/.436Whittaker: .276/.363/.426Biggio: 2930 H/281 HR/1125 RBIWhittaker: 2369 H/ 244 HR/1084 RBIBiggio: 4 Gold GlovesWhittaker: 3 Gold Gloves

If you apply the same test to Biggio vs. Whittaker as you did to Sandberg vs. Biggio the difference will be obvious. I think your top 5/top 10 season based analysis in the Sandberg post is a good one, the career numbers that Biggio will end with will push him over the top. He'll likely end up with more than 3000 Hs, over 1850 Rs, nearly 300 HRs and over 400 SBs.I'd stack Biggio's peak years against any post-Joe Morgan 2B. From 94-99, he was a consistently potent offensive force (in the Astrodome) and a Gold Glove fielder.

I just have Bigs at a very weak position, imo clearly behind Sandberg, Alomar and Kent.

So being the 4th best second baseman of the last 20 years is not HOF worthy? And Biggio has better numbers than Kent anyhow.

Considering the (lack of) strength at that position? Correct. The 4th best in twenty years at probably the weakest position = not HoF worthy imo.

I dont get this thinking though. Well, I get it, just dont agree.Catchers are an overall weak position, do you feel the same way about them?Anyhow, I think of him as the second best in the past twenty years, maybe even the best. Sandberg is already in the HOF, so I dont consider him a real contemporary. Biggio has better numbers than both Alomar and Kent.

 

[Eephus]

And while we're at it, why is Biggio a lock and Lou Whittaker barely a vague memory for many people?Biggio: .283/.367/.436Whittaker: .276/.363/.426Biggio: 2930 H/281 HR/1125 RBIWhittaker: 2369 H/ 244 HR/1084 RBIBiggio: 4 Gold GlovesWhittaker: 3 Gold Gloves

If you apply the same test to Biggio vs. Whittaker as you did to Sandberg vs. Biggio the difference will be obvious. I think your top 5/top 10 season based analysis in the Sandberg post is a good one, the career numbers that Biggio will end with will push him over the top. He'll likely end up with more than 3000 Hs, over 1850 Rs, nearly 300 HRs and over 400 SBs.I'd stack Biggio's peak years against any post-Joe Morgan 2B. From 94-99, he was a consistently potent offensive force (in the Astrodome) and a Gold Glove fielder.

I just have Bigs at a very weak position, imo clearly behind Sandberg, Alomar and Kent.

So being the 4th best second baseman of the last 20 years is not HOF worthy? And Biggio has better numbers than Kent anyhow.

Considering the (lack of) strength at that position? Correct. The 4th best in twenty years at probably the weakest position = not HoF worthy imo.

I dont get this thinking though. Well, I get it, just dont agree.Catchers are an overall weak position, do you feel the same way about them?Anyhow, I think of him as the second best in the past twenty years, maybe even the best. Sandberg is already in the HOF, so I dont consider him a real contemporary. Biggio has better numbers than both Alomar and Kent.

Biggio also has had a better relationship with sportswriters than either Alomar or Kent. That shouldn't matter but it sure hasn't helped Jim Rice's case any.

 

[Koya]

And while we're at it, why is Biggio a lock and Lou Whittaker barely a vague memory for many people?

Biggio: .283/.367/.436

Whittaker: .276/.363/.426

Biggio: 2930 H/281 HR/1125 RBI

Whittaker: 2369 H/ 244 HR/1084 RBI

Biggio: 4 Gold Gloves

Whittaker: 3 Gold Gloves

If you apply the same test to Biggio vs. Whittaker as you did to Sandberg vs. Biggio the difference will be obvious. I think your top 5/top 10 season based analysis in the Sandberg post is a good one, the career numbers that Biggio will end with will push him over the top. He'll likely end up with more than 3000 Hs, over 1850 Rs, nearly 300 HRs and over 400 SBs.

