OT: Redsox World Series Champions thread/MLB 2014 Thread

[MTaylorJ1]

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?

Biggio was most certainly special from 93-99. He was a 2B with an .870 OPS. OPS+ of 132 during that time frame, stole 35 bases a season. You keep saying this "never special" like it was fact. It isn't. He was great for a solid amount of time, and good for a long time. He was only a league average player in 4/5 years of a 20 year career.

And I'd never make the argument he was as good as Morgan, just showing how using the traditional triple slash stats as the end all is foolish.

 

[LSCII]

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

Kent was a far superior player to Biggio. It's not even debatable, IMO. Better power, better average, better rbi, better OPS, better OBP, better slugging. I'm not sure it's even worth continuing if you truly think Biggio is even close to Kent. The guy was dominant. Something Biggio never was. Not even once. Plus Kent has something Biggio never even came close to winning, and that's an MVP award. Same goes for Rino as well. Former MVP and a guy who was dominant for multiple years. To me, Alomoar, Kent, Sandberg were all far superior than Biggio.

Biggio is basically Brian Roberts but for a longer period of time. He's on par with guys like Carlos Baerga, Brett Boone, and Chuck Knoblach (prior to him getting Steve Sax disease, of course ). You say Soriano played the majority of his career in the OF, but that's not true. If you split out just the numbers AS put up at 2nd base, he'd dwarf Biggio's output.

 

[LSCII]

Biggio was most certainly special from 93-99. He was a 2B with an .870 OPS. OPS+ of 132 during that time frame, stole 35 bases a season. You keep saying this "never special" like it was fact. It isn't. He was great for a solid amount of time, and good for a long time. He was only a league average player in 4/5 years of a 20 year career.

And I'd never make the argument he was as good as Morgan, just showing how using the traditional triple slash stats as the end all is foolish.

Stolen bases are the most overrated stat in baseball.

 

[DKH]

Biggio was most certainly special from 93-99. He was a 2B with an .870 OPS. OPS+ of 132 during that time frame, stole 35 bases a season. You keep saying this "never special" like it was fact. It isn't. He was great for a solid amount of time, and good for a long time. He was only a league average player in 4/5 years of a 20 year career.

And I'd never make the argument he was as good as Morgan, just showing how using the traditional triple slash stats as the end all is foolish.

Morgan was arguably the best player in the game for a 1000 game run; Sandberg was as sure handed a fielder at second I have seen and had enough power to club 40 and steal over 50 bases in multiple years

 

[MTaylorJ1]

Kent was a far superior player to Biggio. It's not even debatable, IMO. Better power, better average, better rbi, better OPS, better OBP, better slugging. I'm not sure it's even worth continuing if you truly think Biggio is even close to Kent. The guy was dominant. Something Biggio never was. Not even once. Plus Kent has something Biggio never even came close to winning, and that's an MVP award. Same goes for Rino as well. Former MVP and a guy who was dominant for multiple years. To me, Alomoar, Kent, Sandberg were all far superior than Biggio.

Biggio is basically Brian Roberts but for a longer period of time. He's on par with guys like Carlos Baerga, Brett Boone, and Chuck Knoblach (prior to him getting Steve Sax disease, of course ). You say Soriano played the majority of his career in the OF, but that's not true. If you split out just the numbers AS put up at 2nd base, he'd dwarf Biggio's output.

Kent had a better peak, if you're a peak over consistency guy, I have no issues there. I disagree on Sandberg though. Biggio's peak was every bit as good as Ryno, trust me on this one, they were my two favorite players growing up. I don't give even an ounce of consideration to MVP awards. Meaningless. It's a subjective award presented by the same morons we're complaining about right now. That's another one of my pet peeves with voting, and I'm really disappointed a guy who I respect like Sean McAdam used it against Mussina. (Only 2 Top 3 finishes in the Cy Young). Juan Gonzalez one TWO mvp awards (and should have won zero).

Mentioning Biggio with guys like Roberts, Baerga, Boone, Knoblach make me re-think your stance on Chris Kelly (and therefore my own) that's how far off you are there.

Roberts: .761
Baerga: .754
Boone: .767
Knoblauch: .780

Soriano GP:

OF - 1057
2B - 766

1057 > 766 Soriano was an OF, even when he was PLAYING 2B.

Soriano's OPS as a 2B was .820, Biggio's .819. Dwarf? Hardly. That doesn't factor in that Biggio was actually a very good 2B, and Soriano was an OF who played 2B.

 

[MTaylorJ1]

Stolen bases are the most overrated stat in baseball.

I agree with this, you'd never use it as the basis to prove someone's value. They're a "nice to have" for me.

