OT: Redsox World Series Champions thread/MLB 2014 Thread

[LSCII]

Jim Rice doesn't really deserve to be there either.

Tony Perez too.

 

[Therick67]

The baseball HOF is a joke.

 

[EverettMike]

Tony Perez too.

I'm a smaller hall guy. Totally agree. Wasn't he a veteran's committee guy?

They have made the overwhelming majority of mistakes that are in the hall.

 

[MTaylorJ1]

I'm a smaller hall guy. Totally agree. Wasn't he a veteran's committee guy?

They have made the overwhelming majority of mistakes that are in the hall.

Wonder how many mistakes come in years 10-15 by the writers.

Smaller Hall, 5 years on the ballot, and you should be actively covering baseball to be able to vote.

Just me, but I'd require some of these guys to take an economics class or two as well.

 

[LSCII]

Can't agree with this at all, he had an 8 of 9 year stretch where he put up an .800 OPS as a 2B. That's not compiling. That's excellent baseball. The counter Biggio arguments just don't reflect positional value.

Though I take it from your stance you're a Rice over Dewey guy?

My biggest issue with this year's ballot is the gap between Glavine and Schilling/Mussina. The difference of those 3 players on the mound wasn't 65/70%.

He is probably one of the three greatest 2nd basemen of all-time.

I couldn't disagree more. Biggio is a guy who stuck around and got to 3,000 hits because of the years he played. All of one season with over 200 hits and he's a hall of famer? His average year would be something to the effect of: .281 ba, 17 HRs, 67 RBI and he's a HoFer? I just don't see it. Nice numbers, certainly a good player, but he's just not a Hall of Famer, IMO.

 

[MTaylorJ1]

I couldn't disagree more. Biggio is a guy who stuck around and got to 3,000 hits because of the years he played. All of one season with over 200 hits and he's a hall of famer? His average year would be something to the effect of: .281 ba, 17 HRs, 67 RBI and he's a HoFer? I just don't see it. Nice numbers, certainly a good player, but he's just not a Hall of Famer, IMO.

Lonnie should be required to take an economics class or two before he's allowed to vote for the hall of fame.

Hits, RBI, BA? Who cares. RBI in this case especially. He was a leadoff hitter in the NL his entire career. Who would have been setting the table for him, Ricky Gutierrez and a pitcher?

OBP, OPS, positional value. If he retires after 2006, he's a career .800 OPS 2B, and would deserve to be in the Hall even with 2960 hits.

 

[LSCII]

Lonnie should be required to take an economics class or two before he's allowed to vote for the hall of fame.

Hits, RBI, BA? Who cares.

OBP, OPS, positional value. If he retires after 2006, he's a career .800 OPS 2B, and would deserve to be in the Hall even with 2960 hits.

Advance stats are great, but it doesn't negate the fact that when you talk about HOF guys, it's one of those things you know when you see. Craig Biggio was never one of the best players in his era, let alone of all time. He was a good guy, above average player, had some decent stats, but by no means does he deserve to be enshrined. When you water it down, the honor becomes meaningless.

I mentioned hits because he crossed over the mythical 3,000. All while never having more than one year of over 200 hits. Take for example Wade Boggs. He had 7 consecutive years of over 200 hits. Ichiro has a run of ten straight in his career. Jeter has done it 6 times in his career. That's the kind of single season dominance over multiple years that gets you to the hall if you can also get to 3,000 hits for your career. Not some guy who managed to get 150 hits each year and played two decades to get to the magic number. That's above average but not hall worthy.

 

[LSCII]

I'm a smaller hall guy. Totally agree. Wasn't he a veteran's committee guy?

They have made the overwhelming majority of mistakes that are in the hall.

Yeah, they make a lot of mistakes. It's tough, but once you water down the league by letting in borderline type of players, the next level of borderline players use them as examples like Rice and Perez as to why they should be included. It's why I loved Biggio as a player, but would not let him in. He was a good player for a long time, but that doesn't mean he was a generational talent, which is what I think the Hall of Fame should be.