I'd stack Biggio's peak years against any post-Joe Morgan 2B. From 94-99, he was a consistently potent offensive force (in the Astrodome) and a Gold Glove fielder.

I just have Bigs at a very weak position, imo clearly behind Sandberg, Alomar and Kent.

So being the 4th best second baseman of the last 20 years is not HOF worthy? And Biggio has better numbers than Kent anyhow.

Considering the (lack of) strength at that position? Correct. The 4th best in twenty years at probably the weakest position = not HoF worthy imo.

I dont get this thinking though. Well, I get it, just dont agree.Catchers are an overall weak position, do you feel the same way about them?

Anyhow, I think of him as the second best in the past twenty years, maybe even the best. Sandberg is already in the HOF, so I dont consider him a real contemporary. Biggio has better numbers than both Alomar and Kent.

Not when I look at that? I am looking at extended peak far more than final numbers though, maybe that is it.Watching them play, there is no question that Big's would be third imo.

And yes, I would feel similar about catcher. But there were also a couple all time great catchers in Piazza and I Rod. Position does play somewhat into it, especially if you are exceptional at D, but not enough for me to put in a much weaker producer because they play at a position that is thin.

 

[Eephus]

And while we're at it, why is Biggio a lock and Lou Whittaker barely a vague memory for many people?

Biggio: .283/.367/.436

Whittaker: .276/.363/.426

Biggio: 2930 H/281 HR/1125 RBI

Whittaker: 2369 H/ 244 HR/1084 RBI

Biggio: 4 Gold Gloves

Whittaker: 3 Gold Gloves

If you apply the same test to Biggio vs. Whittaker as you did to Sandberg vs. Biggio the difference will be obvious. I think your top 5/top 10 season based analysis in the Sandberg post is a good one, the career numbers that Biggio will end with will push him over the top. He'll likely end up with more than 3000 Hs, over 1850 Rs, nearly 300 HRs and over 400 SBs.

I'd stack Biggio's peak years against any post-Joe Morgan 2B. From 94-99, he was a consistently potent offensive force (in the Astrodome) and a Gold Glove fielder.

I just have Bigs at a very weak position, imo clearly behind Sandberg, Alomar and Kent.

So being the 4th best second baseman of the last 20 years is not HOF worthy? And Biggio has better numbers than Kent anyhow.

Considering the (lack of) strength at that position? Correct. The 4th best in twenty years at probably the weakest position = not HoF worthy imo.

I dont get this thinking though. Well, I get it, just dont agree.Catchers are an overall weak position, do you feel the same way about them?

Anyhow, I think of him as the second best in the past twenty years, maybe even the best. Sandberg is already in the HOF, so I dont consider him a real contemporary. Biggio has better numbers than both Alomar and Kent.

Not when I look at that? I am looking at extended peak far more than final numbers though, maybe that is it.Watching them play, there is no question that Big's would be third imo.

And yes, I would feel similar about catcher. But there were also a couple all time great catchers in Piazza and I Rod. Position does play somewhat into it, especially if you are exceptional at D, but not enough for me to put in a much weaker producer because they play at a position that is thin.

I can understand the argument for Alomar. When he was in his prime, he had the look of a sure Hall of Famer. He did everything well and looked effortless doing it. But the career and extended peak numbers still favor Biggio. I think Alomar belongs in the HoF and I hope he gets there but he'll be hurt by his game falling apart at age 34 and that Hirschbeck incident.Kent had some excellent years with the bat but has never been much of a fielder. I've watched a lot of him in SF and he never seemed like a Hall of Famer. He was just the guy on deck when Barry was up. Even accounting for Kent's career year and MVP award, I think Biggio's peak value was higher. Kent's prime also coincided with the steroid era which may factor into voters' minds.

 

[Koya]

And while we're at it, why is Biggio a lock and Lou Whittaker barely a vague memory for many people?