 

[MTaylorJ1]

Morgan was arguably the best player in the game for a 1000 game run; Sandberg was as sure handed a fielder at second I have seen and had enough power to club 40 and steal over 50 bases in multiple years

Morgan was fantastic, I'm certainly not arguing anything regarding Biggio and him. His advanced numbers were off the charts.

Sandberg actually only had more than 30 HRs once. His 162 game average was 21 HRs. Biggio's was 17. Biggio was surehanded enough to win 4 gold gloves of his own. Their 162/avg season was 26 SB for Ryno, and 24 for Biggio. Biggio also walked more, which makes sense as he was a leadoff guy.

To me the two players are much more similar than they are dissimilar.

It's fitting to me anyway that Sandberg got in on his 3rd ballot, and it looks like Biggio will do likewise.

Also, the numbers overlook that Sandberg was helped a great deal by Wrigley field (OPS of .738 away from home in 1066 career games).

 

[LSCII]

Morgan was fantastic, I'm certainly not arguing anything regarding Biggio and him. His advanced numbers were off the charts.

Sandberg actually only had more than 30 HRs once. His 162 game average was 21 HRs. Biggio's was 17. Biggio was surehanded enough to win 4 gold gloves of his own. Their 162/avg season was 26 SB for Ryno, and 24 for Biggio. Biggio also walked more, which makes sense as he was a leadoff guy.

To me the two players are much more similar than they are dissimilar.

It's fitting to me anyway that Sandberg got in on his 3rd ballot, and it looks like Biggio will do likewise.

Also, the numbers overlook that Sandberg was helped a great deal by Wrigley field (OPS of .738 away from home in 1066 career games).

And Enron/Minute Made isn't friendly to hitters?

You also keep dismissing the point that the other guys I said were better than Biggio had higher peaks for their careers (EDIT-Saw you addressed it in later post). Meaning they had multiple seasons that were what you could qualify as dominant (IE Kent and Sandberg winning MVP's). Something Biggio never did. He was consistent and above average for a long time, but again, isn't that was constitutes a compiler of stats? Long term consistency. No real highs, no real lows. Just good all the time. The only way you can make a claim is to stick to that one stat of OPS, which I've shown, isn't all that exclusive to Biggio, since he ends up in 8th for OPS among 2nd basemen during his career. Everything you show is OPS. OPS, OPS. Great. He had a good OPS. The other guys I would put above him had similar OPS numbers, but also had multiple years where they had higher ceilings.

If you include a guy like Biggio in the hall, you're watering down what it means to be in the hall. But despite my not being on board with him in the HoF, it really is a matter of time before he's there. I don't agree, but it's no more egregious than Tony Perez. In fact, I'd say he's more deserving than Perez. It's why I hate when they start watering it down, because more guys that aren't all that deserving will leverage them as an argument as to why they should be in.

 

[MTaylorJ1]

And Enron/Minute Made isn't friendly to hitters?

You also keep dismissing the point that the other guys I said were better than Biggio had higher peaks for their careers. Meaning they had multiple seasons that were what you could qualify as dominant (IE Kent and Sandberg winning MVP's). Something Biggio never did. He was consistent and above average for a long time, but again, isn't that was constitutes a compiler of stats? Long term consistency. No real highs, no real lows. Just good all the time. The only way you can make a claim is to stick to that one stat of OPS, which I've shown, isn't all that exclusive to Biggio, since he ends up in 8th for OPS among 2nd basemen during his career. Everything you show is OPS. OPS, OPS. Great. He had a good OPS. The other guys I would put above him had similar OPS numbers, but also had multiple years where they had higher ceilings.

If you include a guy like Biggio in the hall, you're watering down what it means to be in the hall.

Minute Maid/Enron didn't help Biggio to the extent it did Sandberg.

I addressed the MVP thing. When Juan Gonzalez wins TWO it becomes meaningless (it was meaningless when he won one, but the 2nd really underscored why baseball writers have a hard time grasping value.

You didn't show 8. You named 8 guys that you thought were similar to Biggio but were actually far worse and included an OF who masqueraded as a 2B.

Kent, Alomar, Biggio, Sandberg in terms of OPS from 2B during that era. Funny that the guy with the best OPS is the one who won't get in. If all 4 got in, you wouldn't be watering down anything. Sandberg's best 5 year stretch he had an OPS of .844, Biggio's was .881.

Really, if you wanted a better argument, it would be to get Kent in, than it would be to keep Biggio out given the HOF 2B of that era are Sandberg and Alomar.