 

[MTaylorJ1]

Advance stats are great, but it doesn't negate the fact that when you talk about HOF guys, it's one of those things you know when you see. Craig Biggio was never one of the best players in his era, let alone of all time. He was a good guy, above average player, had some decent stats, but by no means does he deserve to be enshrined. When you water it down, the honor becomes meaningless.

I mentioned hits because he crossed over the mythical 3,000. All while never having more than one year of over 200 hits. Take for example Wade Boggs. He had 7 consecutive years of over 200 hits. Ichiro has a run of ten straight in his career. Jeter has done it 6 times in his career. That's the kind of single season dominance over multiple years that gets you to the hall if you can also get to 3,000 hits for your career. Not some guy who managed to get 150 hits each year and played two decades to get to the magic number. That's above average but not hall worthy.

It absolutely negates that fact, as it should. I'll take advanced stats to determine excellence over the gut feelings of what the BBWAA knew when they saw. Again, 3000- hits carries no value for me, it's an arbitrary endpoint of a counting stat. Couldn't care less about it. 200 hits? What if a guy got to 199 10 years in a row? A guy who got to 200 for 5 years and 150 the other 5 is more valuable? What if 200 hit guy was a swing at everything DH who provided no power?

An 800 OPS at 2B is the very definition of excellent. And those aren't even advanced stats. That's OBP + SLG. Really basic stuff. What's odd is that he was one of my favorite players growing up before I even walked into a statistics/economics classroom. Middle infielder that got on base and hit for power? Yes please.

Saying things like decent stats and above average player are selling him wayyy short. There was an 8-9 year span where he was one of the best players in the National League.

 

[CDJ]

Phenomenal defender, and played center field and catcher (at some point) too if I am not mistaken

 

[LSCII]

It absolutely negates that fact, as it should. I'll take advanced stats to determine excellence over the gut feelings of what the BBWAA knew when they saw. Again, 3000- hits carries no value for me, it's an arbitrary endpoint of a counting stat. Couldn't care less about it. 200 hits? What if a guy got to 199 10 years in a row? A guy who got to 200 for 5 years and 150 the other 5 is more valuable? What if 200 hit guy was a swing at everything DH who provided no power?

An 800 OPS at 2B is the very definition of excellent. And those aren't even advanced stats. That's OBP + SLG. Really basic stuff. What's odd is that he was one of my favorite players growing up before I even walked into a statistics/economics classroom. Middle infielder that got on base and hit for power? Yes please.

Saying things like decent stats and above average player are selling him wayyy short. There was an 8-9 year span where he was one of the best players in the National League.

In terms of 200 hit seasons, your point is fine, but when you couple it with 3000 hits, it is meaningful. It shows you performed at a ridiculously high level for a long period of time. Unlike Biggio who was slightly above average for a long period of time. I'm not sure I can make it any more clear or state it more plainly than that. He was good, but he wasn't generational.

So again, I liked him as a player as well, but I just don't believe he belongs in the hall. He was always good, but not great. You can tout all the OPS stats you want, it doesn't mean anything. He hit a decent amount of doubles, and that padded his slugging which padded his OPS.

If you ask 100 random baseball people in 5 or 10 years, are they really going to remember Craig Biggio and what kind of player he was? He just wasn't a standout in his own era so he isn't a HoF player, IMO. He doesn't pass the eyeball test as one of those guys.

 

[bruins309]

He is probably one of the three greatest 2nd basemen of all-time.

Mike, I agree with your thoughts a lot here, and I like Biggio, but no way in hell is he better than Hornsby, Alomar, Joe Morgan or Nap Lajoie. Not sure if I can count Rod Carew since he was 50-50 between 1B and 2B.

He's off the ballot but I've heard a bunch of noise in circles I follow for Bobby Grich. Seems he's underappreciated.

You know who's the greatest player of all time who didn't get a single HOF vote? Ken Singleton

 

[EverettMike]

Advance stats are great, but it doesn't negate the fact that when you talk about HOF guys, it's one of those things you know when you see. Craig Biggio was never one of the best players in his era, let alone of all time. He was a good guy, above average player, had some decent stats, but by no means does he deserve to be enshrined. When you water it down, the honor becomes meaningless.