Biggio: .283/.367/.436

Whittaker: .276/.363/.426

Biggio: 2930 H/281 HR/1125 RBI

Whittaker: 2369 H/ 244 HR/1084 RBI

Biggio: 4 Gold Gloves

Whittaker: 3 Gold Gloves

If you apply the same test to Biggio vs. Whittaker as you did to Sandberg vs. Biggio the difference will be obvious. I think your top 5/top 10 season based analysis in the Sandberg post is a good one, the career numbers that Biggio will end with will push him over the top. He'll likely end up with more than 3000 Hs, over 1850 Rs, nearly 300 HRs and over 400 SBs.

I'd stack Biggio's peak years against any post-Joe Morgan 2B. From 94-99, he was a consistently potent offensive force (in the Astrodome) and a Gold Glove fielder.

I just have Bigs at a very weak position, imo clearly behind Sandberg, Alomar and Kent.

So being the 4th best second baseman of the last 20 years is not HOF worthy? And Biggio has better numbers than Kent anyhow.

Considering the (lack of) strength at that position? Correct. The 4th best in twenty years at probably the weakest position = not HoF worthy imo.

I dont get this thinking though. Well, I get it, just dont agree.Catchers are an overall weak position, do you feel the same way about them?

Anyhow, I think of him as the second best in the past twenty years, maybe even the best. Sandberg is already in the HOF, so I dont consider him a real contemporary. Biggio has better numbers than both Alomar and Kent.

Not when I look at that? I am looking at extended peak far more than final numbers though, maybe that is it.Watching them play, there is no question that Big's would be third imo.

And yes, I would feel similar about catcher. But there were also a couple all time great catchers in Piazza and I Rod. Position does play somewhat into it, especially if you are exceptional at D, but not enough for me to put in a much weaker producer because they play at a position that is thin.

I can understand the argument for Alomar. When he was in his prime, he had the look of a sure Hall of Famer. He did everything well and looked effortless doing it. But the career and extended peak numbers still favor Biggio. I think Alomar belongs in the HoF and I hope he gets there but he'll be hurt by his game falling apart at age 34 and that Hirschbeck incident.Kent had some excellent years with the bat but has never been much of a fielder. I've watched a lot of him in SF and he never seemed like a Hall of Famer. He was just the guy on deck when Barry was up. Even accounting for Kent's career year and MVP award, I think Biggio's peak value was higher. Kent's prime also coincided with the steroid era which may factor into voters' minds.

I am not a huge Kent fan myself. I havent decided if I think he is HoF yet. But for his position he had a LOT of power. Like I said, i do account forposition, and his power there is a unique weapon, but I would have to check the stats more.Alomar Im not even really looking at stats. I saw his whole career. Spit and falling off a cliff is understood, but as you saw, he was a hall of fame player.

 

[David Yudkin]

Using the "best 5 years" theory (taking a player's best 5 seasons in each category no matter which years they were posted):

Averaging those 5 seasons . . .

Alomar:

.329/.412/.519

191 H/121 R/20 HR/99 RBI

300 TB/48 SB/123 Runs Created

Biggio:

.310/.405/.489

189 H/127 R/23 HR/79 RBI

303 TB/41 SB/113 Runs Created

I don't think that those numbers show that Biggio had Alomar beat in the "prime seasons" argument. IMO, they look pretty close.

 

[Tau837]

Article by Rob Neyer from January 2005 in which he says Biggio is one of the top 5-6 second basemen of all time: LINK

 

[guru_007]

So being the 4th best second baseman of the last 20 years is not HOF worthy? And Biggio has better numbers than Kent anyhow.

Think you're wrong.Compelling arguments why Kent is better than Biggio

345 HR's vs 281

1390 rbis vs 1125

.289 ba vs .283

.860 ops vs .803

MVP award

Oh, and the fact he has about 3,000 LESS plate appearances than Biggio.

Jeff Kent is the Mike Piazza of second base. Probably the most prolific offensive player in history at that position (sure, arguments can be made for Joe Morgan, Johnny Bench...few others).