 

[LSCII]

Minute Maid/Enron didn't help Biggio to the extent it did Sandberg.

I addressed the MVP thing. When Juan Gonzalez wins TWO it becomes meaningless (it was meaningless when he won one, but the 2nd really underscored why baseball writers have a hard time grasping value.

You didn't show 8. You named 8 guys that you thought were similar to Biggio but were actually far worse and included an OF who masqueraded as a 2B.

Kent, Alomar, Biggio, Sandberg in terms of OPS from 2B during that era. Funny that the guy with the best OPS is the one who won't get in. If all 4 got in, you wouldn't be watering down anything. Sandberg's best 5 year stretch he had an OPS of .844, Biggio's was .881.

Really, if you wanted a better argument, it would be to get Kent in, than it would be to keep Biggio out given the HOF 2B of that era are Sandberg and Alomar.

I ran the numbers on baseball reference and Biggio is 8th, I believe, in that time frame when compared to players with over 700 games played. I specifically mentioned the players I did (Alomar, Kent, Whitaker, Sandberg) because those guys not only had a higher OPS, but also had higher peaks in their single seasons across multiple years. On a different note, I fully believe Jeff Kent should be on the hall. Dude was dynamic in terms of power from a position that typically did not produce power numbers.

 

[LSCII]

Soriano GP:

OF - 1057
2B - 766

1057 > 766 Soriano was an OF, even when he was PLAYING 2B.

Soriano's OPS as a 2B was .820, Biggio's .819. Dwarf? Hardly. That doesn't factor in that Biggio was actually a very good 2B, and Soriano was an OF who played 2B.

I said his numbers would dwarf Biggio's not just his OPS. That's the issue I've had in this entire argument. The Biggio supporters keep throwing out one single stat, OPS, as reason for him to be in the hall. I don't agree. Soriano has a better OPS and better numbers in most of all the other categories. That's what I mean by dwarfing Biggio. Not just OPS.

 

[EverettMike]

What do you think Dustin Pedroia's career high OPS+ (a much better, all inclusive stat that allows us to compare hitters across eras)?

It was in 2011 - 131, 2012 - 129, and his MVP 08 season - 123.

Aside from that he has never been above 116. (Dustin Pedroia is a good player, by the way.)

Biggio's top numbers are 143, 142, 139, 138, 120.

Those are amazing peaks for a 2nd baseman. Worst case, the argument points to Biggio being a top 10 2n baseman. Especially when you also factor in his defense. A top 10 2nd baseman is a Hall of Famer, no matter if he made you excited to see him.

Biggio would have probably been better off not holding on when he was done to get to 3,000 hits.

As for Jeff Kent, my bet is if he wasn't literally in the BALCO neighborhood he'd be getting more support.

 

[EverettMike]

I said his numbers would dwarf Biggio's not just his OPS. That's the issue I've had in this entire argument. The Biggio supporters keep throwing out one single stat, OPS, as reason for him to be in the hall. I don't agree. Soriano has a better OPS and better numbers in most of all the other categories. That's what I mean by dwarfing Biggio. Not just OPS.

How about playing gold glove defense at a middle infield position?

 

[MTaylorJ1]

I ran the numbers on baseball reference and Biggio is 8th, I believe, in that time frame when compared to players with over 700 games played. I specifically mentioned the players I did (Alomar, Kent, Whitaker, Sandberg) because those guys not only had a higher OPS, but also had higher peaks in their single seasons across multiple years. On a different note, I fully believe Jeff Kent should be on the hall. Dude was dynamic in terms of power from a position that typically did not produce power numbers.

In all honesty, it's not that I don't believe you, but this is what I"m seeing from the same site.

Biggio's career OPS - (.796)
Sandberg (.795)
Whitaker (.789)

Whitaker is a really interesting one. His peak...was his last 5 years in the league. I'm not sure I've ever seen that before. I'd love to read a study someday about players who peaked early in their career and the HOF vs. players that peaked late (obviously regarding similar overall players).

 

[LSCII]

What do you think Dustin Pedroia's career high OPS+ (a much better, all inclusive stat that allows us to compare hitters across eras)?

It was in 2011 - 131, 2012 - 129, and his MVP 08 season - 123.

Aside from that he has never been above 116. (Dustin Pedroia is a good player, by the way.)

Biggio's top numbers are 143, 142, 139, 138, 120.

Those are amazing peaks for a 2nd baseman. Worst case, the argument points to Biggio being a top 10 2n baseman. Especially when you also factor in his defense. A top 10 2nd baseman is a Hall of Famer, no matter if he made you excited to see him.

Biggio would have probably been better off not holding on when he was done to get to 3,000 hits.

