Options
Biggio in HOF??
Stingray
Posts: 8,843 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Saw some numbers posted for him, does he have a chance?
Stingray
Stingray
0
Stingray
Posts: 8,843 ✭✭✭
Stingray
Posts: 8,843 ✭✭✭
Stingray
Posts: 8,843 ✭✭✭
Comments
Also, haven't heard anything about a pending retirement, and given his production this year, a few more productive .275/20/75 seasons should push his career numbers over the top.
I remember Bill James statistically proclaimed Biggio as the best player in baseball a few years back. And I anxiously look forward to the resident CU stat geek to come along and dispute my position...
yes, and a HOFer to boot
I also thought he softened or changed his stance on the all time ranking, though I'm not positive.
Regardless, he will be in the Hall of Fame, though the all-time best claim is probably a reach.
Though, I don't see how it is possible for him to approach Hornsby for all-time. Or Joe Morgan. His biggest competition in his era is Alomar, and they are very close to each other. Lou Whitaker actually isn't far off.
Dgs, I was going to say something about your vote for Buckner in the Hall of Fame the other day. I'm not sure what your definintion for a HOF player is, and I'm really not going to argue what it is. But, I do know one thing, if Buckner were a Hall of Fame player, then the Hall had better add a couple of more wings because it would have to let a LOT of guys in from Buckner's era alone. Heck, three alone from your own backyard (Evans, Rice, LYnn) who were all better than Billy Bucks. Off the top of my head....Parker, Staub, Oliver, Dawson, Baines, Murphy, Garvey, Cey, Nettles, J. Clark, Darrell Evans, plus more guys based on position ala Whitaker and other (2b,ss, c). Buckner was a gritty player, and fun to watch, but there are a good plenty from his era that deserve enshrinment before the mustach man.
SD
SD
<< <i>All of a sudden 3000 hits matter? the guy is HOF bound if he retires after the series.
SD >>
The point was raised about 3000 hits earlier in the thread, or were you too busy trying to attack me to pay attention?
Geez.
Yes.
Both Biggio and Alomar will be Hall of Famers.
What does that have to do with anything?
Does a nice round number now mean somthing or not?
Like you I am asking a point blank question.
SD
Attack you? you have got to be kidding.
when Red Schoendienst made it, and he deserved it as being, arguably, the best second sacker of
his day, a two ninety something lifetime BA and and later a successful manager. Some considered
Red to be borderline for the HOF. Then Mazeroski was elected. That is still a mystery. Decent glove
man, very average hitter. But HOF material? Well, with that precedent, Biggio should be included,
of course. Alomar is a shoo-in. Even Frank White (numbers similar to Maz, but a little better bat)
could be mentioned. Is Frank HOF material? No. But if Mazeroski's in, then....?
<< <i>................unlike you I did'nt call you a buffoon, moron, jerk or all the other names you like to call people unprovoked.
Attack you? you have got to be kidding. >>
The hipocrisy is glaring, if there is a baffoon in this small little place Axtell takes the cake.
anyway, thumbs up for Biggio! HOF bound indeed
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
the question was asked about 3000 hits...I reply asking if anyone thinks he's got the 200+ hits left in him (not saying he's not HoF bound, simply asking a question) to which WP JUMPS at the opportunity to bash me, saying 'does 3000 hits matter?' obviously ignoring the question that was asked prior to 3000 hits.
And does a nice round number mean something? UHm, are you kidding or just BLIND? How much hoopla was made over Raffy's 3000 hits (and I am sure you were among his riders calling him a HoFer because he HAD 3000 hits)...round numbers are among the most hallowed plateaus in MLB: 300 wins, 3000 hits, 500 HR careers, 20 win season, 100 RBI season...etc etc. Round numbers have ALWAYS had a special place in baseball lore.
And then comes softie to pile on, again looking for a way to try to get in a verbal jab (but severely lacking in the wit and intellect to do so).
Yes, absolutely. 3,000 hits is a shoe-in. Even without 3,000 he will be a first ballot Hall of Famer.
I don't understand were in his post do you think WinPitcher was attacking you, all he did was ask a question on 3,000 hits. I don't see that as a personal attack on you. I usually do not take sides on these issues and if you can point out to me his quote that was an attack I sure would like to see it.
Stingray
And I asked "did it matter"
no attack, just a question.
SD
All-time, James ranked Biggio 4th at 2nd base, behind Morgan, Hornsby and Collins, and the gap from 3rd to 4th was substantial. 5th on the list was Nap Lajoie, and James did "soften" his stance on Biggio by admitting he may have made a mistake by ranking Biggio 4th instead of 5th. With the productive seasons that Biggio has strung together since then, it will not surprise me at all if James again ranks Biggio 4th if and when he puts out another Baseball Abstract.