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

What does staying with one team have to do with the Hall?

 

[Polecat]

So being the 4th best second baseman of the last 20 years is not HOF worthy? And Biggio has better numbers than Kent anyhow.

Think you're wrong.Compelling arguments why Kent is better than Biggio

345 HR's vs 281

1390 rbis vs 1125

.289 ba vs .283

.860 ops vs .803

MVP award

Oh, and the fact he has about 3,000 LESS plate appearances than Biggio.

Jeff Kent is the Mike Piazza of second base. Probably the most prolific offensive player in history at that position (sure, arguments can be made for Joe Morgan, Johnny Bench...few others).

Comparing Kent and Biggio is absurd. They are two completely different types of player. Kent is a butcher, not half the defensive player Biggio was. Biggio's numbers came while hitting leadoff or in the two hole.

 

[Eephus]

What does staying with one team have to do with the Hall?

Lord knows what's going through their minds when sportswriters fill out their HoF ballots. I don't think playing for one team is a major factor but it certainly isn't a negative. I don't think Biggio is a borderline case but obviously others here do. A few ballots from nostalgic writers who view Biggio as a throwback player and a nice guy could very well put him over the top.On the other hand, a handful of writers who dwell on Alomar's saliva or Kent's pickup truck could keep them out.

 

[oso diablo]

Ryne Sandberg is the most recent 2B to get inducted into the HoF. Biggio's stats compare well with Ryno's. Biggio's longevity will help him surpass almost all of Sandberg's. Sandberg will likely end up with career AVG and SLG numbers slightly higher than Biggio, but Biggio will have a large edge in OBP. Biggio only needs five more HBP to pass Hughie Jennings on the all-time list. Sandberg had more Gold Gloves and All-Star Game appearances, but Biggio is no slouch in either department. One factor that hasn't been mentioned is the Astrodome. Biggio played his prime years there; the Astros didn't move to Enron Field until Biggio's age 34 season. Some of his 637 doubles would have gone over the fence in almost any other ballpark. That may not factor large with the voters but the Astrodome was a hitters graveyard that dramatically affected career stats for other Astros like Wynn, Cedeno and Staub.HoF voting is a bit of a beauty contest. A soft factor in Biggio's favor is the fact that he spent his entire career with one team. This helped Yount and Sandberg.

, esp the Astrodome angle. Consider 1993, when Biggio socked all of 21 HR. But that was enough to lead the Astros, besting Bagwell, Caminiti, and Luis Gonzalez. He also led the Astros in HR in 1995. The place greatly depressed batting stats.But of course, his game was never about HR anyway. He's a small-ball guy, a throw back. Doing the little things that go unnoticed by the great unwashed media or the casual fan. Such as the 1997 season, when he posted 34 HBP but 0 GIDP.

 

[oso diablo]

I'm not so sure Biggio = Sandberg . . .[several comparisons snipped for length]Biggio may have career totals that are on par with Sandberg's, but he's had almost 2700 more plate appearances to get there. Amd it doesn't appear on a year to year basis that he was as solid.

most of the comparisons listed are correlated to slugging and the media & fans' interest in same. And in many other cases, Sandberg's raw stat advantage can be explained away once you've adjusted for park effects.I'll check my Win Shares database when i get home, but i'm confident that the two will be very close. Both are clear HOFers.

 

[David Yudkin]

I'm not so sure Biggio = Sandberg . . .[several comparisons snipped for length]Biggio may have career totals that are on par with Sandberg's, but he's had almost 2700 more plate appearances to get there. Amd it doesn't appear on a year to year basis that he was as solid.

most of the comparisons listed are correlated to slugging and the media & fans' interest in same. And in many other cases, Sandberg's raw stat advantage can be explained away once you've adjusted for park effects.I'll check my Win Shares database when i get home, but i'm confident that the two will be very close. Both are clear HOFers.