I mentioned hits because he crossed over the mythical 3,000. All while never having more than one year of over 200 hits. Take for example Wade Boggs. He had 7 consecutive years of over 200 hits. Ichiro has a run of ten straight in his career. Jeter has done it 6 times in his career. That's the kind of single season dominance over multiple years that gets you to the hall if you can also get to 3,000 hits for your career. Not some guy who managed to get 150 hits each year and played two decades to get to the magic number. That's above average but not hall worthy.

So that nonsense is okay when the Morris people say it?

"You know it when you see it" is the laziest Hall-of-Fame argument I can possibly imagine, especially for baseball, the easiest game to quantify with numbers.

He was a hall-of-famer before he stuck around to get to 3,000 hits. He played a position that does not produce lots of offense, but that is exactly what he did. Obviously his numbers wouldn't get him in if he were a first baseman or a corner outfielder, but that is the point. He did it at 2nd base.

He was under appreciated while he played.

 

[EverettMike]

In terms of 200 hit seasons, your point is fine, but when you couple it with 3000 hits, it is meaningful. It shows you performed at a ridiculously high level for a long period of time. Unlike Biggio who was slightly above average for a long period of time. I'm not sure I can make it any more clear or state it more plainly than that. He was good, but he wasn't generational.

So again, I liked him as a player as well, but I just don't believe he belongs in the hall. He was always good, but not great. You can tout all the OPS stats you want, it doesn't mean anything. He hit a decent amount of doubles, and that padded his slugging which padded his OPS.

If you ask 100 random baseball people in 5 or 10 years, are they really going to remember Craig Biggio and what kind of player he was? He just wasn't a standout in his own era so he isn't a HoF player, IMO. He doesn't pass the eyeball test as one of those guys.

Honestly, there is no need for us to continue this conversation. We might as well be communicatin in different languages on different planets. To say OPS doesn't mean anything is something my brain can't compute.

Mike, I agree with your thoughts a lot here, and I like Biggio, but no way in hell is he better than Hornsby, Alomar, Joe Morgan or Nap Lajoie. Not sure if I can count Rod Carew since he was 50-50 between 1B and 2B.

He's off the ballot but I've heard a bunch of noise in circles I follow for Bobby Grich. Seems he's underappreciated.

You know who's the greatest player of all time who didn't get a single HOF vote? Ken Singleton

Might be though, right? Doesn't that say an awful lot? I mean, look at that list of guys you are putting ahead of him. That is crazy, right?

 

[bruins309]

Might be though, right? Doesn't that say an awful lot? I mean, look at that list of guys you are putting ahead of him. That is crazy, right?

True, he definitely should be in. A no doubt top 10 2B of all time. I always wondered how Biggio's career tracks if they don't move him from catcher to 2B.

 

[EverettMike]

I don't have the energy to put together a comprehensive argument, so here is a Joe Posnanski article naming Biggio as the 93 greatest player ever.

http://joeposnanski.com/joeblogs/no-93-craig-biggio/

I will grab this part though, in regards to the idea he was never great.

From 1994 to 1999, Craig Biggio was a great baseball player. Those six years — which included two seasons shortened by the strike — Biggio hit .306/.401/.473, scored 120 runs a year, hit 20 or so homers a year, stole 35 bases a year, won four Gold Gloves. The pinnacle was 1997, which was so good it might have been mistaken for a Joe Morgan season in the mid-1970s. Biggio hit .309, was walked or hit by pitch 118 times, hit 22 homers stole 47 bases, scored 146 runs and, this is astonishing, did not hit into a double play all season.

 

[Donnie Shulzhoffer]

In terms of 200 hit seasons, your point is fine, but when you couple it with 3000 hits, it is meaningful. It shows you performed at a ridiculously high level for a long period of time. Unlike Biggio who was slightly above average for a long period of time. I'm not sure I can make it any more clear or state it more plainly than that. He was good, but he wasn't generational.

So again, I liked him as a player as well, but I just don't believe he belongs in the hall. He was always good, but not great. You can tout all the OPS stats you want, it doesn't mean anything. He hit a decent amount of doubles, and that padded his slugging which padded his OPS.