IMO, James greatest contribution to the game (or rather to the people who love the game and love to talk about the game), is in making it possible to quantify the impact of playing in different eras and in different ballparks. Biggio spent the prime of his career in one of the 3 or 4 worst hitters ballparks in history. For people who ignore that, or who simply don't understand what that means, it looks like Biggio isn't that much better than other players with long, good-but-not-great careers. Biggio's career has been long and great.
Hall of Fame voters, unfortunately, are among the group who routinely ignore this or don't understand it, so I think it is at least possible that Biggio could be kept out of the Hall, at least for a few years, despite being clearly better than most of the people already voted in.
And it pains me deeply to hear Mazeroski described as a "decent" glove man. Reasonable people can disagree about his worthiness for the HOF (for the record, I think he deserved it), but they can not disagree about his fielding: Mazeroski was a "phenomenal" glove man, comparable at 2nd base to Ozzie Smith at SS, and perhaps the greatest fielder who ever played the game.
THanks for clearing up my memory on the Biggio ranking by James. All I remember are some people's feathers getting ruffled at such a high ranking. The astrodome was killler, just ask Cesar Cedeno! That guy would have gone 30 HR, 50 SB a few times had it not been for the dome, AND in an era where 30 homers actually meant something significant!
Speaking of Hall of Fame and objective measures, a guy who is going to get the shaft is TIM RAINES! Every time I hear his name mentioned for HOF people laugh, yet those same people have no problem with Lou Brock. The case of Brock Vs. Raines is a clear case of the round numbers skewing reality. Brock gets 3,000 hits, and Raines didn't, but Raines checked in with a .385 OB% to Brocks .343. 1,330 walks vs. 763 by Brock will do that.
123 OPS+ for Raines vs. 109 OPS+ for Brock.
Stolen bases....Raines had 808 steals with only 146 caught stealing. 938 steals vs. 307 caught for Brock. So Raines was a better hitter, and a better base runner. Defense is a toss up wit Raines maybe in a slight edge. But Raines will not make the Hall because he doesn't have 3,000 hits.
<< <i>Speaking of Hall of Fame and objective measures, a guy who is going to get the shaft is TIM RAINES! >>
I agree. If a player "deserves" to be in the HOF to the degree that he is better than players already in, then Raines is probably in the top 10 most deserving players. I'd guess Raines was a better player, all things considered, than maybe 20%-30% of the players in the HOF (for Biggio, I'd guess about 60%-70%).
Just to throw a little fuel on a thread that is in danger of going 5 posts in a row without a childish argument, I'd put Don Mattingly in my top 10, as well, but Jim Rice wouldn't even be close.
Discuss.
Dallas, if you wanted to fan the flame, the Rice/Mattingly comment is certainly a way to start one. The one thing that always sticks out to me about RIce is the disparity of his home/road numbers. Fenway was the best hitters park in the league in Rice's era, and check out his home road splits....Home average .320, road .277. HOME OB% .374, road .330. HOME SLG% .546, road .459. Most of Rice's acclaim comes from his RBI totals in his prime, but those were partly ballpark aided, and partly lineup aided. Compared to other star hitters of his time, he had more RBI opportunites. A better evaluation of a hitter that is quick and easy to look at is his OPS+, and his best rankings in the AL were 1,4,5,6,6. Not bad.
Mattingly on the other hand had rankings of 1,1,3,6. But those two ones were Major League leads as well (tied with Murray one year), so he truly could walk down the street and proclaim himself the best hitter on the planet....something only Hall of Famers have been able to say, excpet for Dick Allen(and attitude played a part there, along with a shorter career).
In conclusion, it is probably a toss up between the two. I wouldn't object to either one of them being in the Hall(even though a few more good seasons would have been nice), as they are both certainly worth telling the grand kids about, more so than Tony Perez.
<< <i>Raines will not make the Hall because he doesn't have 3,000 hits. >>
Serious question: how is past drug use viewed in the eyes of the HOF voters? Raines was a known coke user during his playing days. Could this be part of the reason he is not seen as a serious candidate?
I think the drug use is a likely contributor, but the situation reminds me a little of Dr. Strangelove. What good is keeping people out of the HOF for past drug use, if you don't tell people that's what you're doing?
Drug use or not, Raines biggest sin was playing his best years in Montreal. The depth of the ignorance of the folks who vote for the HOF should never be underestimated. (Surest sign you're dealing with somebody who knows little or nothing about what makes a player great? - - - - He asks "How many World Series did he win?"). I'd guess that being on a team with great teammates is roughly equal to 20 points of batting average and 50 career home runs when the Cooperstown savants sit down to vote.