As for Jeff Kent, my bet is if he wasn't literally in the BALCO neighborhood he'd be getting more support.

Not to be dismissive of this, but I typically don't cross generations for player comps because we don't know what Pedroia could have or would have done versus the pitching of that time. Same thing goes for Biggio in terms of how he'd do today. It's why I usually only look at the players as they compare to their peers from the same time they played. When I do that, three names stick out as being better options(Kent, Sandberg, Alomar), and then there's a strong second tier of guys where players like Biggio, Whitaker, Boone, etc fall, IMO. Since Biggio is in that second tier, IMO, I would not put him in the hall. Just my opinion on it, but again, I prefer the hall to be a place for the generational talents only. And again, Biggio will likely get in next year anyway.

 

[EverettMike]

Not to be dismissive of this, but I typically don't cross generations for player comps because we don't know what Pedroia could have or would have done versus the pitching of that time. Same thing goes for Biggio in terms of how he'd do today. It's why I usually only look at the players as they compare to their peers from the same time they played. When I do that, three names stick out as being better options(Kent, Sandberg, Alomar), and then there's a strong second tier of guys where players like Biggio, Whitaker, Boone, etc fall, IMO. Since Biggio is in that second tier, IMO, I would not put him in the hall. Just my opinion on it, but again, I prefer the hall to be a place for the generational talents only. And again, Biggio will likely get in next year anyway.

OPS+ is designed to compare across eras.

No one fell off the face of the earth like Alomar. I'd take Biggio over him pretty easily.

Sandberg is a Hall of Famer and should be. I don't really think of them as contemporaries though. Sandberg feels like an 80s player and Biggio as a 90s player.

Kent is a guy I think lots of writers know something about, even if they don't have the proof. Otherwise we'd be discussing him for the hall. But, just on memory, I don't believe he was very good defensively. Biggio was. That matters. And it matters a lot.

 

[MTaylorJ1]

How about playing gold glove defense at a middle infield position?

Yeah his typical gold glove middle infield season from 93-99 was about 20 HRs, 125 runs scored, 40 doubles, and 300 BA/.400 OBP.

If you think his peak wasn't great it's because you value the wrong stats.

See Lonnie, I didn't use OPS once.

 

[LSCII]

As for Jeff Kent, my bet is if he wasn't literally in the BALCO neighborhood he'd be getting more support.

See, this is where I differ from baseball purists. I don't care if the guys were on PEDs. In fact, I encourage it. I want to see people who do stuff on the field that nobody else can. If it takes then using PEDs, so be it.

In all seriousness though, I just assume they all have used something to get a leg up at some point. Making the assumption that there were a ton of guys who did use but never tested positive makes it a level playing field. If pretty much everyone was doing it, and the top guys were putting up the numbers they did, then it's a wash, since pretty much that entire era was filthy. The pitchers were juicing just as much as the hitters were, and if they were able to be dominant among their fellow PED using peers, why not include them in the hall? Barry Bonds is a dirtbag, but he was still a tremendous player. Same thing with Rocket Roger. Guy is despicable, but he was still dominant in a time where you can pretty safely assume everyone was juicing.

 

[LSCII]

Yeah his typical gold glove middle infield season from 93-99 was about 20 HRs, 125 runs scored, 40 doubles, and 300 BA/.400 OBP.

If you think his peak wasn't great it's because you value the wrong stats.

See Lonnie, I didn't use OPS once.

Hey! First time in this argument! Of course my counter would be that you have to slice the data down to make it fit, but that's really more of a stats discussion than a baseball one...

Again, the guy was good. I really enjoyed watching him and Bagwell (whom I think is really getting screwed in this HoF voting) play, I just don't think he's a generational talent worthy of being in the HoF.

 

[EverettMike]

Hey! First time in this argument! Of course my counter would be that you have to slice the data down to make it fit, but that's really more of a stats discussion than a baseball one...

Again, the guy was good. I really enjoyed watching him and Bagwell (whom I think is really getting screwed in this HoF voting) play, I just don't think he's a generational talent worthy of being in the HoF.

I believe I gave you those numbers yesterday from the Posnanski article since you said he was never great.

 

[LSCII]

I believe I gave you those numbers yesterday from the Posnanski article since you said he was never great.

Sure, and my view hasn't changed. I don't see that as great. I see it as being above average, but for a relatively short time. Then I see him as being slightly above average for a really long time. To me, he just doesn't pass the test. He was really good, but not a generational talent. Listen, I'm not trying to change your view or MTaylor's either. You guys think he belongs, and you've both made great cases for his inclusion, which is fine. I just prefer the HoF to be for the really special players, and guys like Biggio don't fit based on my view.