Say what you want about the Astrodome, but Minute Maid Park really inflated his power numbers. In the past 5 seasons (ages 36-40), Biggio's HR rate jumped from 1 HR every 42 at bats to 1 HR every 29 at bats.Certainly he was never a long ball guy, but IMO the move to orange juice park likely allowed him to stay productive and helped extend his career.

 

[Eephus]

I'm not so sure Biggio = Sandberg . . .[several comparisons snipped for length]Biggio may have career totals that are on par with Sandberg's, but he's had almost 2700 more plate appearances to get there. Amd it doesn't appear on a year to year basis that he was as solid.

most of the comparisons listed are correlated to slugging and the media & fans' interest in same. And in many other cases, Sandberg's raw stat advantage can be explained away once you've adjusted for park effects.I'll check my Win Shares database when i get home, but i'm confident that the two will be very close. Both are clear HOFers.

Say what you want about the Astrodome, but Minute Maid Park really inflated his power numbers. In the past 5 seasons (ages 36-40), Biggio's HR rate jumped from 1 HR every 42 at bats to 1 HR every 29 at bats.Certainly he was never a long ball guy, but IMO the move to orange juice park likely allowed him to stay productive and helped extend his career.

Well, that and Phil Garner's willingness to play him every day. I'm one of Biggio's biggest supporters in this thread but I admit he's not a very good player at this stage of his career, although his defensive stats are still pretty decent.He definitely slipped last year in his age 40 season. Chris Burke might be a better option now, although Garner has seemed unwilling to give him the job. It's odd because Burke has some similarities to Garner when he was a player.

 

[Tau837]

I'm not so sure Biggio = Sandberg . . .[several comparisons snipped for length]Biggio may have career totals that are on par with Sandberg's, but he's had almost 2700 more plate appearances to get there. Amd it doesn't appear on a year to year basis that he was as solid.

most of the comparisons listed are correlated to slugging and the media & fans' interest in same. And in many other cases, Sandberg's raw stat advantage can be explained away once you've adjusted for park effects.I'll check my Win Shares database when i get home, but i'm confident that the two will be very close. Both are clear HOFers.

Say what you want about the Astrodome, but Minute Maid Park really inflated his power numbers. In the past 5 seasons (ages 36-40), Biggio's HR rate jumped from 1 HR every 42 at bats to 1 HR every 29 at bats.Certainly he was never a long ball guy, but IMO the move to orange juice park likely allowed him to stay productive and helped extend his career.

If I'm not mistaken, Minute Maid Park opened 7 seasons ago. During those 7 seasons, Biggio averaged 1 HR per 30.8 at bats. During the 5 seasons prior, he averaged 1 HR per 32.2 at bats. Not a big difference there. And in those last 5 years in the Astrodome, he slugged .472, compared to .435 in MMP. So it's hard to see how MMP had more than a negligible effect on extending his career.Besides that, I think he was a HOFer before the last few seasons, anyway.

 

[guru_007]

Well, that and Phil Garner's willingness to play him every day. I'm one of Biggio's biggest supporters in this thread but I admit he's not a very good player at this stage of his career, although his defensive stats are still pretty decent.He definitely slipped last year in his age 40 season. Chris Burke might be a better option now, although Garner has seemed unwilling to give him the job. It's odd because Burke has some similarities to Garner when he was a player.

Look at Craig Biggio's second half....and look at his road splits. Saying he is not a very good player at this stages in his career is being very kind. He's not an every day offense option for any team in the majors right now. Shouldn't detract from his career....but it's one of the reasons I have not been such a big fan.

 

[thecatch]

So being the 4th best second baseman of the last 20 years is not HOF worthy? And Biggio has better numbers than Kent anyhow.

Think you're wrong.Compelling arguments why Kent is better than Biggio

345 HR's vs 281

1390 rbis vs 1125

.289 ba vs .283

.860 ops vs .803

MVP award

Oh, and the fact he has about 3,000 LESS plate appearances than Biggio.