<< <i> The depth of the ignorance of the folks who vote for the HOF should never be underestimated. (Surest sign you're dealing with somebody who knows little or nothing about what makes a player great? - - - - He asks "How many World Series did he win?"). I'd guess that being on a team with great teammates is roughly equal to 20 points of batting average and 50 career home runs when the Cooperstown savants sit down to vote. >>
Can somebody by Dallas a beer? Golly how true that statment is! Judging an individual on how many rings his TEAM won has to be the biggest sin in the evaluation process! Yeah, it is the ultimate goal of a players life, but it has no place on judging how good the individual player was.
As for the drugs? Everytime I hear Raines discussed, it isn't brought up. In fact, when his name is brought up TIM RAINES is almost said in a chuckling response? Yet Lou Brock is always talked about as the most lopsided trade in history as if he is the greatest player ever. THat all stems from being on the Cardinals and getting 3,000 hits.
Fenway was the best hitters park in the league in Rice's era
How so?
Jim Rice's home/road splits exemplify this.
<< <i>Speaking of Hall of Fame and objective measures, a guy who is going to get the shaft is TIM RAINES! Every time I hear his name mentioned for HOF people laugh, yet those same people have no problem with Lou Brock. The case of Brock Vs. Raines is a clear case of the round numbers skewing reality. Brock gets 3,000 hits, and Raines didn't, but Raines checked in with a .385 OB% to Brocks .343. 1,330 walks vs. 763 by Brock will do that.
>>
It's odd. I was looking at a Tim Raines card tonight and said to my wife, "This guy should be in the Hall of Fame. What a player."
If he had started with the Yankees and ENDED with Montreal, I have to think he'd be a lock. Just a superb presence in the clubhouse as well.
He actually had a brief bout with chemical dependency in 1981 after he broke in. Andre Dawson made him his personal project. The two became close enough for Rock to name his first son Andre. Speaking of Dawson--he's in for me as well. 5 tools and tremendous respect within the game. The poor post-season numbers are killing him.
BTW, the analysis (I'm not too big on mere numbers and there are always numbers you can spin your way) you give is insightful and interesting, skinpinch. I'd have to say that you're accurate on all counts. That 500+ more walks will certainly hurt a guy's hit total. Here are some numbers I WOULD be interested in:
Anyone know the career SB% of those two guys?
How about how many times they HIT themselves into scoring position+SB's?
How about Runs per AB?
I'd like to see those comparisons.
dgf
<< <i>Raines was a known coke user during his playing days. >>
By whom? Are you confusing him with Willie Wilson? BTW, could a hitter look WORSE than he did in the 1980 World Series??? I almost hope he was coked-up that week to explain some of those AB's. I thought the guy was throwing the series to support his habit he was so bad...I digress.
Tim Raines was--to public knowledge--and within the game not viewed as anything but a stand-up, quality family-oriented player.
dgf
Raines SB% 85%
Brock SB% 75%
As for hitting themselves into scoring position? That is basically SLG%. Brock had more 2B, and 3B. Raines more HR's. Raines did it in fewer at bats. Raines .425 to .410.
Runs scored are often dependant on your teammates as well as your own skill, but Raines scored 39 less runs in 1,100+ LESS plate apperances.
Really it is the OB% that separates the two, plus the edges in SB% and SLG% by Raines. This is the most puzzling case where one guy, BROCK, is looked at as an immortal, and the other guy is not even considered. Weeelllll, it really isn't puzzling, it is the 3,000 hits that causes it.
Not to say that Raines is not worthy, I just feel that he is an "on the cusp" HOF candidate.
SD
The OPS+ numbers listed are relative to the league average to account for the 'pitcher' years. So league difficulty is already reflected in the OPS+ where Raines was ahead. For instance, the league avg OB% in Raines's career is .331, in Brocks it is .330. League SLG% is .398 in Raines's career, and .390 in Brocks. So overall, it was basically just as difficult for both in OB%, and a tad harder in SLG% for Brock.
The only thing I didn't account for was the fact that a high OPS+ is easier to attain in Mid 90's-On. In fact, it is the easiest time in history. In terms of what it means is that it is usually about a ten percent downward turn in value for Raines there, but that includes only his final 1,800 at bats. So in reality, the value of the OPS+ are a smidge closer than what it says, when his 'live ball' era at bats are looked at more deeply.
Winpitcher, Raines may in fact be just a 'cusp' Hall of Famer. When it is looked at, Brock should be viewed as that as well, and I geuss that is part of my point in comparing the two.
Jerry