I asked this of you yesterday and didn't see it answered so I'll ask again: In 10 years if you asked 100 random baseball fans, will they remember Craig Biggio as a generational talent? I'm pretty sure what the answer is, but feel free to draw your own conclusions.

 

[DKH]

Morgan was fantastic, I'm certainly not arguing anything regarding Biggio and him. His advanced numbers were off the charts.

Sandberg actually only had more than 30 HRs once. His 162 game average was 21 HRs. Biggio's was 17. Biggio was surehanded enough to win 4 gold gloves of his own. Their 162/avg season was 26 SB for Ryno, and 24 for Biggio. Biggio also walked more, which makes sense as he was a leadoff guy.

To me the two players are much more similar than they are dissimilar.

It's fitting to me anyway that Sandberg got in on his 3rd ballot, and it looks like Biggio will do likewise.

Also, the numbers overlook that Sandberg was helped a great deal by Wrigley field (OPS of .738 away from home in 1066 career games).

I would vote both in but Sandberg always seemed like a star, Biggio a vital cog.

You do make several excellent points and I should have put Kent in the close merits consideration although I always was skeptical of him and PED right or wrong

 

[EverettMike]

Sure, and my view hasn't changed. I don't see that as great. I see it as being above average, but for a relatively short time. Then I see him as being slightly above average for a really long time. To me, he just doesn't pass the test. He was really good, but not a generational talent. Listen, I'm not trying to change your view or MTaylor's either. You guys think he belongs, and you've both made great cases for his inclusion, which is fine. I just prefer the HoF to be for the really special players, and guys like Biggio don't fit based on my view.

I asked this of you yesterday and didn't see it answered so I'll ask again: In 10 years if you asked 100 random baseball fans, will they remember Craig Biggio as a generational talent? I'm pretty sure what the answer is, but feel free to draw your own conclusions.

1) Your use of "generational talent" has made me throw up in my mouth every time. HF has ruined that phrase, but it is also meaningless because the Hall-of-Fame would be 15 guys if that was the standard. It isn't for the best of the best of the best, it is the place for the greatest players. Not everyone is Ruth, Williams, and Mantle.

2) If you asked 100 baseball fans that saw him play in the 90s, yes, most of them would remember him and how great he was. Was he Joe Morgan? No, but no other 2nd baseman is Joe Morgan either. But people will remember him just as much as Ryen Sandberg, who you love.

3) You keep saying he was above average from 93-99, but that is crazy. Those aren't above average numbers for a 2nd baseman, those are amazing numbers for a 2nd baseman. Those are Hall of Fame numbers for a 2nd baseman.

 

[LSCII]

1) Your use of "generational talent" has made me throw up in my mouth every time. HF has ruined that phrase, but it is also meaningless because the Hall-of-Fame would be 15 guys if that was the standard. It isn't for the best of the best of the best, it is the place for the greatest players. Not everyone is Ruth, Williams, and Mantle.

2) If you asked 100 baseball fans that saw him play in the 90s, yes, most of them would remember him and how great he was. Was he Joe Morgan? No, but no other 2nd baseman is Joe Morgan either. But people will remember him just as much as Ryen Sandberg, who you love.

3) You keep saying he was above average from 93-99, but that is crazy. Those aren't above average numbers for a 2nd baseman, those are amazing numbers for a 2nd baseman. Those are Hall of Fame numbers for a 2nd baseman.

I don't love Ryne Sandberg at all, but I know full well people will remember him far more frequently than Biggio as being a star player. Like Dan pointed out, Biggio simply lacked star power. He was statistically comparable to a number of other guys I pulled that I don't think belong in the hall either. So you can point to OPS or OBP, OPS+, BABIP, WAR or whatever other advanced stat you want, but there is very little difference between Biggio and a number of guys I've already referenced. Maybe a few hits here and there, but that's really it.

To sum it up for you, I think Biggio is closer to guys like Knoblach, Roberts, Whitaker, Franco, Durham, Vidro, Boone, etc than he is to Alomar, Kent, and Sandberg. And again, this is just my opinion, regardless of whether you hate the phrase generational talent. Biggio was never a star. He was a good player. He was above average. He just wasn't one of the greats from his era. Sorry if my opinion bothers you, but it's how I see it.

 

[EverettMike]

Why would your opinion bother me? What a weird thing to say.

Basically your argument has boiled to down to "ignore the stats, he didn't feel like a star. I don't feel like he was a Hall of Famer."

This is the exact same argument, in the reverse, the Jack Morris people used.