Jeff Kent is the Mike Piazza of second base. Probably the most prolific offensive player in history at that position (sure, arguments can be made for Joe Morgan, Johnny Bench...few others).

That MVP was a farce though

 

[Eephus]

Well, that and Phil Garner's willingness to play him every day. I'm one of Biggio's biggest supporters in this thread but I admit he's not a very good player at this stage of his career, although his defensive stats are still pretty decent.He definitely slipped last year in his age 40 season. Chris Burke might be a better option now, although Garner has seemed unwilling to give him the job. It's odd because Burke has some similarities to Garner when he was a player.

Look at Craig Biggio's second half....and look at his road splits. Saying he is not a very good player at this stages in his career is being very kind. He's not an every day offense option for any team in the majors right now. Shouldn't detract from his career....but it's one of the reasons I have not been such a big fan.

Thank you. I am very kind

 

[David Yudkin]

I'm not so sure Biggio = Sandberg . . .[several comparisons snipped for length]Biggio may have career totals that are on par with Sandberg's, but he's had almost 2700 more plate appearances to get there. Amd it doesn't appear on a year to year basis that he was as solid.

most of the comparisons listed are correlated to slugging and the media & fans' interest in same. And in many other cases, Sandberg's raw stat advantage can be explained away once you've adjusted for park effects.I'll check my Win Shares database when i get home, but i'm confident that the two will be very close. Both are clear HOFers.

Say what you want about the Astrodome, but Minute Maid Park really inflated his power numbers. In the past 5 seasons (ages 36-40), Biggio's HR rate jumped from 1 HR every 42 at bats to 1 HR every 29 at bats.Certainly he was never a long ball guy, but IMO the move to orange juice park likely allowed him to stay productive and helped extend his career.

If I'm not mistaken, Minute Maid Park opened 7 seasons ago. During those 7 seasons, Biggio averaged 1 HR per 30.8 at bats. During the 5 seasons prior, he averaged 1 HR per 32.2 at bats. Not a big difference there. And in those last 5 years in the Astrodome, he slugged .472, compared to .435 in MMP. So it's hard to see how MMP had more than a negligible effect on extending his career.Besides that, I think he was a HOFer before the last few seasons, anyway.

Minute Maid Park opened in 2000--a year that Biggio didn't play in 60 games. The numbers I posted were from 01-06. Players HR totals normally do not shoot up as they approach 40 years old.

 

[Tau837]

I'm not so sure Biggio = Sandberg . . .[several comparisons snipped for length]Biggio may have career totals that are on par with Sandberg's, but he's had almost 2700 more plate appearances to get there. Amd it doesn't appear on a year to year basis that he was as solid.

most of the comparisons listed are correlated to slugging and the media & fans' interest in same. And in many other cases, Sandberg's raw stat advantage can be explained away once you've adjusted for park effects.I'll check my Win Shares database when i get home, but i'm confident that the two will be very close. Both are clear HOFers.

Say what you want about the Astrodome, but Minute Maid Park really inflated his power numbers. In the past 5 seasons (ages 36-40), Biggio's HR rate jumped from 1 HR every 42 at bats to 1 HR every 29 at bats.Certainly he was never a long ball guy, but IMO the move to orange juice park likely allowed him to stay productive and helped extend his career.

If I'm not mistaken, Minute Maid Park opened 7 seasons ago. During those 7 seasons, Biggio averaged 1 HR per 30.8 at bats. During the 5 seasons prior, he averaged 1 HR per 32.2 at bats. Not a big difference there. And in those last 5 years in the Astrodome, he slugged .472, compared to .435 in MMP. So it's hard to see how MMP had more than a negligible effect on extending his career.Besides that, I think he was a HOFer before the last few seasons, anyway.

Minute Maid Park opened in 2000--a year that Biggio didn't play in 60 games. The numbers I posted were from 01-06. Players HR totals normally do not shoot up as they approach 40 years old.