If you ask 100 random baseball people in 5 or 10 years, are they really going to remember Craig Biggio and what kind of player he was? He just wasn't a standout in his own era so he isn't a HoF player, IMO. He doesn't pass the eyeball test as one of those guys.

This is why people compare you to Felger (not a good thing) when you take a fact/stat, dismiss it or discredit it because it disproves your point.

OPS doesn't mean anything?

 

[LSCII]

Here are my final thoughts on Biggio: You guys are saying he's one of the best 3 2nd basemen of all time, but he's not even one of the top 5 during his career. Jeff Kent was far more productive at the plate. Robbie Alomar too. Lou Whitaker, Paul Molitor, Ryne Sandberg, Julio Franco, Brett Boone, Alfonso Soriano, and at the tail end of Biggio's time, guys like Chase Utley, Dan Uggla and a few others are guys I'd consider to be on par if not better than Craig Biggio.

Now, in terms of this vaunted OPS stat that the Biggio fans keep pimping, he's like 8th or 9th on the list of OPS for second basemen during the time he played. So even that big number you folks keep pointing to as an example of how great he was doesn't back you up. Kent, Alomar, Sandberg, Molitor, Vidro, Soriano, Utley, Uggla all have better OPS numbers than he did. Guys like Brian Roberts, Chuck Franco, Knoblach, Lou Whitaker, Durham, Baerga, and Boone all have comparable OPS numbers and comparable other stats.

The one big difference between Biggio and guys like Alomar, Sandberg, and Kent is that all of the latter have far better numbers and were far more dominant for multiple years. So why is Biggio even in this discussion? Oh yeah, because he got to the magical number of 3,000 hits. So looking back on that, how did he accomplish it? By playing for a long period of time. That is the very essence of a compiler and a player who was good but never great. He doesn't belong in the hall of fame, regardless of what criteria you want to use. It just doesn't add up.

I'm all set with this now. I don't see how a case can be made for the guy because he wasn't even among the elite at his position in his own era, let alone a generational talent which is what the HoF is for.

 

[LSCII]

This is why people compare you to Felger (not a good thing) when you take a fact/stat, dismiss it or discredit it because it disproves your point.

OPS doesn't mean anything?

It doesn't when it shows he wasn't even the best at his position during the time he played. So I dismiss his OPS numbers because they don't really show he qualifies. Pretty simple. Do the leg work and see. I did.

 

[DKH]

Mike, I agree with your thoughts a lot here, and I like Biggio, but no way in hell is he better than Hornsby, Alomar, Joe Morgan or Nap Lajoie. Not sure if I can count Rod Carew since he was 50-50 between 1B and 2B.

He's off the ballot but I've heard a bunch of noise in circles I follow for Bobby Grich. Seems he's underappreciated.

You know who's the greatest player of all time who didn't get a single HOF vote? Ken Singleton

I never thought of Biggio as a HOF watching him and in my baseball viewing I'd probably go
1. Alomar
2. Morgan
3. Sandberg

All to me are lock HOF - I liked Grich, Whitaker even Frank White but none belong in the Hall. I put Biggio in because of the 3000 hits and he was a solid defender and could run as well as being a superb athlete but he's not in the top tier

 

[MTaylorJ1]

Here are my final thoughts on Biggio: You guys are saying he's one of the best 3 2nd basemen of all time, but he's not even one of the top 5 during his career. Jeff Kent was far more productive at the plate. Robbie Alomar too. Lou Whitaker, Paul Molitor, Ryne Sandberg, Julio Franco, Brett Boone, Alfonso Soriano, and at the tail end of Biggio's time, guys like Chase Utley, Dan Uggla and a few others are guys I'd consider to be on par if not better than Craig Biggio.

Now, in terms of this vaunted OPS stat that the Biggio fans keep pimping, he's like 8th or 9th on the list of OPS for second basemen during the time he played. So even that big number you folks keep pointing to as an example of how great he was doesn't back you up. Kent, Alomar, Sandberg, Molitor, Vidro, Soriano, Utley, Uggla all have better OPS numbers than he did. Guys like Brian Roberts, Chuck Franco, Knoblach, Lou Whitaker, Durham, Baerga, and Boone all have comparable OPS numbers and comparable other stats.