Sure, his HR totals went up, but his slugging percentage went down substantially. MMP did not inflate his slugging, just his HRs... and it wasn't that big of a difference (every 30.8 at bats vs. every 32.2) for HRs. I was focused on your "extend his career" comment, and I think the park had a negligible effect on that.

 

[oso diablo]

I'll check my Win Shares database when i get home, but i'm confident that the two will be very close. Both [biggio & Sandberg] are clear HOFers.

It wasn't as close as i expected. Their peaks are essentially identical, but Biggio surges ahead in years 7-9 and then again in years 13 on. Biggio has 425 career win shares - that is awesome.I'll be back with the Davenport Translations from Baseball Prospectus, and perhaps a word from Bill James, but got a kids' thing to tend to.Best Year Biggio Sandberg1 38 382 35 373 32 344 32 335 31 286 29 287 26 228 26 209 25 2010 20 1911 20 1812 19 1713 18 1414 18 1115 18 716 15 017 11 18 11 19 1 Total 425 346

 

[-OZ-]

Despite growing up in Detroit, I was a big Nolan Ryan, Astros and Biggio fan. I'd love to see him make it, but he won't be a first ballot member.

 

[oso diablo]

I'll be back with the Davenport Translations from Baseball Prospectus, and perhaps a word from Bill James, but got a kids' thing to tend to.

The DTs attempt to recalibrate stats throughout baseball history into a park-neutral, era-neutral and league-neutral context. Actually, era-neutral is really translating stats to a modern context. We're all familiar with the park-context of Coors Field, for example, or with the pitching dominance of the late 60s. We had the dead-ball era, and the 1930s when everybody and their dog hit over 300. Let's put all that into the pot and see what DT has to say...Thus translated, Biggio posts a career batting line of 289 / 374 / 459, compared to his raw stats of 283 / 367 / 436.

Some comps mentioned in this thread:

Biggio 289 / 374 / 459

Sandberg 282 / 346 / 488

Whitaker 286 / 377 / 474 (very underrated)

Alomar 309 / 382 / 474

Yount 297 / 358 / 484

Kent 291 / 359 / 521

Comment: Biggio doesn't stand out here, although he's right in the mix. I think all of these guys are HOF material (except maybe Kent - see below)

BP has other interesting counting stats. Let's look at 2 of them. Their premier all-encompassing WARP3 and Runs Above Replacement (which consider both batting and fielding prowess, compared to a replacement level player at that position).

Player / WARP3 / RAR

Biggio / 123.5 / 1098

Sandberg / 112.9 / 1020

Whitaker / 123.9 / 1098

Alomar / 131.7 / 1182

Yount / 136.8 / 1231

Kent / 103.9 / 933

edited to add lines for Jeff Kent

 

[TheLimeChicken]

I'll be back with the Davenport Translations from Baseball Prospectus, and perhaps a word from Bill James, but got a kids' thing to tend to.

The DTs attempt to recalibrate stats throughout baseball history into a park-neutral, era-neutral and league-neutral context. Actually, era-neutral is really translating stats to a modern context. We're all familiar with the park-context of Coors Field, for example, or with the pitching dominance of the late 60s. We had the dead-ball era, and the 1930s when everybody and their dog hit over 300. Let's put all that into the pot and see what DT has to say...Thus translated, Biggio posts a career batting line of 289 / 374 / 459, compared to his raw stats of 283 / 367 / 436.

Some comps mentioned in this thread:

Biggio 289 / 374 / 459

Sandberg 282 / 346 / 488

Whitaker 286 / 377 / 474 (very underrated)

Alomar 309 / 382 / 474

Yount 297 / 358 / 484

Comment: Biggio doesn't stand out here, although he's right in the mix. I think all of these guys are HOF material.

BP has other interesting counting stats. Let's look at 2 of them. Their premier all-encompassing WARP3 and Runs Above Replacement (which consider both batting and fielding prowess, compared to a replacement level player at that position).

Player / WARP3 / RAR

Biggio / 123.5 / 1098

Sandberg / 112.9 / 1020

Whitaker / 123.9 / 1098

Alomar / 131.7 / 1182

Yount / 136.8 / 1231

D'oh, I had typed out a response based on WARP3, then I refreshed the thread and see that someone's beaten me to it.I had included Bobby Grich in mine, just for fun, and while his career of 118.6 puts him a little below these guys, both his 5 and 10-year peaks are second only to Alomar.

Personally, I don't like the combined RAR, mostly because BPro's defensive stats are crap (actually, I think almost all defensive stats are), you're seriously going to tell me that Biggio's been a below average fielder in all but two of his seasons? Not that GG's are a great indicator either, but I feel confident in saying that Biggio was somewhere between average and good, if not better, at fielding his position.

 

[Koya]

I'll be back with the Davenport Translations from Baseball Prospectus, and perhaps a word from Bill James, but got a kids' thing to tend to.

The DTs attempt to recalibrate stats throughout baseball history into a park-neutral, era-neutral and league-neutral context. Actually, era-neutral is really translating stats to a modern context. We're all familiar with the park-context of Coors Field, for example, or with the pitching dominance of the late 60s. We had the dead-ball era, and the 1930s when everybody and their dog hit over 300. Let's put all that into the pot and see what DT has to say...Thus translated, Biggio posts a career batting line of 289 / 374 / 459, compared to his raw stats of 283 / 367 / 436.

Some comps mentioned in this thread:

Biggio 289 / 374 / 459

Sandberg 282 / 346 / 488

Whitaker 286 / 377 / 474 (very underrated)

Alomar 309 / 382 / 474

Yount 297 / 358 / 484

Comment: Biggio doesn't stand out here, although he's right in the mix. I think all of these guys are HOF material.

BP has other interesting counting stats. Let's look at 2 of them. Their premier all-encompassing WARP3 and Runs Above Replacement (which consider both batting and fielding prowess, compared to a replacement level player at that position).

Player / WARP3 / RAR

Biggio / 123.5 / 1098

Sandberg / 112.9 / 1020

Whitaker / 123.9 / 1098

Alomar / 131.7 / 1182

Yount / 136.8 / 1231

Some interesting numbers there. My non Hall stance may not be quite as strong - or I might have just weakened on others. That said, Sandberg always was an HoF player during his career, imo. Kent Im prob less bullish on now even than before. Any reason he was left out of that mix? Whitaker was/is underated imo, but not at all a HoF player. Maybe only Alomar and Yount are clear HoFers of those mentioned.

 

[oso diablo]

Kent Im prob less bullish on now even than before. Any reason he was left out of that mix?

just forgot about him (that can't be good for his HOF case, right?) i will edit posts above to include.p.s. to Lime Chicken, don't necessarily disagree about RAR. I'm a Win Shares guy, first and foremost. Biggio beats them all down on that metric.

 

[MarshallRob]

I'll check my Win Shares database when i get home, but i'm confident that the two will be very close. Both [biggio & Sandberg] are clear HOFers.

It wasn't as close as i expected. Their peaks are essentially identical, but Biggio surges ahead in years 7-9 and then again in years 13 on. Biggio has 425 career win shares - that is awesome.I'll be back with the Davenport Translations from Baseball Prospectus, and perhaps a word from Bill James, but got a kids' thing to tend to.Best Year Biggio Sandberg1 38 382 35 373 32 344 32 335 31 286 29 287 26 228 26 209 25 2010 20 1911 20 1812 19 1713 18 1414 18 1115 18 716 15 017 11 18 11 19 1 Total 425 346

Biggio may never have won an MVP award but he had 5 seasons with at least 31 Win Shares--5 MVP-type seasons. His 38 Win Share season was 1997. MVP Larry Walker earned "only" 32 Win Shares that year.