The one big difference between Biggio and guys like Alomar, Sandberg, and Kent is that all of the latter have far better numbers and were far more dominant for multiple years. So why is Biggio even in this discussion? Oh yeah, because he got to the magical number of 3,000 hits. So looking back on that, how did he accomplish it? By playing for a long period of time. That is the very essence of a compiler and a player who was good but never great. He doesn't belong in the hall of fame, regardless of what criteria you want to use. It just doesn't add up.

I'm all set with this now. I don't see how a case can be made for the guy because he wasn't even among the elite at his position in his own era, let alone a generational talent which is what the HoF is for.

You're out of your element Lonnie. He was easily in the elite for his position in his era. It's probably Alomar, Biggio, Sandberg, Kent.

OPS:
Sandberg .795
Alomar .814
Biggio: .796

He put up an .819 OPS as a 2B in his career. For me, I think his hall case is stronger if he DIDN'T hang around to get 3000 hits.

As far as the others.

Utley - There's no way he can be considered of the same era. They played 3 full years at the same time.
Kent - Biggio was a better all around player.
Molitor - Played the majority of his career at 3B
Vidro, - Vidro's best OPS+ was 126, Biggio had 5 seasons better than this. He also stole 23 bases. Well short of Biggio's 400.
Soriano - Played the majority of his career in the OF
Uggla - 8 Seasons, terrible defensively

 

[Donnie Shulzhoffer]

It doesn't when it shows he wasn't even the best at his position during the time he played. So I dismiss his OPS numbers because they don't really show he qualifies. Pretty simple. Do the leg work and see. I did.

I am not trying to make a case for Biggio. I am just pointing out, which you just did again, that you are dismissing a very important statistical category because it disproves your point.

So I guess thank you for affirming that.

 

[MTaylorJ1]

I never thought of Biggio as a HOF watching him and in my baseball viewing I'd probably go
1. Alomar
2. Morgan
3. Sandberg

All to me are lock HOF - I liked Grich, Whitaker even Frank White but none belong in the Hall. I put Biggio in because of the 3000 hits and he was a solid defender and could run as well as being a superb athlete but he's not in the top tier

Sandberg/Biggio for me is like the 2B version of Glavine/Mussina/Schilling. All in or All out.

Never got to see Joe Morgan, always thought it was weird that he was anti-advanced statistics even though sabermetricians revere the guy as a player.

Funny though, his average season was basically .267 BA/16 HR/67 RBI. According to Lonnie that's just not good enough for the Hall.

 

[MTaylorJ1]

I am not trying to make a case for Biggio. I am just pointing out, which you just did again, that you are dismissing a very important statistical category because it disproves your point.

So I guess thank you for affirming that.

I had to laugh, as I was driving home last night, Felger and Mazz made literally the same argument Lonnie is.

With all due respect to sports writers, I couldn't care less if you "felt" a guy was a Hall of Famer. The numbers are easy to interpret, do some friggin homework from time to time. Basically if you listen to F&M, the HOF would be entirely made up of OF/1B/DH types. "Do you need to game plan for this guy going into a series?" That shows a complete lack of understanding of how baseball is played. It's a 162 game grind, you don't take the football "let's not let so and so beat us" mentality.

And while my own personal version HOF would be a small HOF. In practice the one that exists is not. I have a real problem with writers from a different generation deciding that their amphetamine driven heroes of yesteryear all deserve to be in, but today's players should conform to a "small hall" theory.

 

[LSCII]

Sandberg/Biggio for me is like the 2B version of Glavine/Mussina/Schilling. All in or All out.

Never got to see Joe Morgan, always thought it was weird that he was anti-advanced statistics even though Sabremetricians revere the guy as a player.

Funny though, his average season was basically .267 BA/16 HR/67 RBI. According to Lonnie that's just not good enough for the Hall.

It is because his peaks were far higher than Biggio who was nothing special, just consistent. Biggio never dominated a single season, let alone multiple season. Since when is the Hall of Fame about being average for a long period of time?